Would the gaming industry be better off without dlc?

[Cheesus Crust]

I know that there have been threads about good and bad dlc or a person's experience with a dlc and those things aren't what I want to talk about.

I want people's opinions on how DLCs affect the gaming industry. Is the gaming industry better off with DLC or without it?

I ask this question because my own opinion on the matter is divided.

The reasons I like DLCs is that they give me more out of the game that I just bought, albeit at a price. I sometimes find it justified though, like in ME2 and lair of the shadow broker and the last dlc they released (I forget the name). Its sort of nice how BioWare used DLCs to bridge the gap between ME2 and ME3. Its like getting some material after the events of ME2 without having to buy extra materials that I don't care for like comics or books.

The reasons I don't dislike DLC is that the bad ones are, well bad, and the good ones strike me as things that should not have been DLCs to begin with. But, my major gripe with DLCs is that I get a sneaking suspicion that developers are spending more time on a title's DLC rather than working on making a better sequel. Worse, I sometimes get the feeling that developers might be holding themselves back so they have the option to add more DLCs later on for the extra cash it would make for them.

How bout you Escapist! ? What are your thoughts?

 

[Maxtro]

What I'm realizing is that DLC is the evolution of expansion packs. That's why they are so rare nowadays.

But instead of making a full expansion pack, they make something 1/4the size and charge half as much.

Brilliant!

 

[DoPo]

This makes no sense to me. DLC is the natural evolution of what the gaming industry has had before calling it DLC. And it's inherently neither good or bad. Saying that DLC should be removed sounds wrong on two levels - one, it's removing stuff that has always been around. What are extra maps or skins a new thing now? Or, like, quests and stuff? Sure, there has been some slight adaptation to the modern times but everything is essentially the same as before - extra content for the game. Now it's downloadable because both the devs and the players can afford it. Second, were we to remove it, it would be due to the conceived notion that it's inherently "bad". What, are we going to remove, say, hammers now because they are bad? I mean, you can really hurt somebody with a hammer, even kill them, let's just ban all hammers. Or tape measures, same goes for them. What, are you saying that some people are capable of using them not harmfully? Yes, DLC is just a tool in the dev's toolbox. yes, it can be misused, but so can games, and pretty much all the parts of your gaming system. Heck, the very fact that you're considering DLC, means, you have Internet connection - you could do lots of harm with that. Or, you know, not.

Whether or not the industry gets better in any way if if DLC is removed, I can't really say, but I can say that it would be worse in many ways.

 

[skywolfblue]

No.

Exclusive bonus content has been around for a very long time. Only now it's easily downloadable.

There's plenty of really excellent DLC, (Minerva's Den for Bioshock 2, Undead Nightmare for Red Dead Redemption, etc etc).

And the nice thing about bad DLC? You don't have to buy it!

 

[SlaveNumber23]

DLC isn't the problem, the problem is certain developers abusing it. DLC can never objectively be a bad thing because it depends on how the developers use it, just an opportunity that they can make use of or squander. Removing all DLC from the game industry will do nothing but harm it, robbing it of a very valuable opportunity for developers to add lots of extra content to their games well after the release deadlines. Greedy developers will still be greedy and just find other ways to squeeze money out of customers, they are the problem, not a neutral tool such as DLC.

 

[Cheesus Crust]

What about DLC that's on the disc, you're just paying for it to be unlocked? You ok with that? you're ok with them finishing the game, putting it on the disc then charging you more on top of what you paid for the game, to play what you already paid for?

This is actually an interesting point, I've heard about this before. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Kasumi was already included in the files when ME 2 first came out and it was supposedly just locked?

What I'm realizing is that DLC is the evolution of expansion packs. That's why they are so rare nowadays.

But instead of making a full expansion pack, they make something 1/4the size and charge half as much.

Brilliant!

I have nothing against DLCs I just wish that they'd make it more worthwhile to get them ya know?

Then again as someone has already said, the nice thing about bad DLCs is that you don't have to buy them.

 

[DoPo]

What about DLC that's on the disc, you're just paying for it to be unlocked? You ok with that? you're ok with them finishing the game, putting it on the disc then charging you more on top of what you paid for the game, to play what you already paid for?

This is actually an interesting point, I've heard about this before. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Kasumi was already included in the files when ME 2 first came out and it was supposedly just locked?

Just some files and whatnot, not the whole DLC. It's this thing called "shipping with unfinished features". It's been going on for a while - since software has been shipped around to be precise. In the disc with you can find some stuff from Fable the Lost Chapters - I think it was terrain and some other assets. Fable TLC was later released as an expanded edition, however you are not justified to feel "ripped off" for "being made to buy it again", since you never ever had it to begin with.

 

[Cheesus Crust]

What about DLC that's on the disc, you're just paying for it to be unlocked? You ok with that? you're ok with them finishing the game, putting it on the disc then charging you more on top of what you paid for the game, to play what you already paid for?

This is actually an interesting point, I've heard about this before. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Kasumi was already included in the files when ME 2 first came out and it was supposedly just locked?

Just some files and whatnot, not the whole DLC. It's this thing called "shipping with unfinished features". It's been going on for a while - since software has been shipped around to be precise. In the disc with you can find some stuff from Fable the Lost Chapters - I think it was terrain and some other assets. Fable TLC was later released as an expanded edition, however you are not justified to feel "ripped off" for "being made to buy it again", since you never ever had it to begin with.

So as far as history goes there hasn't been an actual game that already included the entire DLC when it was first released?

 

[Vegosiux]

And the nice thing about bad DLC? You don't have to buy it!

Yeah, well, while true good luck telling that to people who live in a consumerist society, 9 times out of 10.

As for the question at hand, I too prefer a good, wholesome expension pack myself. Ahhh, those were the days.

 

[DoPo]

What about DLC that's on the disc, you're just paying for it to be unlocked? You ok with that? you're ok with them finishing the game, putting it on the disc then charging you more on top of what you paid for the game, to play what you already paid for?

This is actually an interesting point, I've heard about this before. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Kasumi was already included in the files when ME 2 first came out and it was supposedly just locked?

Just some files and whatnot, not the whole DLC. It's this thing called "shipping with unfinished features". It's been going on for a while - since software has been shipped around to be precise. In the disc with you can find some stuff from Fable the Lost Chapters - I think it was terrain and some other assets. Fable TLC was later released as an expanded edition, however you are not justified to feel "ripped off" for "being made to buy it again", since you never ever had it to begin with.

So as far as history goes there hasn't been an actual game that already included the entire DLC when it was first released?

That I cannot say for sure, as I don't know. If I had to guess, there would have been. More than one, probably. I did say DLC can be misused, didn't I? What I am saying is that the Kasumi one wasn't one of these.

 

[Cheesus Crust]

What about DLC that's on the disc, you're just paying for it to be unlocked? You ok with that? you're ok with them finishing the game, putting it on the disc then charging you more on top of what you paid for the game, to play what you already paid for?

This is actually an interesting point, I've heard about this before. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Kasumi was already included in the files when ME 2 first came out and it was supposedly just locked?

Just some files and whatnot, not the whole DLC. It's this thing called "shipping with unfinished features". It's been going on for a while - since software has been shipped around to be precise. In the disc with you can find some stuff from Fable the Lost Chapters - I think it was terrain and some other assets. Fable TLC was later released as an expanded edition, however you are not justified to feel "ripped off" for "being made to buy it again", since you never ever had it to begin with.

So as far as history goes there hasn't been an actual game that already included the entire DLC when it was first released?

That I cannot say for sure, as I don't know. If I had to guess, there would have been. More than one, probably. I did say DLC can be misused, didn't I? What I am saying is that the Kasumi one wasn't one of these.

Yeah I gotcha, I just wanted a concrete example of something that used DLC in a bad way. I understand how some assets come before certain things even get released because that's often the case whenever I read unofficial patch notes for Dota 2.

 

[Cheesus Crust]

And the nice thing about bad DLC? You don't have to buy it!

Yeah, well, while true good luck telling that to people who live in a consumerist society, 9 times out of 10.

As for the question at hand, I too prefer a good, wholesome expension pack myself. Ahhh, those were the days.

Yeah, while I appreciate the DLC where you get an extra gun or map in multiplayer or what not, it just doesn't feel as substantial as getting an entire expansion pack like you said. Its like I have to pay like a third or half what the original game cost to get content that would last me less that a half or a third of the entire game. I know its a bit of a shallow argument, complaint or whatever but yeah it just doesn't feel as worth it sometimes.

Then again I shouldn't be complaining as much as I don't really buy crappy DLC anyway.

 

[DoPo]

Yeah I gotcha, I just wanted a concrete example of something that used DLC in a bad way.

Well, pricing can certainly be a way to exploit them. Say, an expansion pack could have costed X but if you break it into components and sell them separately, you can easily charge 2*X for the same content. An example of bad pricing is the infamous Horse Armor DLC for Oblivion. If you're not familiar, it is what it sounds like - armour for horses. Pretty cosmetic item that costed the whooping $2.50, hardly worth the price. You can just do the same with an expansion - depending on the game, just separate the content into chunks - say, cosmetic changes, new game mode, new units/weapons/other content and sell each individually for more money.

Another way to misuse them - cut out actual content of the game. I've heard Final Fantast 13 (was it?) thrown around as a name that does that but frankly, I don't know much detail - what I've heard is that the real ending is sold separately. Pretty shitty thing to do if true. At any rate, I'm sure that content extraction has happened, although I can't name games (don't know any). Similar to the expansion being sliced, you could just do the same with the game. It might not even be the end, it could be a level in between. I think Deus Ex: Human Revolution has that Missing Link DLC, not sure on how much of a "cut content" it is, but it does fit inside the game, as far as I know. It might be innocent, though, it might be something legitimately added later, but at least it shows how easy extracting a chapter is. Then there is Assassin Creed 2's missing bit towards the end. To their benefit, Ubisoft didn't really require paying, I just used achievement points to get it, but still.

Then there is the so called "pay to win". Although that phrase wasn't coined with DLC in mind, it still works - just sell the players options that actually make them way better. This undermines the whole concept of the game. Well, unless the concept is "who can spare more cash", that is but then that's not much of a game - you may as well have boxes where people put money, you count them, announce who has put the most money, then leave with the boxes. Meaning it's more of a cash grab.

And then there is paying for stuff that should have been included. As far as I know (and as far as assume), that hasn't happened yet, but it doesn't mean it can't or it hasn't. Basically, it's paying for support or features that should have been in the game. So, for example, bugfixes and the so called implicit requirements. Examples: bugfixes are easy - the game doesn't work as it should but you get charged for the patch. Vaguely related, recently Torchlight 2 got a patch that, among other things, added a couple of new pets. For some reason, Steam decided to advertise that as "Free DLC", when it isn't actually one - even the developers were baffled by that decision. Implicit requirements, on the other hand, are requirements not explicitly stated but trusted to be there - imagine you have an online heavy game (though maybe not an MMOG) that would released on, say, Windows and OS X. So it does get released, only the online component isn't working on OS X for one reason or another. The devs could have finished what they promised to the letter - deliver a game that runs, but not in spirit - it doesn't run how it should be running.

 

[Rawne1980]

The only DLC I own is those that came with GOTY, Ultimate Editions or bundles.

I never buy DLC on it's own and even the games I buy with DLC included I got for bargain bin prices on Steam sales or Amazon.

What makes me chortle heartily are people who willingly pay for map packs for shooters. General gamers have been making their own maps for those kind of games for years and it's pretty well known they can be shat out in an hour or two yet people willingly throw money at these things.

Remember that comment a while ago (i'll hunt it down when I get chance) about EA charging a dollar for a reload in Battlefield?

It would work because people will pay.

I can't say DLC or Dev's that abuse DLC are "evil" because they are only doing what they get away with. If people didn't buy it, they wouldn't do it.

So DLC, especially terrible DLC, is the fault of the people that buy it not the people that make it.

 

[Saregon]

Depends on the type of DLC and how it's used.

For example, LoL and TF2 use it quite well, making the game itself free, and earn their money through extra cosmetic content, as far as I know. Though, some games do the same thing, except also put in things to buy that will give you better equipment than free players, so-called "pay to win", which I really don't like. Battlefield 3, does this I think, where it doesn't lock you out from the equipment, but you do have to level up to get it, OR you could just slip EA a "few" bucks to unlock it from the get-go.

Then there are the DLCs that expand on a game's story and such, these are pretty much the same as expansion packs used to be, and correct me if I'm wrong here, and have largely replaced them. For me these pretty much depend on the game, but most of the time I won't buy them. Exceptions can be made with GotY editions and such, but by and large, I won't spend more on a game than the base price, simply because the vast majority of this type of DLC is very overpriced.

And then there's the type I personally loathe, and find to be a major part of what's wrong with todays industry. Map-packs. Yes. While they're not inherently bad, and can, and indeed sometimes do, increase the life of an otherwise good game by giving you more maps to play, a lot of the time, especially in AAA games, they're used as an excuse to ship a game with 5-6 multiplayer maps. I really hope I don't have to explain why this is a horrible tactic, it's pure exploitation of your userbase. I very much enjoy the BF3 multiplayer, but I will NOT buy any of it's expansions, or other DLC, because this, like CoD, is very much a milking cow for cash, and I won't support it. Look at Counter-Strike for example, there are THOUSANDS of maps for it, most, if not all, of which are free of charge, because they are mostly fan-made, and the most popular ones are then refined and re-released officially, and still free. And I'm not even going to go into the fact that CoD's Gun Game, One in the Chamber and so on modes were originally from Counter-Strike.

So no, I don't think the industry would necessarily be better off without DLC, they just need to be more responsible in how they use it.

The only DLC I own is those that came with GOTY, Ultimate Editions or bundles.

Also this.

 

[DoPo]

What makes me chortle heartily are people who willingly pay for map packs for shooters. General gamers have been making their own maps for those kind of games for years and it's pretty well known they can be shat out in an hour or two yet people willingly throw money at these things.

Yup, same here. Not to mention that the prices I've seen for map pacs are outrageous. Sure, I get profit margin and wanting some more of it but I think there as something like 4-5 maps for 20$ or something...it shouldn't cost that much. It couldn't. I know people who can whip up a map (on older games, but still) using not the in-house tools devs would have, and they would have been able to charge like 2-3$ per map and still turn up profit. They wouldn't even been able to offer the maps to as many people as the devs can.

Remember that comment a while ago (i'll hunt it down when I get chance) about EA charging a dollar for a reload in Battlefield?

Was it a reload? I remember something about buying bullets. I might be wrong, though.