Are dlc,s a way to make more money or to make a game better?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Borrizee (428 posts) -
I don't really like dlc's gives me the idea of unfinished games.
#2 Posted by Justforvisit (2660 posts) -

For the one company they're the one, for the other company they're the other.

And for Minecraft, they're all free

#3 Posted by Jackc8 (8500 posts) -

It runs the gamut. Considering the way most kids will buy anything regardless of quality, the pendulum has swung in a very predictable direction; but there are exceptions.

#4 Posted by Archangel3371 (16153 posts) -
Both. You have to make money to stay in business after all.
#5 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

I don't really like dlc's gives me the idea of unfinished games.Borrizee

I was originally hoping that DLC would be a way to extend the life of a game, but it appears to be just a way to sell you pieces of a game over an extended period of time. I don't think it's a coincidence that campaigns have gotten shorter as DLC has become more prevalent.

#6 Posted by Borrizee (428 posts) -

[QUOTE="Borrizee"]I don't really like dlc's gives me the idea of unfinished games.capaho

I was originally hoping that DLC would be a way to extend the life of a game, but it appears to be just a way to sell you pieces of a game over an extended period of time. I don't think it's a coincidence that campaigns have gotten shorter as DLC has become more prevalent.

Same here but want to hear wath other people's opinions are. Dlc's is mostly about the money. Some people say do you work for free or that it is normal. But it's like buying a car but the wheels and seats must be bought separately. Greets
#7 Posted by jim_shorts (7320 posts) -

They can be both. Things like Fallout DLC really enhance the game, but other things just fall into the realm of paying for microtransactions that should have been in the game in the first place.

#8 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

i don't know that it's that simple. developers make the game and publishers have to find a way to monetize them, but there's a lot of back and forth in large releases. when arcades were central to how we experienced games, a system of lives and quarters became commonplace. DLC is the current way to monetize games in the face of rising development costs and developers seem to be struggling to make it work.

right now, i don't think it's working. there is small nickel & dime type DLC and large expansion pack type DLC. the small stuff feels so unessential to the games and developers obviously can't make it more important or they'll risk alienating users. expansion packs work a bit more because they can exist more on their own, but current development times limit their ability to be the "new games on the same systems" that expansion packs used to be.

#9 Posted by Fear- (499 posts) -
Both... They want to make money and it gives a chance for players that loved the game to play more and more, some people do DLC better then others.
#10 Posted by wiouds (5493 posts) -

I think that when DLC are more like the cash shop items in mmo then I think that it is a problem.

#11 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

Same here but want to hear wath other people's opinions are. Dlc's is mostly about the money. Some people say do you work for free or that it is normal. But it's like buying a car but the wheels and seats must be bought separately. Greets

Borrizee

Of course, any business is about money. Who can afford to work for free? It becomes an issue of the quality of the gaming experience for the gamer. It appears to me that game makers are reducing the length of campaigns while still charging the same prices as a way to increase profitability. It's a stealth price increase. They then sell additional missions or maps as DLC, which allows them to keep re-selling the same game to the same gamer. It's a rip-off, IMHO. I think there is a relationship between shorter campaigns, more DLC and the drop-off in game sales. I see other threads where people are pondering the drop in game sales as a sign that consoles are dying, but I think the problem is the diminished quality of new releases. A lot of gamers are not buying into the DLC concept, including me.

#12 Posted by tribalTox (802 posts) -

How you ever done something, anything, and later on told yourself, "Oh you know what could be cool, if I did [Idea] to this. That would make it better and cooler". I know not all DLC is like that but I'll give some of them the benefit of the doubt that it was just an idea that manifested during the finishing process of the game or after the game was released.

#13 Posted by punkpunker (3323 posts) -

in current gen context, making money.

i miss the days of expansion packs.

#14 Posted by SoNin360 (5667 posts) -
It's all about the money... but some DLC does actually add to the game, and that I don't mind so long as it's not released just after the game is and that it's fairly priced. Most DLC however is overpriced and much of it comes out within just a few months of a game's release anyway.
#15 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

Multiplayer DLC is a lame way to make money. Worse is the laughable amount of people that actually pay a lot of money for extra COD maps.

I like single player DLC though.

#16 Posted by wiouds (5493 posts) -

I think DLC become a problem when they are like cash shop items in free to play games.

I don't think that are bad. I have yet to see any reasonable proof they they were cut from the game.

#17 Posted by skooks (1411 posts) -

Both. I think some companies put out crappy DLC that they know will sell regardless of quality, whilst others are still making good DLC that actually adds to the game. It depends on the company and their mindset, whether they're purely in it to make money or whether they're interested in improving their game.

#18 Posted by Archangel3371 (16153 posts) -
I like dlc on the whole myself. I don't care if it's day one dlc or on-disc dlc if it's something I'll enjoy then I'll buy it regardless. I've purchased a fair amount of dlc both single player and multiplayer stuff and virtually all of the stuff I've purchased I have been satisfied with.
#19 Posted by MasterBrief (54 posts) -

Some DLC like the DLC in Borderlands 1 and 2 does add to the game and is actually worth paying for at a resonable price others like all the Capcom DLC for street fighter and MVC is all insanely overpriced and is just there to make cash. I can see how they might not have had time to put in some locations, quests and bosses and such in Borderlands or like the Dragonborn DLC for Skyrim, I get that but how you can't add in one or two characters or skins before the final cut in MVC is just stupid. It is obviously a shot at taking your money and the hate that was behind it back when it was going on is well justified. With DLC making a better game, it also depends. Some just make the game that is already great longer while other DLC like the expansion in Morrowind made the game even better. So it really depends on the nature of the DLC and who is making it. I really hate cosmetic DLC like Sleeping Dogs had I like more of the content enhancing ones like expansion packs those add to the game not a new dress.

#20 Posted by Kravyn81 (9438 posts) -
I find it ironic that one of the chief complaints about this gen is games are too short. Yet DLC is defended as being "worth it" when it only adds several more hours (at best) to an already short game. Can anyone connect the dots and see that by adding this supposedly "expanded" material that developer are simply selling you snake oil in the guise of "extra content?" Maybe if they didn't purposely withhold several hours worth of content that could easily fit into the regular game the complaints of games being too short would go away, but they aren't and instead seem to be proliferating. Are we beginning to see a pattern here? People are stupid and easily duped.
#21 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

I find it ironic that one of the chief complaints about this gen is games are too short. Yet DLC is defended as being "worth it" when it only adds several more hours (at best) to an already short game. Can anyone connect the dots and see that by adding this supposedly "expanded" material that developer are simply selling you snake oil in the guise of "extra content?" Maybe if they didn't purposely withhold several hours worth of content that could easily fit into the regular game the complaints of games being too short would go away, but they aren't and instead seem to be proliferating. Are we beginning to see a pattern here? People are stupid and easily duped.Kravyn81

That is precisely my biggest concern regarding DLC. Too many games are released with campaigns that are too short, like five or six hours. You have to extend them by buying more missions as DLC. The price of the initial release is still the same, but it contains much less content. Having to extend a five-hour campaign that was released at $60 by buying more missions is a rip-off. It's no surprise that game sales are down.

#22 Posted by skrat_01 (33767 posts) -
The reality is, both. Personally I think it's all a case by case basis; in some regards its a natural monetisation of modification styled content, and an evolution of expansion packs. Which is all good in theory, naturally you're going to get some terrible stuff as well as great.
#23 Posted by Archangel3371 (16153 posts) -
I find it ironic that one of the chief complaints about this gen is games are too short. Yet DLC is defended as being "worth it" when it only adds several more hours (at best) to an already short game. Can anyone connect the dots and see that by adding this supposedly "expanded" material that developer are simply selling you snake oil in the guise of "extra content?" Maybe if they didn't purposely withhold several hours worth of content that could easily fit into the regular game the complaints of games being too short would go away, but they aren't and instead seem to be proliferating. Are we beginning to see a pattern here? People are stupid and easily duped.Kravyn81
No I don't think so. It seems to me that most people who think games are too short also don't care for dlc. I'm more about the experience I get from a game then it's initial estimated play through time and I buy dlc that I will be worth it to me. It may not be worth it to someone else but that's irrelevant.
#24 Posted by The_Kryptonian (9 posts) -

The problem with DLC is the majority of it is created pre-release of the game. It's developed in the development stages of the game.

Over 90% of downloadable content is eye candy, made up visual cosmetics skins etc. While the other 10% is made up unlocking Multiplayer modes, maps, extra vehicles, characters.

I firmly believe none of the DLC content you see is originally created after the games release. It's developed in the gaming stages obviously, cause anything that alters the physical visuals of the game needs to be developed to work with the original. Unfortunately there is still a lot of people out there that fall for the exploits of these companies money grabbing ways.

I tend to research a games release before I buy it, read reviews. I have actually avoided buying certain PS3 games, due to the fact a lot of characters were removed from the game and put up as pay DLC. I suspect I'm not the only one who has done this and I think and hope more people in the future will do the same.

#25 Posted by MadVybz (2797 posts) -

It depends entirely on how the DLC is utilized.

Capcom, for example, uses DLC (laughably dubbed 'disc-locked content') for the sole purpose of making money with their fighting games; charging insane amounts of money for trivial things like costumes, characters, and other elements that could have easily been free. Street Fighter X Tekken really was a massive middle finger to the consumer, since the only way to enjoy the game's entirety is to cough up at least $20 to add to the retail price.

#26 Posted by DontGetBigIdeas (252 posts) -

It depends on what the DLC is. For example I'm a fan of Dead or Alive and in the past we just unlocked costumes by playing the game. Now all the costumes are pretty much DLC outside of three or four costumes for each character. That's pretty lame for me. On the flip side, Red Dead Redemption had a whole new campaign as DLC which was new game in it's own right -- a true expansion pack. That's DLC I'm OK with.

#27 Posted by Kravyn81 (9438 posts) -
[QUOTE="Kravyn81"]I find it ironic that one of the chief complaints about this gen is games are too short. Yet DLC is defended as being "worth it" when it only adds several more hours (at best) to an already short game. Can anyone connect the dots and see that by adding this supposedly "expanded" material that developer are simply selling you snake oil in the guise of "extra content?" Maybe if they didn't purposely withhold several hours worth of content that could easily fit into the regular game the complaints of games being too short would go away, but they aren't and instead seem to be proliferating. Are we beginning to see a pattern here? People are stupid and easily duped.Archangel3371
No I don't think so. It seems to me that most people who think games are too short also don't care for dlc. I'm more about the experience I get from a game then it's initial estimated play through time and I buy dlc that I will be worth it to me. It may not be worth it to someone else but that's irrelevant.

Respectfully, I disagree. It is relevant since it doesn't affect just you; it affects the ENTIRE industry as well as those who do not wish to buy DLC yet are still affected by games being diced up and sold a la carte because other people support that system. There is no "if you don't like it don't buy" argument because the industry is shaped by sales. Ergo, if people continue to support DLC this sends a message to developers that this is what people want when that simply is not accurate and cannot be used as a sort of rubric to determine what everyone wants.
#28 Posted by Kravyn81 (9438 posts) -

[QUOTE="Kravyn81"]I find it ironic that one of the chief complaints about this gen is games are too short. Yet DLC is defended as being "worth it" when it only adds several more hours (at best) to an already short game. Can anyone connect the dots and see that by adding this supposedly "expanded" material that developer are simply selling you snake oil in the guise of "extra content?" Maybe if they didn't purposely withhold several hours worth of content that could easily fit into the regular game the complaints of games being too short would go away, but they aren't and instead seem to be proliferating. Are we beginning to see a pattern here? People are stupid and easily duped.capaho

That is precisely my biggest concern regarding DLC. Too many games are released with campaigns that are too short, like five or six hours. You have to extend them by buying more missions as DLC. The price of the initial release is still the same, but it contains much less content. Having to extend a five-hour campaign that was released at $60 by buying more missions is a rip-off. It's no surprise that game sales are down.

Exactly. As gamers, and therefore outsiders to the process, we have no idea that these developers aren't holding back on purpose content that could easily fit into the game, yet they explicitly choose not to include it and act as if this was "supplemental" material all along. I don't care what anyone says but I don't trust them. And especially when there is money involved. At the end of the day developers are human and are susceptible to human failings--like greed.
#29 Posted by Archangel3371 (16153 posts) -
[QUOTE="Kravyn81"]Respectfully, I disagree. It is relevant since it doesn't affect just you; it affects the ENTIRE industry as well as those who do not wish to buy DLC yet are still affected by games being diced up and sold a la carte because other people support that system. There is no "if you don't like it don't buy" argument because the industry is shaped by sales. Ergo, if people continue to support DLC this sends a message to developers that this is what people want when that simply is not accurate and cannot be used as a sort of rubric to determine what everyone wants.

Why would I withhold buying something I like because someone else doesn't like it? It doesn't make sense. Other people's displeasure in dlc is irrelevant to my purchasing decisions. You can't please all the people all the time.
#30 Posted by wiouds (5493 posts) -

I have yet seen someone give ment reasonable proof that DLC is content cut from the game.