To DLC or not to DLC, that is the question.

edited March 2012 in General Chat
What are your thoughts on DLC?

So far, I've heard two camps: those who feel that DLC benefits games by allowing for development of small batches of bonus content that may otherwise not have been released; and those who feel that developers use DLC as a way to release unfinished games and then later fleece consumers for as much money as possible.

Are there any games or DLC packs in particular that make or break your support for DLC in general?
«13

Comments

  • edited March 2012
    If the game feels large and complete, I'm good with it. If vital parts of background, plot or completion are restricted to DLC, then bah.

    For instance, Nyah Cat has DLC that includes costume changes like Pothead Nyah Cat and Rave Nyah Cat. Cool stuff. Dragon's Age has
    704358679_ayGHY-L.jpg

    I liked Batman's DLC to get Robin and Nightwing. Cosmetic and new campaign challenges for cheap. Nothing critical to the game, just added fun.
  • edited March 2012
    I like it on the WWE games because they can add new wrestlers to the roster to keep it fresh after you played it. And there all pretty cheep as well.
  • edited March 2012
    I absolutely hate Capcom's DLC. There is NO POINT in having all the characters already-on disc if you need to pay to unlock some of them. I'd get if the character files were included in later, mandatory updates for online compatibility, but for ones already on-disc? No.
  • edited March 2012
    I absolutely hate Capcom's DLC. There is NO POINT in having all the characters already-on disc if you need to pay to unlock some of them. I'd get if the character files were included in later, mandatory updates for online compatibility, but for ones already on-disc? No.

    Yeah that's dumb.
  • edited March 2012
    I thought the Catwoman thing was pretty stupid. Announcing it as ingame...then all of a sudden it's free DLC and you have to sit and download more after buying Arkham City. I know this example doesn't fit in with the general debate, but it was DLC done wrong. If they straight up announced it immediately as free DLC with game purchase, it would have been different. That brings up DLC unlocks for disc data.... which is complete bullshit. THAT, I hate. I don't really have a problem with most DLC as the majority of large scale games tend to have rereleases that contain everything. Paying more for something new is generally how things work in life. On the other hand, I've heard of games that end midclimax and continue on DLC. I also disagree with that.
  • edited March 2012
    It's a nice idea in theory. I'm fine with it as long as the DLC is something susbtantial that adds to the game, though the game itself needs to still be a complete product in its own right. Borderlands is a good example of DLC done right.

    However, most companies are only interested in abusing the system to squeeze more money out of customers. Paying for purely cosmetic stuff just seems...frivolous to me. And Day 1/on-disc/pay-to-unlock DLC is just plain unethical. In any other business, charging full price for an incomplete product and expecting them to pay extra for the rest would be illegal.
  • edited March 2012
    I was typing a reply basically in favor of on-disc dlc and I accidentally closed the tab and lost the whole post. Screw it, I'll take that as a sign.

    But seriously, a game isn't a pound of bread. There's no unit of measure that constitutes a "complete" game. People act like the extra content would be included free if there was no concept of DLC, but it's just as likely that the extra content wouldn't exist. Companies are basing their budgets with X dollars toward the main game and X dollars toward the DLC, and the delivery method of the final content is irrelevant if the man-hours to make it came from a budget based on people paying extra to use it.

    Of course, I prefer when DLC is actually developed later, because that allows it to be more dynamic and reactive to player feedback, or in the case of something like Rock Band, it allows the game to keep living forever. Which is cool.
  • edited March 2012
    Johro wrote: »
    I thought the Catwoman thing was pretty stupid. Announcing it as ingame...then all of a sudden it's free DLC and you have to sit and download more after buying Arkham City. I know this example doesn't fit in with the general debate, but it was DLC done wrong. If they straight up announced it immediately as free DLC with game purchase, it would have been different. That brings up DLC unlocks for disc data.... which is complete bullshit. THAT, I hate. I don't really have a problem with most DLC as the majority of large scale games tend to have rereleases that contain everything. Paying more for something new is generally how things work in life. On the other hand, I've heard of games that end midclimax and continue on DLC. I also disagree with that.

    I don't have a problem with it since it was essentially painless copy protection.
  • edited March 2012
    It's a nice idea in theory. I'm fine with it as long as the DLC is something susbtantial that adds to the game, though the game itself needs to still be a complete product in its own right. Borderlands is a good example of DLC done right.

    However, most companies are only interested in abusing the system to squeeze more money out of customers. Paying for purely cosmetic stuff just seems...frivolous to me. And Day 1/on-disc/pay-to-unlock DLC is just plain unethical. In any other business, charging full price for an incomplete product and expecting them to pay extra for the rest would be illegal.

    But see, frivolous is exactly the sort of DLC I don't have a problem with. If I want to spend a dollar so my brutebot can wear a silly hat, that's my one dollar. It's non critical to the game, it doesn't add or subtract anything substantial.

    Likewise, I don't mind paying for a substantial DLC, like an extravagant mission pack that adds almost another story.

    The one thing I agree is when stories and plots are left to DLC as a way to goad players into purchases. I didn't pay to be left dangling.
  • edited March 2012
    those who feel that developers use DLC as a way to release unfinished games and then later fleece consumers for as much money as possible.

    And those people are wrong. Creating extra levels and implementing them into a game is not that simple and cheap, it requires a whole lot of forward planning and money. Ask anyone in the industry, the people making the games, they'll all tell the same thing: DLCs exist to fight used games market, by keeping the used games shelves empty and lowering the value of used games, and to fight piracy, by requiring you to log on their servers to validate the legitimacy of your copy.

    People are less likely to pirate or resell their games when there's a DLC around the corner, and they're less likely to buy a game used if there's a pre order bonus or a zero day DLC requiring a one time use activation code the guy who owned the game before them most likely redeemed. The couple of bucks you shell is peanuts for companies making DLCs, it barely covers what it cost to produce them, the bread and butter for these companies is the fifty bucks they get whenever they sell a new copy.

    Personally, as long DLCs add extra hours of gameplay and not useless skins and armors for your mounts, I'm in. I've always been a sucker for expansion packs. Console/system exclusive DLCs and contents, now that pisses me off.
  • edited March 2012
    DAISHI wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with it since it was essentially painless copy protection.

    I don't have a problem with doing it either. It was just stupid how they announced it as part of the game... then when it was released, "oh yeah, by the way, you have to redeem a code and download it". I don't mind this sort of copy protection, but just tell us that to begin with.
  • edited March 2012
    Johro wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with doing it either. It was just stupid how they announced it as part of the game... then when it was released, "oh yeah, by the way, you have to redeem a code and download it". I don't mind this sort of copy protection, but just tell us that to begin with.

    Okay, this I can understand. Nobody likes false advertising.
  • edited March 2012
    I don't feel any sort of moral outrage over DLC, most of it is just pretty lousy. I definitely preferred the expansion packs of yore though.
  • edited March 2012
    DLC can theoretically work. Like someone mentioned, in the case of Rock Band it's a great idea in order to keep the game relevant. Me and my brother-in-law had a lot of fun looking through the hundreds of available songs. There's no way you could say "they should just put them all on the retail at first" in that case.

    But frankly, I just do not understand how someone could spend real money on outfits and cosmetic stuff like that. I assume it would be easy to program, and there are lots of people out there that buy it obviously, so it makes business sense and I don't begrudge the developers for doing it, but I just don't get it. What difference does it make if the character's shirt is a different color? How can this possibly make you have more fun with the game? But then again, I'm the guy who's always decrying the overemphasis of graphics and cinematics in modern video games at the expense of gameplay and length.

    As for new missions and characters and that kind of thing, the only DLC I've bought in this category would be the Zaeed one from Mass Effect 2, and it was a mistake. A pretty lame excuse for a character, and the mission was bleh. Maybe I just got the wrong DLC for this game. It left a bad taste in my mouth though, and I think I'll just stick with retail versions from now on.
  • edited March 2012
    johnnyt471 wrote: »
    DLC can theoretically work. Like someone mentioned, in the case of Rock Band it's a great idea in order to keep the game relevant. Me and my brother-in-law had a lot of fun looking through the hundreds of available songs. There's no way you could say "they should just put them all on the retail at first" in that case.

    But frankly, I just do not understand how someone could spend real money on outfits and cosmetic stuff like that. I assume it would be easy to program, and there are lots of people out there that buy it obviously, so it makes business sense and I don't begrudge the developers for doing it, but I just don't get it. What difference does it make if the character's shirt is a different color? How can this possibly make you have more fun with the game? But then again, I'm the guy who's always decrying the overemphasis of graphics and cinematics in modern video games at the expense of gameplay and length.

    As for new missions and characters and that kind of thing, the only DLC I've bought in this category would be the Zaeed one from Mass Effect 2, and it was a mistake. A pretty lame excuse for a character, and the mission was bleh. Maybe I just got the wrong DLC for this game. It left a bad taste in my mouth though, and I think I'll just stick with retail versions from now on.

    The point of cheap costume switches is exactly that they're cheap, produce an immediate fulfillment sensation and then the thrill is gone. You paid your money's worth (hopefully).
  • JenniferJennifer Moderator
    edited March 2012
    I like DLC in some instances, like the extra stories in Costume Quest and Stacking.

    Other DLC I've seen seems like they should have been in the game to begin with, like having to buy the DX additions to Sonic Adventure as DLC.
  • edited March 2012
    DAISHI wrote: »
    The point of cheap costume switches is exactly that they're cheap, produce an immediate fulfillment sensation and then the thrill is gone. You paid your money's worth (hopefully).

    If it gives you enjoyment, then go forth and buy new costumes! It doesn't make any difference to me. But personally, I don't even like it when a game has unlockables that are cosmetic. To actually buy a game, and then have to spend real additional money for costumes, is just unthinkable to me.
  • edited March 2012
    johnnyt471 wrote: »
    As for new missions and characters and that kind of thing, the only DLC I've bought in this category would be the Zaeed one from Mass Effect 2, and it was a mistake. A pretty lame excuse for a character, and the mission was bleh. Maybe I just got the wrong DLC for this game.

    Kasumi is a much better character, and her mission is better. Also, the Overlord, Arrival and Lair of the Shadow Broker missions are good. The only problem I have with Bioware's DLC is that they aren't available through Steam. =\

    I'm not sure I like the idea of not being able to access my DLC if the company goes under, nor that DLC for BioWare's games never goes on sale.
  • edited March 2012
    johnnyt471 wrote: »
    To actually buy a game, and then have to spend real additional money for costumes, is just unthinkable to me.

    I thought the same but then Magicka had the Gamer Robes pack including a tentacle robe that I just had to buy.

    849197_0.png
    johnnyt471 wrote: »
    As for new missions and characters and that kind of thing, the only DLC I've bought in this category would be the Zaeed one from Mass Effect 2, and it was a mistake. A pretty lame excuse for a character, and the mission was bleh. Maybe I just got the wrong DLC for this game. It left a bad taste in my mouth though, and I think I'll just stick with retail versions from now on.
    Yes Zaeed was a quite bad DLC but it was free if you bought the game new / used the Cerebrus DLC key. And that is acceptable.
  • edited March 2012
    In my mind, there's basically 3 types of DLC.

    There's single-player DLC, which is generally extra missions and stories. The stuff made for Fallout would fall under this, as would Minerva's Den for Bioshock 2 and Piggy's Perfect 10 for Enslaved (to pick a slightly more obscure example). This sort of thing I'm absolutely fine with, because it feels like expansion packs of old, only smaller and (usually) cheaper. More companies need to collet all this DLC and release it as an actual expansion (ala Game of the Year or Ultimate Editions), because then I'd be more inclined to buy all of it, but yeah, I'm cool with this stuff (so long as the price is right).

    The second type of DLC is what I call 'cosmetic stuff', although most people would probably think of it as multiplayer-oriented extras. This is stuff like new maps and outfits that prolong the experience, but only in a small manner. Again, I don't have so much of a problem with this, but I find that it is almost always overpriced. It's also the sort of stuff you used to get for free (hi Epic, remember those bonus packs? Those were awesome). I'll occasionally pick one up, but I'll usually regret it afterwards.

    The final set of DLC is what I like to call the gamebreaking stuff. This is things like new weapons that are far, FAR more powerful then the ones you get in game, unbalanced characters, or experience boosts. This also includes basic quests that reward you with uber-powerful items, so hello Bioware! I am NOT OK with this sort of stuff, since it unbalances the original game in an incredibly unfair way, especially if you play online.

    In theory, I'm OK with the concept of DLC. The problem is that a lot of companies don't get how it should work and just release stuff that most people WILL NOT GET. All those extra vehicles for Just Cause 2? Why? The constant glut of stuff for the Dawn of War series? Who buys those?

    Honestly, I'd be happiest if we just returned to the good ol' expansion packs of yore. They seemed to work pretty well, giving a decent amount of single-player content at a fairly decent price. I miss them.

    But since DLC seems here to stay, I'd like to ask companies once again to consider a pack with all the DLC for a game. Surely that would make sense? OK, you might not make quite as much money, but it'd be so much more useful for a new player who's got the game behind the rush. I'm usually a while behind everyone else, and I can't imagine I'm the only one. It doesn't have to be on disc, it can be downloadable, but collecting it all together just seems like good common sense, and that would at least feel somewhat reminiscent of the good ol' expansion pack.

    Ah well, I'm waxing lyrical at this point. In short: DLC is OK, if done right. Which it rarely is outside of RPGs, and even then... it's very hit and miss.
  • edited March 2012
    If you've posted here a while you might know im a fan of littleBIGplanet that game does extra levels and cosmetic dlc right in my oppinion
  • edited March 2012
    The absolute worst DLC so far, but I won't really know because I neither bought the game nor played it, is the Epilogue DLC for Prince of Persia. Basically to get the true ending you'll have to dish out ten bucks. That is seriously milking it.

    Also, Capcom's on-disc DLC content was just BS and they should be castrated for that. I mean, sure, Mortal Kombat had *some* DLC on the disc itself, but the data wasn't really complete at all, and the rest of the DLC wasn't really on the disc at all. With Capcom, ALL data was on the disc. Both for Marvel vs. Capcom 3 as well as Street Fighter x Tekken. Oh yeah, and Street Fighter IV also. But I also think the one thing where Capcom dropped the ball is with Resident Evil 5 and its multiplayer DLC.

    One sort of DLC I absolutely think should at all times exist are songpacks for music games, like SingStar or Rock Band. Since the SingStore, SingStar really hasn't released a new SingStar version in quite a while, only releasing SingStar Guitar and SingStar Dance. That's an example of DLC done in a good way.

    LittleBigPlanet's DLC I have mixed feelings about. On one hand you have the costume packs and level packs. The costume packs are just for cosmetics, although you can use these costumes on NPCs in LittleBigPlanet 2. The level packs often don't just give new levels, in fact, they're only there to give you new level items, like stickers or materials. Both are pretty fun, and pretty optional. However, there are currently three level packs that basically are made essential. They're the Metal Gear pack, the Pirates of the Caribbean pack, the Move pack and the Muppets premium pack, for the Paintinator, water, PlayStation Move compatibility and Attract-O-Gel respective. I believe at least the Paintinator and water have been included in the games since the GOTY edition of LBP1, which means purchase of the first two packs is now optional when playing LBP2, however, I assume the latter two are still required purchases if you want to take advantage of everything. So yeah, there's that.
  • edited March 2012
    I feel that DLC shouldn't be necessary, but I always buy it anyway.

    I'm a terrible person.
  • edited March 2012
    GaryCXJk wrote: »
    The absolute worst DLC so far, but I won't really know because I neither bought the game nor played it, is the Epilogue DLC for Prince of Persia. Basically to get the true ending you'll have to dish out ten bucks. That is seriously milking it.

    And it's not even available on PC because we are a big bad bunch of pirates anyways. (official Ubisoft-guy response on the Steamforum).
  • edited March 2012
    der_ketzer wrote: »
    And it's not even available on PC because we are a big bad bunch of pirates anyways. (official Ubisoft-guy response on the Steamforum).
    And it's not even the real end to the story!

    You have to play the DS game The Fallen King to get any kind of resolution to the ongoing plot, since apparently Ubisoft have abandoned it now.

    Look - I'll admit the games weren't fantastic, but they were still pretty good. C'mon Ubisoft, what's going on with the franchise? The fans demand to know!
  • edited March 2012
    I wish Arkham would come out with some story DLC.
  • edited March 2012
    I was pissed off by Magicka's DLC. Not only did Magicka: Vietnam fail to provide the same kind of experience that I loved in the original game, it also started a change in the core game that started drifting further and further away from the game I wanted. The game is now very focused on PvP and high-difficulty instead of single-player or co-op fun. I don't play Magicka anymore, and I feel cheated out of the $5 I spent on the DLC that didn't even give a tiny fraction of the gameplay that came in the core game that cost $10.


    That said, I'm looking forward to the Trine 2 DLC, since I'm confident it will be more of the game I like (since Trine 2 was an excellent continuation of what I loved about Trine.)


    Bad DLC:
    - anything that never goes on sale (Mass Effect 2 DLC)
    - anything that provides less value per dollar than the main game did (ME2, Magicka)

    Good DLC:
    - Costume Quest (though I played it on PC, Gubbins on Ice would still have been a good separate purchase)
    - Free DLC (Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, Bastion, etc.)


    Generally these days, I tend to wait for GOTY / Ultimate / Complete editions of games if I suspect there is going to be a lot of DLC. I'm waiting on Batman: Arkham City because I have no idea what type of DLC they're putting out, or if I'll want it, but there's definitely been a lot so far. Fallout New Vegas was another I was waiting for the Ultimate Edition for, and I might pick it up when I need a new game.
  • edited March 2012
    Irishmile wrote: »
    i wish arkham would come out with some story dlc.

    ttthhhhiiisssss
  • edited March 2012
    figmentPez wrote: »
    Generally these days, I tend to wait for GOTY / Ultimate / Complete editions of games if I suspect there is going to be a lot of DLC.

    This. But I didn't see that happening for ME2. Or Worms Reloaded.
    I bought the Magicka complete pack but they still keep adding new DLC packs constantly which I then have to buy or not....

    also: waiting for a GOTY of Arkham City right now.
  • SydSyd
    edited March 2012
    I like DLC that is like a mini-expansion. It adds to the experience but players that don't have it don't feel like a core part of the game is missing. However, DLC that holds a crucial part of the story behind its pricetag I certainly don't like, but unfortunately it seems to be becoming more and more popular.

    For multiplayer games, I don't like DLC that gives the buyer a clear advantage that cannot be gotten through normal gameplay. I think it's alright if DLC can be used as a sort of shortcut to get weapons quicker for the more impatient people, though.
  • edited March 2012
    Syd wrote: »
    I like DLC that is like a mini-expansion. It adds to the experience but players that don't have it don't feel like a core part of the game is missing. However, DLC that holds a crucial part of the story behind its pricetag I certainly don't like, but unfortunately it seems to be becoming more and more popular.

    like cutting the end out of a game and later selling it as DLC. Ubisoft & Bioware have done it or will do it. And I don't like it one bit.:mad:
  • edited March 2012
    DLC is only good if its created with the intent to add value to a player's experience.
    (e.g. Fallout, Borderlands, Some Mass Effect DLC. You know, extra modes/mission packs/ side stories/ stuff thats not on the disc.... ect)

    DLC made for the purposes to just making cheap and quick money is just wrong, and the people that make it should be hunted down and be forced to wear horse armour, and have all their clothes locked away with several seperate keys for each item that they have to pay to go and unlock it.
    Hell we can go a little further, and ration how much stuff they can do in a day, and make them pay for "energy" if they want to do something else! XD
  • edited March 2012
    I wish Steam would let a person trade in a standard edition for goty for the difference in price.
  • edited March 2012
    Some games do offer upgrades (Assassin's Creed 2), but it's sadly on a game-by-game basis rather than all over Steam.
  • edited March 2012
    Seeing as Bioware are DLC kings i'll talk about them, specifically day one DLC, specifically 'From Ashes'. Specifically.

    Bioware are heaving with hubris at the moment, not only do they talk down to their fanbase at every turn this weather, telling them to stop thinking they're a games producer and the like and very ropey jsutifications for day one DLC.

    The justifications are mostly to do with how games are certified on consoles and how content is ordered and built, ignorant gamers like myself have to understand this.

    Fuck you Bioware, fuck you 4,000 times over.

    It's not my concern the struggles you have when making a game, it's not my concern what way you structure yourselves and it's certainly not my concern what your profit margins are and when you think is best to gouge the customers.

    What is my concern however is when I get my game home only on launch day. To see a great big ad on the main menu telling me that for 4,000 non-transferable chucky cheese points, I can buy a character of legendary origins, of a race central to the plot of the entire Mass Effect saga and his assorted mission.

    In my eyes that's incomplete, it's also goddamned cheeky to be doing it day one, the day that people turned over £40/$60 to you already. To ask me to care how you produced the content is borderline playing the victim. Stop it.

    Also the content's not worth the asking price, I bought the CE however because i'm a consumer whore so I got it 'free'.

    EDIT: I'm not anti-DLC or anti EA/Bioware mind. I thought Lair of the Shadow Broker for ME2 was excellent and a prime example of how DLC should be handled.
  • edited March 2012
    The only DLC I've bought (that wasn't part of a discount Steam sale thing or anything like that) was Realm of the Diggle Gods for Dungeons of Dredmor. I'm sure it's excellent content (adds on five extra dungeon levels) but seeing as I'm having a hard time getting through level nine... (or even level one on a bad day. Psh. Rogue-likes...) I really don't know if I'll be able to actually ever see the levels 11-15 that I bought for seventy-five cents.

    One day... one day... just you wait, Dredmor. I will come for you.

    And your little dungeon, too! [insane cackle]
  • edited March 2012
    der_ketzer wrote: »

    I thought this was Deus Ex 1 for Human Revolution for a second you jerk.
  • edited March 2012
    The only DLC I've bought (that wasn't part of a discount Steam sale thing or anything like that) was Realm of the Diggle Gods for Dungeons of Dredmor. I'm sure it's excellent content (adds on five extra dungeon levels) but seeing as I'm having a hard time getting through level nine... (or even level one on a bad day. Psh. Rogue-likes...) I really don't know if I'll be able to actually ever see the levels 11-15 that I bought for seventy-five cents.

    One day... one day... just you wait, Dredmor. I will come for you.

    And your little dungeon, too! [insane cackle]

    Have you tried messing around with the extra classes? Being a werediggle is far more useful than I expected.
  • edited March 2012
    Have you tried messing around with the extra classes? Being a werediggle is far more useful than I expected.

    I have tried a bunch of different classes. But by the time I get around to level nine, I've pretty much maxed out the aspects of the classes that I was using. Though, I'm pretty sure my current one could probably finish the original game. It was a pretty well built fighter type dude.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.