What price is acceptable for DLC?

[IHaveNoCoolness]

I would say that it largely depends on what you're paying for. If you getting a couple of maps or something it should be free, or in the 5-10 dollar range... If you're getting a whole new campaign or something with over 5 hours of solo play time, I don't think paying more than that is unrealistic.

It would also depend on the quality of the product too.

I don't think you can say what price is acceptable for DLC because it's way too big of a question, how much DLC are we talking about? Most games don't charge for patches and maintenance corrections etc, but if you're paying for new content that wasn't available at the release date, I would say the fairness of the price depends on the product...

Not all DLC is created equally, and not all games are created equally.

I would say paying 60 bucks for essentially the same Madden NFL game you played last year with new rosters is probably a bigger rip-off than DLC you can come up with (including horse armor).

 

[NotAPie]

I never saw the problem that everyone has with DLC...
Anyway it depends on the size of the DLC.

 

[MetalDooley]

It depends on the content to be honest but I think 800 points should be the max for a map pack and maybe 1200 if it's a substantial add on.

I was tempted to download "The Shivering Isles" for Oblivion but it's 2400 points(around ?28-?29)Now I'm sure there's plenty of people who'll say it's well worth the price but bear in mind the GOTY edition(which also includes the Knights of the Nine quest)is about ?30 new and it starts to look incredibly overpriced.

 

[Weaver]

Erm, I don't get it, it adds content, content is good (for a good game, anyway) how is it a rip off? I mean, the team had to put work into it, during bug testing, they need to make the money back. If not, they'd just be sitting on their asses.

I mean, you never heard anyone complaining about expansion packs.

Anyway, I usually go up to ?15 at the most, I would pay higher, but only if I was totally assured of its quality.

Because expansion packs are usually a crap load of content for $30. Plus they extend the story of the game, and except in rare cases of DLC (FO3) this isn't usually the case. DLC just adds a few maps, or some items, or whatever. It's just more random shit to get for no real reason and people eat it up. This is what also bugs me about DLC - if you have $30 of DLC it had better give me at least as much content as an expansion pack would or in my head it's not worth the cost.

If we want to go back to expansion packs like the good old PC days, you should also recall how much free shit we got for games back then. Unreal Tournament 99 had four free map packs for instance, the 30 maps they added would cost like $90 now a days and you don't feel ripped off?

 

[FinalDream]

Okay, personally I think things are starting to get ridiculous.
The stimulus package for one, but the Dragon Age add on are on sale for OUTRAGEOUS prices.
In the case of the xbox, once you start to add on the cost of a harddrive, xbox live, an adaptor, you could easily buy a new game anyway!
I understand the price for DA was because there was so much in the add on, but why not just have that IN THE GAME available to everyone. It just goes to show the greed of some people.

Anyway, how much do you think is the acceptable highest price for an add on DLC?

I think the better question is:

What is acceptable for DLC

Most companies miss the point.

 

[omega_peaches]

It depends on the length of the DLC

 

[Ricotez]

Well, the price tag should depend on the content. If the DLC adds a lot to the game, it naturally should be priced higher than just a fancy new weapon or something.

Though the best DLC is still free DLC. Valve and Nadeo, I love you both.

 

[Brandon237]

0 dollars because I don't think there should ever be DLC ever.

I hate that concept of it.

Is 60 goddamn dollars not enough for a full game you greedy pricks!!??

Julian, I couldn't have said it better myself. If they do release DLC it should be free! I spend tons on a game only to be deprived of half the game. NOT RIGHT. Game companies are game companies, not banks or private law firms! We pay fudge tons for your stuff at the shops and now we are still expected to pay.

It's like this: You can get a lawn mower for only $100. Come back in a month and pay another $20 to get the blade and motor! /glomail advertiser's voice.

 

[StarofAzura]

Okay, personally I think things are starting to get ridiculous.
The stimulus package for one, but the Dragon Age add on are on sale for OUTRAGEOUS prices.
In the case of the xbox, once you start to add on the cost of a harddrive, xbox live, an adaptor, you could easily buy a new game anyway!
I understand the price for DA was because there was so much in the add on, but why not just have that IN THE GAME available to everyone. It just goes to show the greed of some people.

Anyway, how much do you think is the acceptable highest price for an add on DLC?

Meh, I've come to expect it of EA. They're way too content and fat on their Sims fanbase who have been trained to pay just as much money for expansion packs as they do for the actual game.

It depends on the DLC, how many hours of contact it includes, etc. There are way too many variables for me to set a price.

 

[rekabdarb]

Free, developers need to stop listening to fans and release stuff when it's 100% completed. Resident Evil 5 has released a version of the game that has both of the DLC on it, and i'm thinking HMM that's retarded capcom - because i bought the "special edition" (i think... brother got it)

 

[Sebenko]

Not much, I just hate DLC.
No, the name. I just hate the phrase "DLC".
DLC as a concept is pretty good (Except on-disk DLC, or anything that should have been in the game from the start)

A re-branding is in order. I like the sound of "mini-expansion", myself.

Because that's what most good DLC is anyway. Not big enough to be a full expansion, but still an expansion to the game. I liked the pitt and that DLC that came free with mass effect (the one with the batarians)

Also, since I don't like downloading DLC, it makes the D a little useless.

 

[Bato]

I generally don't like DLC.
Except in the case of Borderlands and Valve games.

Remember expansion packs? What happened to those?
DLC these days just encourage developers to make less content.

Downloadable Expansions would be cool, like Dragon Age's most recent DLC to come out, it adds quite a bit of content.
But the Mass Effect 2 team is more focused on making terrible half-assed characters with 3 minute missions and no more then 2 pages of dialogue and shipping them out for like $8.

Instead of, maybe, adding 2-3 new full characters, decent missions, weapons, etc.. for maybe a $30-$40 expansion.

Of course the latter will make them less money and make the stuff worth buying, so that'll never happen.

 

[Horton986]

Would love it if it was all free, but 15 bucks (and it better be full of goodies, not just 5 stupid maps) is the max i will pay.

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

I'm on Steam. Valve gives all their DLC away for free

 

[tiredinnuendo]

0 dollars because I don't think there should ever be DLC ever.

I hate that concept of it.

Is 60 goddamn dollars not enough for a full game you greedy pricks!!??

Julian, I couldn't have said it better myself. If they do release DLC it should be free! I spend tons on a game only to be deprived of half the game. NOT RIGHT. Game companies are game companies, not banks or private law firms! We pay fudge tons for your stuff at the shops and now we are still expected to pay.

It's like this: You can get a lawn mower for only $100. Come back in a month and pay another $20 to get the blade and motor! /glomail advertiser's voice.

I will, for the sake of charity, hope that you are being sarcastic.

However, to the world at large, I'd like to say that anyone screaming about how all DLC should be free is a moron. Especially if they're using the "I paid for the game and they should have finished it" line. There is always more that can be added. You can always invent a new map, or a new gun, or a new few levels. What you're effectively asking is that developers never do. Let's run that to its conclusion, shall we?

"They should never have released Mass Effect 2, and they shouldn't be working on 3 now. They should have waited until they had it all done first!"

See that up there? That's how you sound when you use umbrella terms. Certainly there has been DLC that never should have been charged for, but there has been plenty which has greatly enriched the game. Dragon Age was certainly already complete. It was like 70 hours long. Were they wrong to release an expansion with all new areas, enemies, voice acting, spells, and abilities? Should they have been required to finish that before they were allowed to release Dragon Age? Or, more likely, what you're really asking for is that they should never be allowed to release the expansion, because it costs you money and makes you feel as if your game is somehow less complete.

Even basic DLC like Getting Busy for Crackdown, which is much more an add-on than an expansion, is worthwhile if it enhances my enjoyment of the game. I honestly wish they'd released more stuff like that to enhance the sandbox, so it was totally worth it to me. Was the original Crackdown somehow incomplete for the lack of a cloaking device and a harpoon gun? No. But that stuff made it better. If you don't want to buy it, don't, but using terms like, "They should have to finish the game first" says to me that you really don't understand what most DLC actually provides.

I am, however, willing to concede that Fallout 3 should've come with a real ending that did not cost extra money.

- J

 

[Lordmarkus]

The price of a DLC should be decided what it adds to the game.

I'm prepared and willing to pay 15-20 ? for a SP DLC that gives a couple of hours extra gameplay and some new weapons or abilities.

Some new maps? 5 ? at most. Yes, I'm looking at you Stimulus Pack.

 

[Amnestic]

0 dollars because I don't think there should ever be DLC ever.

I hate that concept of it.

Is 60 goddamn dollars not enough for a full game you greedy pricks!!??

Julian, I couldn't have said it better myself. If they do release DLC it should be free! I spend tons on a game only to be deprived of half the game. NOT RIGHT. Game companies are game companies, not banks or private law firms! We pay fudge tons for your stuff at the shops and now we are still expected to pay.

It's like this: You can get a lawn mower for only $100. Come back in a month and pay another $20 to get the blade and motor! /glomail advertiser's voice.

That's a terrible analogy and you should feel terrible for making it.

The majority of DLC - [sub]And I'd like to take a moment to point out just how disgusting it is that I have to be arguing these points again[/sub] - is made and finished after the game is pressed and released, some of it only starting in development once the game has hit shelves and sold enough to warrant it.

This isn't the case for all DLC - Resident Evil 5 had some which was on the disc already. That shit's not cool and you will never find me defending such things. However for the most part, DLC isn't part of a game to make it complete, it's an addition to add on to the end and expand a game which people have already grown to love and enjoy.

To make a more correct comparison, DLC is similar to the additional rule/campaign books you can pick up for various tabletop games. D&D 3.5Ed is good and with the basic three (PH, DMG, MM) you can have endless hours of fun. The additional rulebooks you can buy (expanded MMs, Oriental Adventures etc.) can add to it and give you a better experience, but they're not necessary whatsoever. The game is complete with the Prime Three. Everything else is just gravy and sprinkles.

Also because I end up linking to this post everytime DLC comes up: Some stuff you should definetly consider reading. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.154083-Dragon-Age-Designer-Says-DLC-Not-Meant-to-Rip-Off-Players#3719305]

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

There is no Acceptable price point for DLC since Prices evolve.
Price should be based on the value you get and since value is subjective for every one it cannot be quantified.

I found the stimulus pack at 15 dollars to be fine I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of it, and like any thing IW makes its high quality.
Most of the oblivion stuff was high quality and I enjoyed immensely in my 500 hours or so play of that game*except horse armor*, Fallout 3? all of it worthwhile I have about 400 hours of play on that game.

DLC prices are subjective to how much fun people have with them and whether they are high quality, I have no problem paying money for a high quality DLC.