Poll: The Problem with DLC Today

[Foxbat Flyer]

Day one DLC helps them get the people who are willing to pay for it, so they get extra money, and having the DLC already on the disk helps because whats more anoying, having it there ready to go when you buy it, or having to wait for it to download. Id prefer it to be there ready to go.

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.

Just because DLC Stands for Downloadable Content, does not mean that it has to be downloadable, it is like a name for extra content (It can also mean downloading the content from the CD), look at borderlands, its DLC, which it clearly names it as DLC, can be bought on a disc, completely seperate.

All i mean by this is, if by them keeping it seperate helps fund further games and / or more DLC to keep that game alive, I will be supporting them.

 

[Beth Zeller]

I don't have a problem with DLC when it comes to most things but I DO have probems with DLC that gives a advantage in games that have online and are competative. Soul Caliber 4 is a good example of this... You can pay 5$ and unlock all the best weapons/gears. That is just annoying IMHO. This annoys me because to achieve these items legitimately you have to do some very hard challenges in the single player story mode.

What is the point of even playing if you can just drop 5$ to unlock everything? Kinda defeats the purpose of the game for me...

I know this was a major factor in me not liking soul caliber 4, Payed 60$ for it, it sits on the shelf for 2 and 1/2 years or so now never being played since the release of that DLC.

Edit: I also do not like to pay for supposed DLC that was already on the disc( you know those like 100 kb unlock file you get after dropping down another 5-10$.. Resident evil 5 pvp unlock comes to mind)

 

[dickywebster]

Personally i think dlc makes game companies lazy, I've played a few games recently that seem a bit glitchy which apparently r fixed with the dlc, but then its not always free...

It seems to be more of a safety net than an add on system, anything small they can't fix before release, just fix it in the dlc, which also seems to be an easy excuse for releasing often unfinished games...

So yeah, personally, I don't like dlc, but then Ihave yet to bother with a psn account and I don't really want to set one up just so my "completed" games can be a bit less buggy.

But I've not really paid huge amounts of attention to dlc much, so things could have changed for all i know

 

[LordLundar]

The problem with a lot (not all, there is some good stuff out there) of DLC is that it's poor quality junk that costs far too much for what you get tacked onto a game that either has run it's lifespan or was poor quality in the first place.

 

[kouriichi]

I think it truly depends on the quality of the DLC itself.

Oblivion's "The Shivering Isles"? Worth every penny and more.

Fallout 3's "Point Lookout"? Totally. Id buy it twice over.

Dragon Age "Awakening"? OH YEAH! I loved that DLC. Great writing and fun times to be had.

But then you get DLC's like the newest Blops map pack. "Heres one new level, and a bunch you already own with slight better texture work".

You cant say, "All DLC should be free", because alot of DLC produced is extremely high value content. Some of it, almost a new game itself. While quite a bit of DLC should be free, because its a small add-on, or just a few items you'll probably out level or never use.

 

[Magicmad5511]

I will only get DLC if it is
A)Free
or
B)Really cool looking

I will not buy a game if it looks like I will need expensive DLC to get the full experience.
I think my main problem with DLC though is that when a new pack is created, it puts the achievements on for everyone, even if you don't buy it. This means you can't get 100% achievements without buying it(some examples being Halo Reach, Enslaved, Fable 3 and Halo Wars).

 

[Stilkon]

I didn't pre-order Deus Ex but I was lucky enough to get a pre order copy.

Funny, I found myself in the same situation.

Another thing you might want to think about is time constraints. In an episode of Extra Credits, Dan said that no game is complete before it ships. DLC may provide developers with more of an opportunity to make the gaming experience more "holistic", like with extra missions or backstory.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

What annoys me mostly with DLC's (mostly in RPGs), is that when you start the game with DLCs, you'll get notes and quests almost at the start of the game, and these quests, even if a bit harder, often leads to better loot than anywhere in the game. I wish they integrated the DLCs better. Kinda like having an NPC giving you the quest (like everyone elese) somwhere in the game.

Also, not sure if one can call it DLC, but what Valve has done with TF2 is how it should be..., that would be perfect..., shame that won't happen...

Agreed. Much like some of the Dragon Age: Origins DLC. Starfang is quite easily the most powerful Greatsword/Longsword in the game, and you can get it literally right after you leave Lothering. Regardless of whether that's a good 4-5 hours into the game or not(depending on how slow or fast you are), that's still literally in the beginning of the game. Just complete Warden's Keep and boom, most powerful sword in the game. ...wat? .___. Keep stronger, more powerful DLC later in the game where it's acceptable to actually have something that powerful. Making a Greatsword Warrior with Starfang directly at the beginning of the game makes most enemies quite laughable, at best.

I personally detest DLC that is made simply for the most it can grab. Stuff that's created later AFTER the game is shipped is acceptable, as long as the DLC adds something substantial to the game. As long as it doesn't suck like The Exiled Prince in Dragon Age II. >> Sebastian may have pretty slick armor, but compared to everyone else, he's a pretty useless companion. If that. .__. Varric's 50x better with a bow. Now, DLC like The Desperate Escape and Lost in Nightmares for Resident Evil 5, in my opinion, are shining examples of very well made DLC. Whole chapter length DLC, and they're outside the main game, while still inside and directly related to it. Ever wonder what happened at the Spencer Mansion with Chris, Jill and Wesker? Boom, Lost in Nightmares for ya. Wonder wtf happened to Jill after you saved her? Boom, Desperate Escape for ya.

As for online passes, I'm on the fence about those. I used to get used games, but I usually get new ones now. I can understand why they make online passes. Multiplayer is something people like to have so they can enjoy their games with their buds, but used games give no money to the developers. So they're pretty much saying "Sure you can buy the game used! But we want our cut. SO pay up and you can use our shiny multiplayer function." Personally, for games like that, even though I really don't use Multiplayer, if at all, it's just cheaper to buy it brand new because even with the reduced prices of a used game, you'll end up cumulatively spending more to get that online pass.

My personal vote: Continue with well made DLC that adds something substantial to the game's experience, and abolish useless DLC and Day 1 DLC.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

DLC on a game I actually like, and is more than just new costumes/palette swaps/weapon skins etc. I would probably get.

The crap that seemed like it took more than 2 hours and 12 lines of code to put together essentially.

I won't buy things that are already on the game I bought, like RE5 multi, I also ended up not keeping said game because of how much it sucked.

I won't buy extra multiplayer maps for games, because after getting some for KZ2 and seeing how poor they were/no one played them anyways it was just a waste of money.

The real thing that pisses me off is not DLC, though there are degrees of underhanded BS involved with it sometimes, rather its the inability of so called AAA games to ship FUNCTIONING.

Games that I was somewhat interested in like Deus Ex, Dead Island, and Resistance 3 (as well as anything with Bethesda's name on it) are riddled with small to exceptionally huge problems. More often than not they ARE NEVER FIXED.

Such as if you were stupid enough to become a vampire in Oblivion, you are SOL on curing it. Quest is bugged for over 5 years and they can't be bothered to patch a line of code.

All I read about Dead Island is how YOU CAN'T SAVE YOUR FUCKING GAME. It has an auto save system, that doesn't save. That is probably the biggest sign of not giving a shit/testing your product AT ALL that I've ever seen.

Usually the developers hide behind the shield of "we can't predict how someone is gonna play our ubermassive open world game so we can't debug it properly."

Did the possibility that people would end up NOT playing 20+ hours straight without shutting off their console elude them?

The other rational is that they can just patch everything neat and simple like. If that were true, then there wouldn't be uncounted threads in various forums with the title "How do I uninstall that patch that just made my game play even worse?!"

Or Bethesdas's system of "Here is a patch for 12 out of the 80 things broken in our game. Thats all you are gonna get. ever. deal with it."

All of this is based on the incorrect assumption that everyone has their rig connected to the net, is patient enough to let them fix their product (assuming they bother) and of course every single copy of the game that is ever made will not have anything fixed.

If you bought a car that had a manufacturer recall of a critical part, the dealer knew about it/they continued to produce every single car with the same faulty parts for its entire production run, wouldn't you assume a class action lawsuit to be called for?

But no. You can walk into any retailer and pick up a 5 year anniversary edition of Oblivion, or god forbid a brand new copy of New Vegas, and they will let you take it home with no warning that there is a rather significant chance of it being unplayable unless you patch it.

Basically DLC tends to sell better if the game you make it for actually works first, which is becoming an increasingly sketchy proposition these days.

The only developer I actually trust to deliver a solid product anymore is From Software*

Demon's Souls, 3D Dot Heros, and Dark Souls are/going to be excellent games. The only patches they had actually fixed things/added fan made content/made slight balance changes based on community feedback. They also prefer to ship a complete, polished, balanced game than plan DLC that might ruin that balance. They let their work speak for itself, and judging from the fact that Demon's Souls is still popular I'd say its working for them.

* I used to say that about Nintendo and Square Enix, but FF13 and Other M really disappointed me

 

[joshuaayt]

Ehn, DLC doesn't bother me too much. Isn't day 1 DLC usually aesthetic stuff anyway?

I suppose if a narrative based game was all "Yo, pay us $108 (confirmed Australian here) for this game, then another $5-20 for the rest of the story, released at the same time" I'd be a little cross, but as it is, usually it's pretty innocent.

I don't have any problems with DLC released later, though- that's just stuff they've gotten together for and made separately. I'm cool with it, even if it is always way overpriced...

 

[Philip Collin]

I personally dont see what was wrong with the only expansion packs. The companies worked for a half year to make another 10 hours gameplay for a game and released it for about £30/40 (just look at morrowinds expansions or even oblivion shivering isles). All i can see nowadays are little 2/3 hour "DLC's" (at best) that are priced at £10/20. (example is every DLC ever made by bioware).

In my opinion everybody would eb happy if they stopped releasing these tiny poorly made bits and instead focused on a decent length and quality expansion for the game, like the old days.

 

[getoffmycloud]

I don't mind day 1 DLC if the reviews for the game are released a week in advance so I can sort out getting my copy if the game is good if i'm on the shelf about a game I will wait until there are reviews about it and I can get an idea on whether I want the game or not. DLC I hate is stuff that is cut out from the middle of game assassins creed 2 i'm looking at you here and from what I have heard deus ex does it too. With games like this you should get a full story and do DLC Bethesda style and release shorter stories that are nothing to do with the story of the main game there are just set in the same place and time period and they are all planned out after release so they can address issues people had with the main game.

As for map packs they should always be about £5 never really any more than that and there is nothing really wrong them provding they have a good number of maps in them too not just 3 including one ported in from another game.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Remember back then, when they'd release a game and then later release some expansion packs? That wasn't any better than some of today's DLC, but it got less grief because it only happened if a game was popular enough.

 

[MasterSpaceman]

I generally can't help myself with DLC. If I like the game, I'll even pay for a few new items or costumes. That sorta DLC should be free however.
Day One DLC is a pretty stupid idea, should be shipped.
DLC for the sake of DLC is just as stupid. Leaving areas of the game purposely blank to later fill with DLC. Resi 5 Multiplayer, The upcoming Deus Ex DLC.

However, when I play a game like Mass Effect 2 from beginning to end on Insanity and love every second.. It is sad to end it all. DLC is then a godsend. Shadow Broker was amazing. Just enough more to get that Mass Effect fix.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I don't buy the whole arguement that online passes are worth it...i think they actually damage the industry. People who buy second hand games generally aren't willing to pay the full price or can't afford to. What benefit is there to stopping them playing your game more? If i have a good experience from a game then i might be more willing to pay full price for it's sequel. What about the fact that most games after 3 months have nobody playing them? It's not exactly good advertising for your game and company. Most people who buy second hand would never otherwise play the game and isn't it better to have a larger user base? More chance at future revenue? More chance the DLC you release will be purchased by more people?

That said i have no issue with good DLC but most of what i've seen has been short and unbalancing. Buy a supercar as DLC on Burnout paradise and you can't lose to normal players. How does that help sell your game? Buy our DLC or fuck off and come last! Why is it your allowed to buy your way past some of the challenge? Money and no other reason

Day one DLC isn't such an issue for me because i never buy games on release day. If it's something they didn't have time to finish and then realease later as free DLC then i'm fine with that. If it's something they couldn't finish in time and then expect me to pay for later then forget it.

 

[Rhinzual26]

DLC is a companies way of keeping a game popular and fresh long after it's release. Just look at Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I have long since completed the main games but continue to play both because of the DLC. So in my opinion well made DLC is worth the money.

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.

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).

Which is all fine from a PC point of view. But what about consoles who don't have that option? Developers need to extend the life of a console game with DLC.

Go the City of Heroes/Villains route and allow for the DLC to be downloaded for free. The only reason they charge for that crap is because of how ungodly expensive games are to make these days, yet the price has only increased by 10, maybe 20 bucks in the US alone (I won't speak for aussies and such).