Would the gaming industry be better off without dlc?

[psychguy57]

I personally feel like DLC are the embodiment of what is wrong with the gaming industry. They do add things, i will give it to them for that, but they are making us pay more for the game that we should have been given in the first place. There is even some proof that some of the DLCs were going to be apart of the game in the first place... i.e. Omega DLC for Mass Effect 3. I agree that they are the new name for what was expansion packs, but at least those brought more to the table than maybe a new mission and weapon in most games. Call of Duty is the biggest offender. More money just to make a games multiplayer last longer. I hope that one day we work our way out of this hole we have found ourselves in. But until then I guess I'll just spend 60 USD for half of a game.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No. Arbitrarily limiting the options the games industry has is not going to improve it. On top of that, the concept of DLC and what constitutes a DLC, an expansion pack, an episodic series, or anything that involves multiple discrete portions to a game is ill defined. On top of that what constitutes good or bad DLC is a coin flip. Right now customers are usually completely ignorant of how game development works (No, STFU, I know that's true, even game development students don't start out knowing jack squat), and there scared that DLC represents some major down fall. There are so many argument against it based on "I think this company is doing X horrible thing" when they have no evidence to suggest that's the case. All this hate against DLC strikes me as knee jerk reaction and what's more is that with time DLC could lead to different monitization models for games and could end the tendency of a one-time sale for games which pervades in everything except MMOs.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't know about that. After all DLC could just be the natural evolution of the old fashioned expansion pack, however having said that I do think the concept has been greatly abused by many companies.

 

[Thoric485]

Ignoring the pricing, quality, or method of distribution, the main thing I don't like about piecemeal DLC is the way it's integrated.

It's supposed be "just another item/mission/companion/map", but because it's something people pay for, different rules apply - items get dumped into your backpack at the start, breaking gear progression and missing out on an opportunity for a cool reward through questing or exploration. The missions are set up in such a way they can be immediately accessed, from anywhere from any point in the story, so they're severed from the rest of the game and a meaningful connection with the plot, same with the companions. And map packs in games coupled with matchmaking really limit the amount of people you can play with.

This is all a direct result of these little content additions having a price tag, and it's why I love that The Witcher games' Enhanced Editions are free. Not because I can get them without paying, but because the developers can make changes and additions without fretting over "how does this justify the price tag", "how does it compare to our previous paid DLC", "how will we ensure every player accesses it" and so on. The end result is an overall improved, polished and cohesive game, rather than an outdated core with a bunch of gimmicks held together by duct tape.

 

[Auberon]

DLC as huge expansion packs (ToB-style) - good
DLC as cosmetic items - good
DLC as something seriously gameplay/story-affecting - generally bad
DLC as in Disc-Locked Content - ruined the industry

 

[Icehearted]

Yes, without a doubt. Game makers would have more incentive to complete their releases rather than withhold content for whatever reason of push deadlines harder on their devs and not use the rest of the game or it's missing parts as a means of fleecing people later. Costume packs and weapons such as they did in Mass Effect are especially terrible because they're obviously withholding content and in some cases should be giving this sort of thing away. Fans do it all the time, and as memory serves these are the sorts of thing that used to come built into games before the exploitation of micro-transactions started.

Also there this (sorry not an escapist link)
http://www.destructoid.com/npd-only-6-of-consumers-downloaded-dlc-185099.phtml

I think the real question should be "Would The Gaming Industry Be Better Off Without Hard Drives?" The kind of laziness that leads to day-1 patches would then have to kiss our collective asses and they'd have to actually FINISH the product before release. Since these are not PCs they should already know exactly what's happening and exactly how to cover themselves prior to release. Different SKUs? Take that up with console makers, we're the one's being fleeced here.

 

[TheProfessor234]

Just like anything else;

If DLC is used right and adds on, it turns out great.

If used wrong and takes/locks away, turns out terrible.

Edit: Just want to add, DLC isn't the problem, people who use it are.

 

[RandV80]

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!

Pretty much this. DLC makes sense for console games but for PC it's been horrible as they've replaced the meatier expansion packs with smaller bite size offerings often of things PC games used to get for free. It's kind of a problem since so many things are cross platform these days.

 

[ArkhamJester]

Seriously!? No one has brought up the prince of persia reboot? You know the game that ending with the bad guy (Ahriman) getting loose and you had to pay for a DLC to play through the end? FF 13-2 didn't do this it was merely accused because the game ended on a cliffhanger and Enix announced DLC that would "expand" the story (anyone that actually played these DLC's will tell you they really didn't) point being PoP reboot did it for reals ff13 2 merely ended on a cliffhanger, DLC or not.

 

[Elfgore]

My opinion is that a game should be able to keep me entertained enough without DLC. Because at that point the company responsible is just sucking money out of my wallet at that point.

For example Skyrim. The game has enough content on the disc to keep my occupied, and then they release DLCs to keep me playing longer. I like that kind of DLC.

A bad example would be Mass Effect 3 with the very bad ending. If I had lived in my old home I would have still had that terrible ending as I lacked any king of decent internet connection to download the extended cut on. (I understand it's free but the principle is what matters).

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Structurally? Yes. I'd much rather pay for a complete game that does what it sets out to do and doesn't overstay its welcome. A good chunk of modern DLC strategies seem to involve cutting up content from the main game and releasing it later as optional content - even when you can plainly tell it was being developed as part of some initial "core" experience.

This is what needs to change. If you're doing DLC, make it seem OPTIONAL. Give me a complete story and a satisfactory campaign first. Let me decide if I'm up for paying you more cash for extra content. In that respect, a lot of games could do without the DLC model and ship as a complete package.

Financially, no. Today's games are expensive to produce. Traditionally, we like to imagine publishers as wringing their hands in evil glee at the thought of wrestling us for fifteen, twenty or thirty extra bucks. It's unfortunate, but DLC is being used as an artificial means to lift up the price point of a game. When all is said and done, you'll have spent 80 or 90 bucks for a 60 dollar game. Maybe even more. The sad part is, most AAA studios need every scrap of cash this brings in.

We like to think DLC money warps into John Riccitello or Bob Kotick's pockets and skips the dev team production chain - but it doesn't.

The easiest solution would be for AAA publishers to produce more and charge more. You'd get the equivalent of a single game, plus DLC, for about eighty bucks. As logical as it seems, nobody would back that formula. Sixty bucks is more than enough as a price point for most of us.

 

[deathzero021]

doesn't matter to me. i never buy DLC. i don't even own many AAA titles. indie titles rarely have DLC. the ONLY DLC i have gotten was for Serious Sam 3. it was pretty decent. got it on a Steam sale. was pretty cheap and came with 3 decent levels and a new boss.

i suppose it can do well sometimes, if done right. the problem is how AAA companies abuse the concept. Which is why i don't support them or their shitty games.

 

[sethisjimmy]

Nope, DLC is pretty great. Especially free DLC, but paid is cool too. It tends to elongate the life of games that would normally just die and get put on the shelf a month after release. Alternatively it could be some stupid shit like skins or multiplayer maps and I would choose to not download/buy it and there's no harm done.

Now charging to unlock multiplayer or something like that, just to fuck over people who bought the game used, that's just being a dick. But that's not usually DLC, just DRM, as the game most likely has all the files needed to run that section of the game, it's just locked away.

 

[Cheesus Crust]

DLC as huge expansion packs (ToB-style) - good
DLC as cosmetic items - good
DLC as something seriously gameplay/story-affecting - generally bad
DLC as in Disc-Locked Content - ruined the industry

Very nice, simple and easy to read and agree with.

 

[UniversalRonin]

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!

Utter genius. I had never thought about it that way. I always just thought about it as a pain in the bum. But that just expanded my mind to the brilliance of it as a business model. I hadn't noticed the lack of expansion packs before you mentioned, but now mind= not quite blown, but definitely illuminated.
Ta Chuck.

 

[RedmistSM]

Some are more inoffensive than other, but by and large, I'd prefer if it didn't exist. Asura's Wrath had the true ending as DLC. Stuff like that's pretty bad, and I don't feel the good ones like Lair of the Shadow Broker make up for it. In series that have sequels that are very similar and come out either every year or every other year, that content can be used in the next game instead.

 

[Cheesus Crust]

My opinion is that a game should be able to keep me entertained enough without DLC. Because at that point the company responsible is just sucking money out of my wallet at that point.

For example Skyrim. The game has enough content on the disc to keep my occupied, and then they release DLCs to keep me playing longer. I like that kind of DLC.

If I recall correctly Jim once talked about it during one of his shows, I just keep forgetting the number of the episode I'm talking about.

 

[Squilookle]

This is the easiest question I've ever been asked here.

The answer is yes. It would be -just as it always was- better without DLC.

Any advantages to DLC (that being more content) used to be covered by expansion packs. They weren't any small episodic additions either. In the 90s and early 00s expansion packs really had a lot of content packed into them. It wasn't as much as the full games they ran through, but it was well worth the price they came for. DLC prices vary wildly, but the content they have is invariably stuff they could have just tucked into the main game, but chose not to. More often than not it's just a few skins. An extra weapon. Some stupid carrot to dangle in front of those stupid enough to pre-order.

My main gripe with DLC though, is something entirely different. Before there was DLC, especially on consoles there was real weight to the idea of a game 'going gold'. Once it shipped and was released that was it. The team making the game knew perfectly well that if they wanted their game to sell, it would have to be solely on the merits of what the game had to offer when it first arrived.

What did that mean? They busted their arses making their games as good as they possibly could before release. I understand that if a game was broken it would stay broken forever, but you can't polish a turd- if a game goes all the way to release and still sucks, there usually isn't much DLC can do to fix it, and considering how lazy DLC is, it's hardly suprising. Just look at today's environment where devs have an overwhelmingly cavalier attitude to releasing finished games. "Oh we'll fix it post release." "Oh just finish that car later and we'll ship it as DLC" "hey, we could charge extra for that""What a great idea!" It makes me sick to see such blatant profit over quality business strategies everywhere, and what's worse is the consumers just eat it up like a flock of mindless sheep.

On PC it's not so different. We always had patches, and still do. They bear the brunt of the important stuff- bux fixes, tweaks and balancing issues, removing exploits etc. A while ago they even used to include free maps. Free maps! These days they'll whack a pitiful group of 4 maps together and release that as if it was some brilliant DLC deal.

If I had the ability, I would tear away the gaming industry's ability to release any kind of post-release content save for patches and full blown expansion packs. Those developers can crack whips over themselves all they want as far as I'm concerned until they start releasing finished games once more.

 

[McMarbles]

I think DLC should be treated like "Hey, you liked our game? Well, here's some more of it!"

Instead, certain companies (I'm not naming names, but it rhymes with Shmapcom) are treating it as "Hey, you liked our game? Well... here's the rest of it! Which you happen to have already paid for once!"

 

[Bocaj2000]

I love addons, patches, DLC, expansions, and other additional goodies. A game is never done; it is just deciding what more to include.

DLC is good in small doses. For alternate costumes or for a gun pack, it's fine. However, when it involves enough content to fit into an expansion pack, there is a problem. I don't want to buy this shit separately; I want to buy it all at once. I can wait a few months if that means that I get a shit tone of bonus missions and additional endings... but when they come out one at a time, I don't buy them. I wait for packages to come out. There ARE people who buy immediately, but I'm not one of them.

It's all a matter of preference. DLC isn't ruining the industry; the industry just doesn't know how to use it.