Poll: The Problem with DLC Today
- Thread starter mitchell271
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So far as I'm concerned DLC at al. comes in two forms.
The first, which I have no issue with, is of the expansion pack variety. The assorted Borderlands add-ons spring to mind and I'm currently playing through the New Vegas ones. It's been mentioned many times already that these are ways to extend the life of a game and, by and large, tend to work out. I was laughing all the way through Old World Blues for New Vegas and see it as money well spent.
The bigger issue I have is more with Day one DLC of the pre-order or paid variety. Activated stuff like the stuff included in the PS3 version of Mass Effect 2 is a bit of a rub, but ultimately doesn't bother me much.
My issue with preorder is the mindset that to get everything you need to do things their way, on their time table. Yeah, petty, I know, but I generally dislike companies trying to generate artificial demand. For small stuff, though (IE: Gigawatt blades in Infamous) I'm generally okay with so long as it doesn't affect multiplayer at all or noticably change the game.
Day one PAID DLC annoys me to no end as we are now talking about a game designed around an immediate cash grab. It is this and only this where DLC gets to me. Okay, that and a hypothetical situation in which a game was obviously unfinished and a paid DLC would be required to complete it.
I don't think there's been a company dumb enough to try that one yet, though the term 'minimum viable state' comes dangerously close. Still, that's more to do with patching culture, something I also have a lot to say on, but neither time nor place.
Bottom line: No issue with it, unless the company/companies involved are actively trying to bleed their customers, be it by paying extra day one to get the full game or by requiring preordering to get the 'incentives' required to get the full experience.
The first, which I have no issue with, is of the expansion pack variety. The assorted Borderlands add-ons spring to mind and I'm currently playing through the New Vegas ones. It's been mentioned many times already that these are ways to extend the life of a game and, by and large, tend to work out. I was laughing all the way through Old World Blues for New Vegas and see it as money well spent.
The bigger issue I have is more with Day one DLC of the pre-order or paid variety. Activated stuff like the stuff included in the PS3 version of Mass Effect 2 is a bit of a rub, but ultimately doesn't bother me much.
My issue with preorder is the mindset that to get everything you need to do things their way, on their time table. Yeah, petty, I know, but I generally dislike companies trying to generate artificial demand. For small stuff, though (IE: Gigawatt blades in Infamous) I'm generally okay with so long as it doesn't affect multiplayer at all or noticably change the game.
Day one PAID DLC annoys me to no end as we are now talking about a game designed around an immediate cash grab. It is this and only this where DLC gets to me. Okay, that and a hypothetical situation in which a game was obviously unfinished and a paid DLC would be required to complete it.
I don't think there's been a company dumb enough to try that one yet, though the term 'minimum viable state' comes dangerously close. Still, that's more to do with patching culture, something I also have a lot to say on, but neither time nor place.
Bottom line: No issue with it, unless the company/companies involved are actively trying to bleed their customers, be it by paying extra day one to get the full game or by requiring preordering to get the 'incentives' required to get the full experience.
If a game is worth the price, I will pay for it. If DLC comes out later, it doesn't matter whether it was planned or developed after the fact. I will buy it if I find that it will add value to the game greater than the value of the money spent on DLC.
That said, I can't remember actually buying DLC. I play games mainly for single player, closed story lines. Most DLC is for multi-player, which is fun but not my core gameplay. Single player DLC usually extends the story in such a way that it ruins the narrative. So, I don't buy DLC, but it doesn't bother me if they plan it ahead of time.
If the game isn't worth buying, don't buy it. Don't complain after the fact that the DLC should have been included in the original price because you shouldn't have bought it unless it was worth it.
That said, I can't remember actually buying DLC. I play games mainly for single player, closed story lines. Most DLC is for multi-player, which is fun but not my core gameplay. Single player DLC usually extends the story in such a way that it ruins the narrative. So, I don't buy DLC, but it doesn't bother me if they plan it ahead of time.
If the game isn't worth buying, don't buy it. Don't complain after the fact that the DLC should have been included in the original price because you shouldn't have bought it unless it was worth it.
Neverwinter Nights is still got an active modding community thanks to the Construction set, so does The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. Heck, even Baldur's Gate 2 is still getting some mods. Popular and fresh can be achieved by a great game, great engine, and either an easily moddable source or construction set.TimeLord said:
This is also why DLC doesn't exactly work in those criteria, because the modding community would -always- churn out stuff better than what people pay for, and they'd make stuff similar to what was DLC and make it better. Lair of the Shadow Broker for Mass Effect 2, great DLC, but if it was in the hands of a competent modder or mod team, it would've been much, much greater (aside from lack of voiced roles, another reason mods are less likely to appear in such a scale these days).
As long as the game I bought gives me a complete experience and the DLC adds to the experience in a substantial way, I'm fine. The already mentioned Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, and Borderlands are good examples. However, I feel that Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins are offenders. They both have content packs which feature major characters that should have been saved for a full game (Lair of the Shadow Broker, Witch Hunt), and the later has a "full" Expansion Pack which cost about the same price as a full game. But the expansion pack only had a small fraction of the content that Dragon Age: Origins had. If I didn't love BioWare's games so much, I'd wait for the complete edition (I'll probably end up buying DA: O's Complete eventually just for Awakening, Leliana's Song, and Witch Hunt).
I was having a debate with my brother over the ending of Fallout 3 and how it came off as being pretty damn weak. He then told me that there's DLC that makes for a better ending. I immediately called foul, equating it to releasing a great book, but with a crap ending, then releasing a booklet that gives the better ending.
Worse than actual DLC is the need for patching. Now, I can make an exception for MMO games, it's nigh-impossible to make the game or the servers proof against the gajillions of people that log on on patch day. On the other hand, if it's a AAA title that's meant to have a strong single-player mode, and THAT is glitched to hell, we have problems. If memory serves, New Vegas had this problem when it first came out. Hell, Zelda: Twilight Princess has a game-breaking glitch, and I'm not sure if that was fixed at all.
I think it all comes down to two things: greed and apathy. Want the sweetest guns? Fork out for the DLC. New maps? Eh, we'll release 'em eventually, maybe 5 at a time. Missed a glitch? Easier to make them get the patch after they buy it.
Worse than actual DLC is the need for patching. Now, I can make an exception for MMO games, it's nigh-impossible to make the game or the servers proof against the gajillions of people that log on on patch day. On the other hand, if it's a AAA title that's meant to have a strong single-player mode, and THAT is glitched to hell, we have problems. If memory serves, New Vegas had this problem when it first came out. Hell, Zelda: Twilight Princess has a game-breaking glitch, and I'm not sure if that was fixed at all.
I think it all comes down to two things: greed and apathy. Want the sweetest guns? Fork out for the DLC. New maps? Eh, we'll release 'em eventually, maybe 5 at a time. Missed a glitch? Easier to make them get the patch after they buy it.
It's okay, I wasn't commenting on whether or not you like DLC yourself, I was simply making a general statement about gamers as a whole, a statement I feel is true, and giving my own opinions on the topic. And as for your Bioshock 2 example, I fully agree with your point, and that is the kind of DLC that should be free, purely because it's already on the disk. The DLC made during the post-production phase, during testing, bug-fixing, and shipping, is the sort that should be released a while later. If it's released actually on the disk, but locked, then obviously it was made during regular development and that should be part of the game, or free...mitchell271 said:
I hate DLC's that are basically just cut content from the original game, but often some companies release DLC's that are really worthwhile.
The best DLC's that I have played were those of fallout 3/NV and borderlands, though 1 DLC in each fallout game contains a cut part of the original or an addition to the main story-line(in fallout 3 it's broken steel in fallout NV that last part still has to come) but I always enjoyed the fallout DLC's so it didn't/doesn't bother me that much.
The company that I hate the most with their DLC policy is Bioware and in my opinion they can suck a loverocket. Not only does it look like their dlc's are worthless 1 extra area's but they also shove it in your face that you need to buy the DLC. They just add an extra area on your map or an certain character to their games, then an event takes place and within a few seconds the screen pops-up saying 'You can now have wild adventures if you give us more money!'. That down right pisses me off, it really feels to me that I am only "allowed" to play the full game when I have paid several extra euro's on top of the original price and that is just bullshit.
The best DLC's that I have played were those of fallout 3/NV and borderlands, though 1 DLC in each fallout game contains a cut part of the original or an addition to the main story-line(in fallout 3 it's broken steel in fallout NV that last part still has to come) but I always enjoyed the fallout DLC's so it didn't/doesn't bother me that much.
The company that I hate the most with their DLC policy is Bioware and in my opinion they can suck a loverocket. Not only does it look like their dlc's are worthless 1 extra area's but they also shove it in your face that you need to buy the DLC. They just add an extra area on your map or an certain character to their games, then an event takes place and within a few seconds the screen pops-up saying 'You can now have wild adventures if you give us more money!'. That down right pisses me off, it really feels to me that I am only "allowed" to play the full game when I have paid several extra euro's on top of the original price and that is just bullshit.
same hereVault101 said:
its how I fear most games are going to end up
also there the case of dynasty warriors 7 and the Japanese audio, 1 GB of my hard drive taken up by something that they put on the discs of there last 2 games, it hurts more that its free as well.
the only dlc ive ever thought worth the money was the dlc for both fallout's, GTA IV, Borderlands...
Dlc that IS NOT worth the money are frigging map packs, yes im looking at you call of duty -_-
Back before console gaming took off maps use to be released for FREE in patches that use to FIX games, or we use to get modding tools to make our own, now we dont because we wouldnt buy the extra content, and its not just cod im bashing on, any other game that does it too. Yes im a pc gamer, yes i own a console too, but i refuse to buy any map pack full stop.
Dlc that IS NOT worth the money are frigging map packs, yes im looking at you call of duty -_-
Back before console gaming took off maps use to be released for FREE in patches that use to FIX games, or we use to get modding tools to make our own, now we dont because we wouldnt buy the extra content, and its not just cod im bashing on, any other game that does it too. Yes im a pc gamer, yes i own a console too, but i refuse to buy any map pack full stop.
I may buy it if it extends the length of the game and only if it's released at a reasonable date after the game is realised!
For example adding on quite a few maps (not just 1 or 2) or more missions(see fallout) that really do extend the playability of the game.
If it's day 1 or even released within the first few weeks then I'm sorry you are clearly money grabbing bastards and probably had it included on the disc but some smart arse decided to charge more for it a week or so after release to get more money!
So no I will not be buying DLC unless it is of decent value for money, extends the playing time/experience by a decent amount and it's released at least a month after the release date!
And if I need to buy an 'online pass' then forget, they can suck my left testicle, you'll be getting nothing out of me!
Shame really if someone actually realised more people would buy the game/DLC if they used a bit of common sense and released things properly at a decent time then they would probably make more money!
For example adding on quite a few maps (not just 1 or 2) or more missions(see fallout) that really do extend the playability of the game.
If it's day 1 or even released within the first few weeks then I'm sorry you are clearly money grabbing bastards and probably had it included on the disc but some smart arse decided to charge more for it a week or so after release to get more money!
So no I will not be buying DLC unless it is of decent value for money, extends the playing time/experience by a decent amount and it's released at least a month after the release date!
And if I need to buy an 'online pass' then forget, they can suck my left testicle, you'll be getting nothing out of me!
Shame really if someone actually realised more people would buy the game/DLC if they used a bit of common sense and released things properly at a decent time then they would probably make more money!
Think of it this way: DLC literally means DOWNLOADABLE content. When it's already on the disk, the publisher (or maybe even the devs) are selling you a game but are locking away parts of it that were finished in time for shipping and then calling it new and expecting you to pay more. I've already used this, but remember Bioshock 2? The early DLC multiplayer maps were already on the disk. When you bought the DLC, it downloaded a little 100kb key to unlock that. When I pay $10 for something that was already on the disk, it just feels so wrong.Foxbat Flyer said:
So no expansion packs either? Because a lot of DLC packs are just expansion packs in digital form. Examples of those are Fallout's DLC, some of Dragon Age's and GTA4. Each game offered DLC packs that offered many of extra hours of gameplay, sometimes even whole new stories.necromanzer52 said:
Not all DLC is like Oblivion's horse armor, so why not do the same as one would do with games; judge them on a case-by-case basis?