Would free DLC encourage you to buy paid DLC?

[Rawne1980]

Nope. I don't buy DLC.

I take the free stuff but I don't buy any.

 

[JWRosser]

If it's a game I love then I'll gladly pay for all the DLC (Mass Effect, Fallout etc)...although free DLC is always nice. I think it's fair to say that they have to be reasonable in their pricing: for example, I loved Old World Blues (Fallout: New Vegas) and happily paid the full price for that, but then something like Honest Hearts, which was no where near as good I thought....eh. Of course, with a lot of games, sooner or later the GotY or Special edition comes out that has the DLC included...

 

[RedLister]

*in old man voice* arrrghhh back in mah day DLC was under a diffirent name. It offered 6-10 hours extra gameplay only cost about 2 pound more then standard DLC it was called an expansion pack.

They also offered more then just an extra mission(s). It also added weapons, characters, improvements to classes as well as new classes. instead of just a half an hour walk through a tiny optional mission which we see nowadays.

Edit: arrghhh beaten to it by Blunderboy.

 

[johnnnny guitar]

hmmm well wouldn't say it would encourage me to buy DLC BUT
I have an example of when I saw a developer do something that I loved so much I bought the game and that game is the Witcher 2 I hadn't even brought the first game but I loved how they wanted to do an enhanced edition FOR FREE to the people who already brought it so I picked up both witchers and LOVED THEM TO BITS and the reason I bought them was because a developer was kind and caring to their customer (I also got 2 great games in the process).

 

[Blunderboy]

THIS SHIT USED TO JUST COME WITH THE GAME. What happened?

*Old man voice*
In my day the game you bought was the game you got!

Really? I seem to recall these things called Expansion Packs.

Well, I was mostly referring to the very poorly done DLC that seems as though it was ripped straight from the game, as opposed to being made afterwards as an expansion to the game. E.g Characters in fighting games, frivolous things like cosmetic skins in most games, oh and the crazy stuff that Capcom is trying to sell off as DLC in Dragon's Dogma.

I like Dragon's Dogma, but the DLC being released so far has been stuff that really should have just been included in the game, and seems as though it was just initially created for the game, but then ripped out to be sold as DLC.

As I admitted in my initial post

Anyway, there have been some cases where DLC has been implemented properly in that, it content was created after release and the content is similar to an expansion on the game, nice, but not at all necessary. This kind of DLC is usually appreciated and happily paid for by those that want a bit more content out of that particular game.

That word was not used accidentally. I know about expansion packs. The DLC that seems most akin to an expansion pack is (are?) the type of DLC that I approve of.

However, I don't remember there being nearly the amount of expansion packs in the past when compared to the amount of DLC being sold today in modern times. I feel like this was because usually, expansion packs had a lot of time and effort put into them as opposed to some of the really lazy DLC that's created and sold to consumers nowadays. There was never an "expansion pack" to add a character to a fighting game. >:3

This is a statement based on no evidence whatsoever:
When comparing the number of games with DLC to the number of games that got expansion packs, I believe that it's clear that the number of games that have DLC vastly outnumber the amount of games that have expansion packs.

My bad about missing your expansion point. I do agree with you about poorly made DLC, but I simply don?t buy it. If I don?t buy it doesn?t affect me and if someone does want to buy it then hey, there?s nothing wrong with that.
This is why I?ve never understood the hatred of DLC as an idea, as opposed to against individual DLC?s.
In regards to your expansion pack vs DLC point, the answer seems pretty obvious to me.
Expense.
To produce and ship that many discs for the Expansion is pretty prohibitive and most studios would chose to focus on a sequel instead. But with DLC the only expense is the production costs. Thanks to digital distribution cutting a huge piece of the outlay out of the equation it makes much more sense to make DLC for games.
But again, that DLC should be worth it before I purchase it, but each person has their own idea of what is worth it.

 

[Dandark]

You know what is going to encourage people to buy DLC?

Making DLC THAT IS MORE THEN TWO WEAPONS AND AN ARMOR SET!

Seriously, like, despite what you may think about how Skyrim plays, the Dawnguard DLC is how DLC SHOULD be.

Was there DLC day 1? NOPE
Was there DLC on the disk? NOPE
Was there month 1 DLC? NOPE

Does the DLC actually have content worth its price tag? YES.

Activison charges what? 15 dollars for like 3 maps? Bethesda charged 20 dollars FOR AN ENTIRE EXPANSION?

I know what I am going to put my money on..... the thing with CONTENT.... you know devs.... the thing people WANT. More content... not rehashed maps from previous games.

Soooo much this. When I think of good DLC, Bethesda's fallout and elder scroll games are usaully what I think of. When I think of bad DLC, EA is what I think of. I love the good DLC but the crappy DLC annoy's the hell out of me and usaully makes me more likely to not buy the game.

Come on devs or publishers, whoever chooses the DLC. Make something good like Bethesda does, rather than releasing armour packs, why not make an expansion that introduces a giant new area or massive war or something that seems worth it.
And only release it a month or so after the game comes out, it's feels like im paying for a game twice when there is early DLC.

 

[devotedsniper]

Unless DLC is full on expansions there not worth the money in my opinion, i've paid for a some dlc and the majority of it cost me £5-10 for a max of 30mins it's not worth it when you consider the game you brought was 30-40 and that gives 8+ hours single player and then god knows how much on multiplayer.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

You know what is going to encourage people to buy DLC?

Making DLC THAT IS MORE THEN TWO WEAPONS AND AN ARMOR SET!

Seriously, like, despite what you may think about how Skyrim plays, the Dawnguard DLC is how DLC SHOULD be.

Was there DLC day 1? NOPE
Was there DLC on the disk? NOPE
Was there month 1 DLC? NOPE

Does the DLC actually have content worth its price tag? YES.

Activison charges what? 15 dollars for like 3 maps? Bethesda charged 20 dollars FOR AN ENTIRE EXPANSION?

I know what I am going to put my money on..... the thing with CONTENT.... you know devs.... the thing people WANT. More content... not rehashed maps from previous games.

More devs should definitely follow in Bethesda's footsteps. For games as well as DLC. Bethesda knows how to make a game that lasts. How many copies did they sell anyway? It was about 3.4 million in the first 48 hours last I heard.

 

[Dodgeboyuk]

one suggestion for one game and some other games could do with this as well!

example: mass effect 2

bundle all these seperate dlcs into one package as a single download and when installing it give me tick boxes so i can choose to add or not to add to my game


one major discouragement i have with the paid for me2 dlc is that i need to sit there and add up the points cost of all the dlc then i need to then figure out how much cash i need to get the points!
then i need to download each file seperatly and install them seperatly

Too meny hoops to jump though to enjoy extra content for that game