The Anti-Anti-DLC Movement!
- Thread starter MegaManOfNumbers
- Start date
Recommended Videos
DLC is, generally speaking, really quite terrible. Short, over priced snippets of content that were clearly afterthoughts.
Bethesda have the best - and worst - DLC on the market. Some of their stuff is, frankly, horrendous. Other ones, though, are the reason why DLC could be quite good.
The problem is two fold:
1. DLC is seen as a way to make post-release money, as opposed to being a way to extend something you like.
Publishers, who fund the creation of the DLC, aren't going to foot the bill for a lot of additional content that - at most - 51% of people are going to actually buy. So DLC contains a lot of recycled everything. This makes it crap. If it were cheap, this wouldn't be so bad. But, Publishers don't understand that charging US$15.00 for a 30 minute quest that rates 1/5 stars isn't ok. Why should they - Activision Blizzard charge US$15.00 for their Call of Duty Map packs that contain mostly recycled maps from previous games, and they make a fucking fortune.
2. DLC is used to circumvent your right of purchase.
DLC is used to make sure you make as little money back from your purchase as humanly possible. If you sell a game you have DLC for, they've been paid and the amount of money you can possibly recoup is dwindled. They, however, don't tell anyone that anyone can buy DLC for a used copy - leading to literally thousands of purchases for DLC that enable them to recoup quite a lot of money.
The funding for the DLC is pre-approved. When the game is put into development, the overall budget is split between the base game, and the DLC. This means when you buy the game, you've paid for the development of the DLC. The more DLC a game has, the less content exists within the retail purchase.
DLC is like 3D Movies: a terrific idea was milked to death before it could even crawl out of it's mother's vagina and take a fucking breath.
Bethesda have the best - and worst - DLC on the market. Some of their stuff is, frankly, horrendous. Other ones, though, are the reason why DLC could be quite good.
The problem is two fold:
1. DLC is seen as a way to make post-release money, as opposed to being a way to extend something you like.
Publishers, who fund the creation of the DLC, aren't going to foot the bill for a lot of additional content that - at most - 51% of people are going to actually buy. So DLC contains a lot of recycled everything. This makes it crap. If it were cheap, this wouldn't be so bad. But, Publishers don't understand that charging US$15.00 for a 30 minute quest that rates 1/5 stars isn't ok. Why should they - Activision Blizzard charge US$15.00 for their Call of Duty Map packs that contain mostly recycled maps from previous games, and they make a fucking fortune.
2. DLC is used to circumvent your right of purchase.
DLC is used to make sure you make as little money back from your purchase as humanly possible. If you sell a game you have DLC for, they've been paid and the amount of money you can possibly recoup is dwindled. They, however, don't tell anyone that anyone can buy DLC for a used copy - leading to literally thousands of purchases for DLC that enable them to recoup quite a lot of money.
The funding for the DLC is pre-approved. When the game is put into development, the overall budget is split between the base game, and the DLC. This means when you buy the game, you've paid for the development of the DLC. The more DLC a game has, the less content exists within the retail purchase.
DLC is like 3D Movies: a terrific idea was milked to death before it could even crawl out of it's mother's vagina and take a fucking breath.
I like the way Killing Floor does it.
You get all the major things for free. Maps, Weapons, all that stuff.
But if you want to support the Developer, you can pay a little amount of money and get nice, und purely cosmetic, player skins.
That's the way it should be done, really.
"Real" updates [like new weapons, missions and maps] for free,
(well except for big expansion packs and such, we don't want the developer to go bankrupt and do a big deal of their work for free, neither do we want the dev to try to sell us 5 maps for 15 bucks. The balance is important, like everywhere in life.)
and the additional, dev-supportive, cosmetic stuff [like weapon- / player-skins] for a reasonable price.
Concerning add-ons:
I'm not against expansion-packs per se, but the content/price-ratio has to be right.
For example, Warcraft 3: The frozen Throne did it well.
You get all the major things for free. Maps, Weapons, all that stuff.
But if you want to support the Developer, you can pay a little amount of money and get nice, und purely cosmetic, player skins.
That's the way it should be done, really.
"Real" updates [like new weapons, missions and maps] for free,
(well except for big expansion packs and such, we don't want the developer to go bankrupt and do a big deal of their work for free, neither do we want the dev to try to sell us 5 maps for 15 bucks. The balance is important, like everywhere in life.)
and the additional, dev-supportive, cosmetic stuff [like weapon- / player-skins] for a reasonable price.
Concerning add-ons:
I'm not against expansion-packs per se, but the content/price-ratio has to be right.
For example, Warcraft 3: The frozen Throne did it well.
I only buy DLC that is, well, ACTUALLY DLC. If it comes out within a month of release of the game, then it's not DLC, but withheld content.
Price is also important. 4 multiplayer maps is not worth 1/4 of the PRICE OF THE GAME.
Price is also important. 4 multiplayer maps is not worth 1/4 of the PRICE OF THE GAME.
I buy DLC for RPGs. For examples Fallout NV and ME2 i have pretty much all the DLC.
However i refuse to buy map packs that cost £2 per map, when not everyone buys them, meaning these maps are usually empty (or less full) anyway.
I'll only buy DLC if it adds something significant to the game, that i dont feel was left out of the game simply to be sold as DLC.
However i refuse to buy map packs that cost £2 per map, when not everyone buys them, meaning these maps are usually empty (or less full) anyway.
I'll only buy DLC if it adds something significant to the game, that i dont feel was left out of the game simply to be sold as DLC.
As i've said before, I never buy DLC.
I have DLC for 2 games that I own and thats Fallout 3 and Oblivion and thats only because I got the GOTY editions from Amazon for £7.50 each.
If a game I like has DLC then chances are my brother will have it so i'll pop round to his house and have a dabble. I won't pay for it myself.
I'll get it if it's a game I really like and it's in the GOTY edition for under £10 and that is all.
I will never, eeeever, pay for DLC outside of a cheap as chips GOTY edition.
Example. I'm buying Skyrim. We know it will have DLC and I will not be buying it. I will get it in a years time when the GOTY edition is in Amazon for under a tenner.
When I pay for a game then I only pay once for that game.
I have DLC for 2 games that I own and thats Fallout 3 and Oblivion and thats only because I got the GOTY editions from Amazon for £7.50 each.
If a game I like has DLC then chances are my brother will have it so i'll pop round to his house and have a dabble. I won't pay for it myself.
I'll get it if it's a game I really like and it's in the GOTY edition for under £10 and that is all.
I will never, eeeever, pay for DLC outside of a cheap as chips GOTY edition.
Example. I'm buying Skyrim. We know it will have DLC and I will not be buying it. I will get it in a years time when the GOTY edition is in Amazon for under a tenner.
When I pay for a game then I only pay once for that game.
I'd buy DLC from any company, if I wanted the DLC. There's a lot of DLC I don't want, and a lot that I do. WHat I resent is when games are released without content that should have been in the finished game. For example I'm told that the LA Noire missions released as DLC were intended to be in the final product, but they took them out, mostly to save space. What annoys me is that they then sell this DLC back to us.
When it's an extra costume, or a mission pack that wasn't thought up until after the game was completed, or a character, then it's fine. When it's any of the above that were available and could have been in the finished product, then it's extortion.
A good example I think would be Mass Effect 1 vs Mass Effect 2
ME1: The Pinnacle Station and Bring Down the Sky LDC weren't made or probably even thought of until after the game was finished.
ME2: Kasumi Goto, the Cerberus Network and Zaeed Massani were available on day 1 if you had preordered etc, otherwise they had to be paid for.
ME1: Totally fine.
ME2: Extortionate.
When it's an extra costume, or a mission pack that wasn't thought up until after the game was completed, or a character, then it's fine. When it's any of the above that were available and could have been in the finished product, then it's extortion.
A good example I think would be Mass Effect 1 vs Mass Effect 2
ME1: The Pinnacle Station and Bring Down the Sky LDC weren't made or probably even thought of until after the game was finished.
ME2: Kasumi Goto, the Cerberus Network and Zaeed Massani were available on day 1 if you had preordered etc, otherwise they had to be paid for.
ME1: Totally fine.
ME2: Extortionate.
If it's a J-RPG and it have DLC, i will buy all available DLC for it. i done that with Agarest 1 and zero, ALL NISa stuff, and others. Furthermore If it's Mass Effect DLC i will buy everything on matter the price(bought every single piece of DLC for ME2 even costume packs). Don't like DLC don't buy it simple as that.
I buy DLC if I liked the game enough to want more and if it looks worthwhile.
I bought DLC for Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas and Deus Ex: Human Revolution.
At only ?10, why shouldn't I?
I also bought far to many costumes and episodes for Little Big Planet.
Well worth it though.
I bought DLC for Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas and Deus Ex: Human Revolution.
At only ?10, why shouldn't I?
I also bought far to many costumes and episodes for Little Big Planet.
Well worth it though.
The only DLC I have ever bought ever was stuff for Bethesda's games. Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, FNV, and... that's it! Never bought any map packs, never bought anything else like that. At least, not on its own. I'll spring ten extra bucks for the "GOTY Edition" or the "Bundle Pack", wherein all the DLC is already included, but I don't really think that counts. Bethesda's games are the only ones where I'll put down a tenner for new content. But if buying the bundle pack does count, then change my answer to "anything".
Bioware.megaman24681012 said:
I bought pretty much all the DLC for Dragon Age Origins.
I bought all the extra missions (and the Geth Plasma Shotgun) for Mass Effect 2.
And I bought extra mission for Dragon Age 2.
Of course, since I bought all three of those games new (as I buy all my games) I also got content for several of them for free. Cerberus Network and Shale were both lovely items, and I was glad to get them free of charge. Thanks Bioware!
Also, Harmonix, since I wanted extra songs for Rockband. ^^
I've bought very few dlc, bought a couple map packs for Halo 3 a while back but that was when I was really into the game, so it was worthwile then.
Now I don't buy any, my Xbox isn't even connected to the internet for now, so I can't even get the Disk Locked Content which is fucking stupid. Pissed coz I can't even get Catwoman QQ.
Now I don't buy any, my Xbox isn't even connected to the internet for now, so I can't even get the Disk Locked Content which is fucking stupid. Pissed coz I can't even get Catwoman QQ.
Everything you listed depends, there is no instant yes or no for purchasing DLC but there are a few different kinds of DLC that I am firmly against.
The big one is day 1 DLC. I view the money I put forward for the product as paying for what was in development before the game released. If something was being made during initial development time but wasnt able to be finished in time for release it should be released as free DLC.
Buying power is another one Im firmly against, especially in free to play games and even more so for games that can be played competitively. Even the idea of sidegrades Im leary about because theres the potential to split the players based on money and not skill at the game
The big one is day 1 DLC. I view the money I put forward for the product as paying for what was in development before the game released. If something was being made during initial development time but wasnt able to be finished in time for release it should be released as free DLC.
Buying power is another one Im firmly against, especially in free to play games and even more so for games that can be played competitively. Even the idea of sidegrades Im leary about because theres the potential to split the players based on money and not skill at the game
Harmonix.
I've probably purchased 20 songs since the release of the original Rock Band. While I've no doubt got my money's worth...they sell songs and song packs at a price too high for me to justify.
Currently there are probably 100+ DLC songs I'd buy if the prices were cut in half. I'm banking on the company putting on a sale one of these years as the game itself becomes less and less popular.
I've probably purchased 20 songs since the release of the original Rock Band. While I've no doubt got my money's worth...they sell songs and song packs at a price too high for me to justify.
Currently there are probably 100+ DLC songs I'd buy if the prices were cut in half. I'm banking on the company putting on a sale one of these years as the game itself becomes less and less popular.
Oh I do know there is a difference, it's extra content, i'm not re-paying for content thats already there I understand that.fenrizz said:
I also know I look incredibly cheap ... and in that regard I am.
I have a wife and 5 kids. Not relevant to the argument you say? I beg to differ.
They need feeding, clothing, school stuff, college stuff, uni stuff, various other pointless things that all seem to spring from Dads magic bank account of abundance ... that tree with money growing on it that I somehow gained access to.
So on top of that, the content in a lot of DLC's that get released really do not warrant the price tag they come with.
I'll take the recent Lonesome Road for New Vegas.
I played it at my brothers and in all honesty it wasn't worth paying for.
I've got, and made my own, mods that have more content than Lonesome Road did and were far more entertaining.
Although I will grant that Old World Blues was pretty decent and if I wasn't such a cheap bastard I would have paid for that.
I'm not going to condemn people that do buy them it's entirely up to them and some DLC is worth it. I just begrudge paying out around £10 for an extra hour of content or a character unlock or pointless as feth map packs. Pointless in my opinion I know others enjoy them.
The money isn't the issue, me and my wife both have well paying jobs, my problem is the value for that money.