What role should DLC play?

[GonzoGamer]

The pre-order DLC for LA Noir has brought to mind a question that I probably should've been asking a couple of years ago.
DLC is quickly becoming just a method of getting extra cash off the consumer rather than a method of adding what the consumer felt was missing.
It seemed that what used to happen (and this does still happen with some devs) is that a game would release and as more people played it, the devs would get a better idea of what was missing and/or what kind of additional content would make for a better experience.
Now it seems that the publishers look at a title before it's release and say "what can we cut out of this to sell as dlc later."

It seems to me that the experience we get on the consoles for our $60 is much more shallow and shorter than what we used to get last gen when we were unable to buy dlc for our console games. This is obvious with titles from Capcom where the dlc is made and on the disc but requires the consumer to unlock it through purchase.

I'm just wondering where in the sand do I draw the line? I've generally not bought games at launch when it's obvious that dlc has already been made: Capcom. And I'm tempted to make the same distinction for LA Noir. It looks like an interesting game but if I have to buy it from a particular retailer for additional game content and still know (at launch) that there is more game content that I did not get for my $60 and I will have to buy later if I want to play, I think I have a new line in the sand. It's also kind of surprising that the company which developed one of the best values in gaming last gen (San Andreas) is treating it's consumers like some gold farm with games it publishes this generation.

And it seems ironic that the method that they are using to squeeze another $10 out of the consumer here and there just lost them a sale of $60 from this consumer.

The question is should the publisher be using dlc as a means of getting more money out of the consumer or a better performance from the game? What role should DLC play? Should the publisher hold back gameplay content at launch? Should the publisher hold back any content at launch?

The ultimate question I have for you individuals out there is: at what point would you say this is absurd and I'm not buying this game?

 

[Stammer]

DLC should play the role of an expansion pack, not unlike Fallout 3 or Oblivion. I hate it when games withhold things that should be in the game in the first place, but if you're getting your money's worth with the $60, and later down the line they add a $10 mini-expansion that gives you new areas to explore and armor to wear then I think it's worth it.

 

[Light 086]

Better performance is usually in the form of updates, DLC's are for extra content for us and cash for them. DLC's should just add side quests that don't impact the main story, if it adds to the main story than the game wasn't complete when they released it. 'Shivering Isle' and Lair of 'The Shadow Broker' did this well.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

DLC should play the role of an expansion pack, not unlike Fallout 3 or Oblivion. I hate it when games withhold things that should be in the game in the first place, but if you're getting your money's worth with the $60, and later down the line they add a $10 mini-expansion that gives you new areas to explore and armor to wear then I think it's worth it.

Agreed. When DLC first starting popping up, it was all like miniature modules or expansion packs that the company couldn't have released before without bundling it in a full expansion. Nowadays though, too many of these packages feel like they were removed to give an incentive to buy new.

 

[Mittens The Kitten]

I tend to play expansive open RPG with a huge amount of content (dragon age, Fallout, oblivion) and in these games DLC tends to provide unique (and often superpowered) gear. So its not just the content within the DLC that i get to enjoy, but i can take my +10 Sword of Orc Rape with me for the rest of game. Which is always a nice little bonus.

 

[Stammer]

Agreed. When DLC first starting popping up, it was all like miniature modules or expansion packs that the company couldn't have released before without bundling it in a full expansion. Nowadays though, too many of these packages feel like they were removed to give an incentive to buy new.

Yeah, you could actually blame places like GameStop for that. If they didn't screw the developers out of so many sales, they wouldn't be forced to punish new buyers and used buyers alike with pointless money-grubbing techniques.

Hell, I'm sure that if developers got a small portion of each used game sale, they'd stop forcing DLC down our throats.

 

[Littaly]

It should fill the purpose that expansion packs used to fill before the gaming market became console focused.

 

[Continuity]

DLC should play the role of an expansion pack, not unlike Fallout 3 or Oblivion. I hate it when games withhold things that should be in the game in the first place, but if you're getting your money's worth with the $60, and later down the line they add a $10 mini-expansion that gives you new areas to explore and armor to wear then I think it's worth it.

Yeah, for me this has pretty much killed the thread. DLC is an expansion to an already complete product, or should be, and essentially it has taken the place of the traditional expansion pack. The problems for me arise when the dlc is obvioulsly planned, or even in some laughable cases released at the same time as the game. That is clearly nothing but a cynical money grab. In these cases I only every buy the game as a "complete pack" or platinum edition or whatever that has all the content bundled together. Then you know what you're buying into.

 

[El Camarado]

I never really liked the idea of downloadable-content, but I can see rather interesting oppurtunities for it.

Downloadable content allows a game developer to release a game, and then receive feedback from their consumers. They could then tailor the downloadable-content accordingly. The DLC should feel professional, should feel like part of the game, and should integrate extremely well with the game. This should preferably be done at a reasonable price (ie: if the game is $60 for 60 hours of gameplay, then $10 for 10 hours would be perfectly fair, and $10 for, say 7-10 hours would be reasonable.)

That is what DLC should be.

Downloadable content also allows a game developer to remove things from the initial release and then release it later for a price. Some DLC looks to me like it is just glorified mods, rather than looking like it integrates well; but I can't really speak from experience. And DLC is often much more expensive for the amount of content it contains than I find reasonable.

That is what DLC should NOT be.

I guess, since I do not download downloadable-content, I might not know what I am talking about. However, the latter reasons are part of WHY I don't.

 

[OliverTwist72]

I don't know I definately don't like them ESPECIALLY day one DLC. I don't like them and I vote with my wallet by not buying them. Most DLC to me just seems like tacked on stuff that belonged in the game in the first place. Aren't there some cases where there has been content already on the disc and ppl had to pay extra to "unlock" some DLC that was already there.

 

[Valkyrie101]

They should be expansion packs, either full-size or the mini-expansions like Fallout 3's DLC. Map packs and extra in-game content are bullshit.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

(ie: if the game is $60 for 60 hours of gameplay, then $10 for 10 hours would be perfectly fair, and $10 for, say 7-10 hours would be reasonable.)

Except that very few games even approach 60 hours (nor should they), so your whole system is broken.

 

[Irriduccibilli]

I dont see anything wrong with releasing DLC on a games release date. If people feel like buying extra stuff for their games i'm fine with that, its not like anyone is forcing you to pay for it. You may say that it should just be in the game to begin with. Well, yes, maybe it should, but that would make the items less exclusive. Most of the time DLC like new outfits and such is usually some of the most powerful items in the game and is pretty exclusive, so if you want to pay for it, its fine by me

 

[El Camarado]

(ie: if the game is $60 for 60 hours of gameplay, then $10 for 10 hours would be perfectly fair, and $10 for, say 7-10 hours would be reasonable.)

Except that very few games even approach 60 hours (nor should they), so your whole system is broken.

How so? It is all just proportions. What I mean is that if a DLC costs one-sixth of the price of the full game, ideally it should have one-sixth of the content. However it is perfectably understandable if it has less. Sixty hours is just an arbitrary value because it looks nice with $60, and because I was thinking more of games such as Fallout 3 (originally I was going to say 100 hours, but that is no less arbitrary.)

I would hardly call that broken.

 

[AlternatePFG]

I'd rather only have more expansion packs to be honest. I don't like paying for 2 hours of content, even if it is cheap.

 

[Continuity]

(ie: if the game is $60 for 60 hours of gameplay, then $10 for 10 hours would be perfectly fair, and $10 for, say 7-10 hours would be reasonable.)

Except that very few games even approach 60 hours (nor should they), so your whole system is broken.

but he has a very valid point, what you get should be in proportion to what you pay. now what exactly that constitutes will vary from genre to genre but the principal remains the same (in most genre gameplay hours is a perfectly reasonable measure, but it won't necessarily suit all genre).

The actual problem with that of course it that the developer will always be guaranteed lower sales for their DLC than for the actual game (as its market is restricted to owners of the original), therefore the fixed costs of production per unit gameplay rise, and so of course the relative value has to decrease in order for the developer to get the same rate of return on their work.
This is still fair, so long is its kept within reasonable bounds: charging 50% of the original games price for some DLC that adds 1/2 hour of gameplay is not reasonable when the original game had 80 hours gameplay.

 

[BENZOOKA]

DLC should play the role of not existing anywhere else than on the original product. They are a cancer.

 

[Cheesus333]

You ever played Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare? Basically, it should be that.

I.e. just a little more of everything that made the full game what it was, with a new twist or angle on top: in this case, a Zombie Western style. And all for 800MSP!

 

[GonzoGamer]

I dont see anything wrong with releasing DLC on a games release date. If people feel like buying extra stuff for their games i'm fine with that, its not like anyone is forcing you to pay for it. You may say that it should just be in the game to begin with. Well, yes, maybe it should, but that would make the items less exclusive. Most of the time DLC like new outfits and such is usually some of the most powerful items in the game and is pretty exclusive, so if you want to pay for it, its fine by me

Yes it isn't such a big deal when it's little in game items but when its gameplay content (like my above example with LA Noir) being released at launch I feel like I'm being taken advantage of. That's even worse because they have different gameplay missing depending on where you buy it, so no matter what there's content out there at launch, that (if you like the game) you will have to pay more for.

I'd rather only have more expansion packs to be honest. I don't like paying for 2 hours of content, even if it is cheap.

Yea.
That's pretty much the only kind of dlc I'll buy, but only if it's not a complete rip-off which most of them are.

In fact the only game I've played this gen that had really good consistent content for a good price was Borderlands.

R* started off as one of the worst this gen. With $20 mission packs that were console exclusive for gta4 and multiplayer additions to RDR for $10 each. I was really surprised when Undead Nightmare hit and was a relatively reasonable $10. Not the value of of a Borderlands pack but not the ripoff that their earlier packs were.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

My first reaction was to say they should be most like expansion packs, adding a decent amount of actual stuff. But I don't want to just throw away smaller DLCs just because. I hear good things about the smaller Oblivion expansions, and I kinda liked the ME2 DLC guns. I guess I just don't want to be ripped off, and I'll judge that on a case by case basis.