Poll: Downloadable Content Doesn't Belong In Games

[Mistermixmaster]

DLC's are ok IMHO, they make the game fun to continue to play (for example Fallout 3), if you have finished the story/looking for new side-quests. I rarely buy it though, only bought DLCs for Fallout 3. Not bothering to buy DLCs who just continue the story without letting me explore new stuff.

 

[Dimitime]

I personally hate DLC, and not just because it ruins my achievement percentage on XBL. As everyone else has said, there is a difference between DLC and DLC abuse. My argument is that you can't have DLC that isn't abused. Yes, maybe Bethesda did it right. Over a year ago. Recently, the DLC trend has escalated exponentially. Dragon Age (a game I was looking forward to) had 3 DLC packs by the 2 week mark. Yes, maybe you got the first one for free for preordering or whatever, but what about the other 2? Some of you are saying "you don't have to buy it", and this would be a legit argument in some cases. I played through all of Fallout 3 without feeling like I wasn't playing the entire game. In Dragon Age: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/6/ . I just played through FFVI (a bit late, I know) and I was thinking: "what would this game have been like if it was released today?" Well the Fanatics tower would have been released as DLC that you have to pay for, the 8-dragons thing would be DLC, Cyan's Soul would be DLC, Gogo would be a DLC-exclusive character, as would Umaro. I like what someone said earlier about raising gas prices by 200% and then dropping them by 10%.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

While I would like it more if they were included to begin with, add-ons in things like Fallout 3 are simply fun.

However, 5 dollars for single songs on Rock Band? This is the kind of DLC that is simply bullshiznits.

i'll have to disagree with you there, i felt like i'd missed out on the full story by buying the standard version a year ago.
like buying a shirt and having to buy the buttons separately, then a year later, the same shirt is resold with all the buttons.
now if dlc was more like cufflinks, something you can choose to upgrade, or stick with the ones that came with the product, i could live with that. i still wouldnt buy the DLC, but i wouldnt feel duped either

 

[Slycne]

Everyone complicates this issues way to much. It's as simple as making a decision or opinion as to whether or not you felt X was worth Y dollars.

Let's say you bought Fallout 3 at release for $60. Averaging conservatively you played the game through twice for a total of 100 hours of playtime. You enjoyed the game and your time spent. So thus you made a good buying decision.

New DLC is announced for the game. You then are making the exact same decision again. Is this experience worth some amount of money to me? Do I want this experience extended or some new feature?

If you felt the DLC was content that rightfully should have been in the game and not the modern equivalent of an expansion pack. Then don't buy it and don't buy any of their subsequent products. It's that simple.

 

[Slycne]

Then explain to me why there are free packs as well?
Because I really can't imagine EA or Activision willingly taking a loss there.

That's simple, because the company thinks that the cost of loss is worth the value of trying to keep you a customer for longer. For instance, Valve isn't making all of their patches out of thin air. It costs them money to produce and distribute, but they release them for free in an effort to keep you around consuming their goods. Which they hope makes up for the loss of releasing content for free with some extra profit. It's really just marketing once you break past it.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Everyone complicates this issues way to much. It's as simple as making a decision or opinion as to whether or not you felt X was worth Y dollars.

Let's say you bought Fallout 3 at release for $60. Averaging conservatively you played the game through twice for a total of 100 hours of playtime. You enjoyed the game and your time spent. So thus you made a good buying decision.

New DLC is announced for the game. You then are making the exact same decision again. Is this experience worth some amount of money to me? Do I want this experience extended or some new feature?

If you felt the DLC was content that rightfully should have been in the game and not the modern equivalent of an expansion pack. Then don't buy it and don't buy any of their subsequent products. It's that simple.

im with you there
ive voted with my wallet, as it were(and not purchased).
i just dont like the feeling i paid full price for something incomplete.
years ago, expansion packs used to come cheaper than the original game, and a long time after the original release.
to me it felt like a revamp of an old title, for a still dedicated audience, not a intentional "lets hold something back for DLC in 2 months time" as it now feels to me.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

DLC gives companies an excuse to not pay full attention to their games for initial release

 

[wordsmith]

Well rant over....what do you guys think of it?

What do I think? I think "Thank the FSM I'm a Valve gamer".

 

[cuddly_tomato]

It wasn't so bad, until game companies started actually keeping content out of games in order to inflate the retail price of the game for the full product (Dragon Age is one notable recent example.)

Their products, they can do as they please with them. But sales will continue to drop the more they do this shit. Rather than responding by doing it even more, they should try actually releasing finished products again which don't require DLC to be considered fleshed out.

 

[kermitthefirst]

when it is genuinely worth the £5+ you are about to spend then sure, but its when you buy something that doesn't work. For example, bought a PS3 about 6 months ago, never had a network problem. Buy the collectors edition of Dragon age origins and can't connect to the server. *what's that* i hear you say... yes, i paid money for inaccessible content because 1. maybe im a gullible fool or 2. because i had faith that dlc works because, you know, thats what you buy it for.

Now it doesn't phase me, except my girlfriend is a bit snippy that I paid extra money for something that didn't work rather than get the the BEST PRESENT EVER> but you know. so long as dlc actually works and actually adds something to the game rather than say, 1 beatles song that you cant even listen to because you are too busy looking at a mass of colours and shapes flying towards your face as your group unscrupilously turns to the drummer and makes a noise similar to that of an aeroplane taking off.

i hate rock band drummers. because real drummers like my good friend like to mix around with it and add some flavour.


back to the dlc thing...

i like it? sometimes.

 

[Snotnarok]

DLC is fine when it's done right. Like when you see Fallouts DLC it's big and has lots of new content for a good price. Not these 10 minute missions that they charge the same price for, or the new gimmick, charge for content that's ALREADY on the fucking disc.

 

[VinnyKings]

Dee-el-see?

More like should-be-free amirite?

Smooth man.
/lol

Yeah I hate the guts out of DLC. Instead of charging players for content I like the old fashioned way of having a complete game on a disk that I can play. DLC is the industry's way of milking us. Personally DLC to me is a piece of shit and I refuse to buy DLC for anything as a couple of hours of gameplay isn't really worth it.

 

[SageRuffin]

Uh, some of you do realize that there are some things that the developers, you know, didn't think of when they first release a game?

If you're talking about games like SC4, or SF4, where you basically buy an "unlock key" to get the extra stuff, then sure, comments against DLC are justifiable in that case. But for games like Oblivion, Fallout, even The Force Unleashed where the extra content is released months - hell, even years - after the final product of the game has been finished and sold out to the masses, then you're just whining for no reason.

Like other said, if you don't want it, don't buy it. I'm pretty sure there's no one standing beside you with a shotgun to your head, saying you'll be having an extra orifice in your head if you don't buy the DLC for any particular. And if by some random twist of the fates you do, you have my hopes of you surviving the ordeal.

 

[Vae_Victis]

I like the idea of DLC. If you enjoy a game and want to officially extend the experience then the DLC is there for you.

Having said that I've gotten to where I just wait for Game of the Year (or something similiar) editions where I can get the original game and subsequent DLC all for usually cheaper than the original game. Plus if the game is moddable people have had time to create new stuff and the game is probably a few patches along.

For example: Fallout 3 Game of the Year. For the price of the original game I get all the DLC for free, the game has been patched twice, and Fallout Nexus has thousands of stable files available. I just had to wait a few months.

 

[Vae_Victis]

And the game has some signs of the impending DLC release (Dragon Age and the exclamation guy). You can see that it was planned in the start so why just not include it in the game.

My opinion is that the at-launch DLC content for DA:O was mostly about marketing (reserve here get this, get the CE get this). I can't fault a company for creative marketing in an increasingly professional video game market where more often than not creators (or their publishers) are answering to investors...especially Bioware since the more money they make the more good RPG's I get.

I also think Warden's Keep was there at-launch not because Bioware wanted to hold back content to make money but to go ahead and test the waters. See how well it sells, get feedback on the price, content, the way it was implemented and whatnot.

Again your paying for the "new shiny." Just wait a few months for Dragon Age: Origins Gold Edition or whatever.

 

[Triforceformer]

It really depends on the content itself. Take Brutal Legend, for example. The first map pack called Tears of the Hextadon came with 2 maps for multiplayer and an awesome looking axe for single player for $5 dollars. The maps are alright, but don't seem worth 5 bucks. The next DLC, Hammer of Infinite Fate, came with 4 AMAZING maps, new threads and back patches for Eddie, weapons and paint jobs for the Deuce (The car in the Game), a GPS eyeball thing to help you find the well hidden collectibles, and extra statues for Mt. Rockmore, all for the same price.

It varies.

 

[axelszetu]

I think that DLC is wrong. I dont think that developers should take money for major updates.
Its just another way to scrap extra money out of the gamers.

I hate Activision partly because it takes ten dollars for three new maps and an old one.

Opositely i like Vale for giving major updates free for example the Team Fortress 2 item update was for free just as the map Crash Course for Left 4 Dead, The Passing for Left 4 Dead 2 and the advanced maps and challange maps for Portal.

 

[MetalDooley]

It depends on the content.Take Fallout 3 for example(although Broken Steel arguably should have been in the game originally).The DLC packs all added several hours of gamplay,loads of new weapons and items and,bar Broken Steel,felt different enough from the main game yet still part of it.Good value in my opinion

Something like Assassin's Creed 2 on the other hand is a rip off.They blatantly cut 2 chapters from the game and tried to sell them back to people.This is,along with on disc content,DLC at it's worst

 

[tzimize]

If there is one thing I can't stand about games these days, it's DLC. All it is is a way for companies to milk money from players who just want more. I paid 60 damn dollars for my Modern Warfare 2, and now I'm supposed to dish out and extra 10 for some new maps? And I need to pay 10 bucks to play some stupid zombie game that should have been in Borderlands in the first place?

The only games I feel that have justifiable DLC are Rock Band and Guitar Hero. They're dishing out new songs every week, so it's not like they can give it to us all on the disc. But what about those stupid additions to other games? I already paid you money, why are you leaving a piece of the game out just so you can charge me for it later?

Well rant over....what do you guys think of it?

100% Agree op. I dont really have anything useful to add. In the olden days the "dlc" was user made and free. MW2 is kinda like Apple. Closed down system with shitty stupid overpriced apps you can buy all the time. I'd rather have an open platform you can mod and have fun with.

DLC is the worst idea EVER. Games are expensive enough, and all this shit they are pulling to stop people from selling their games... its pissing me off. I usually never sell my games, and never buy used, but I damn well want the opportunity. But I digress.

DLC. Yes. It is an abomination. Kill it with fire.