My Honest (Unpopular) Opinion about DLC's

I know there has been criticism about how DLC's take content that was already cut from the game and sell it at an additional fee.  For gaming companies, it's a way to combat the used-game market.  For players, it's really tacky and disrespectful.  But I have an opinion on this.

First, not every game is equal.  Just because there are $60 games does not mean they have the same amount of content, fun, replay value, etc in it.  This is just one of many ways of looking at it but if a game company releases a 15 hour game without DLC, it's no issue.  But if a company releases a 40 hour game and then cuts content out of the game to make a 4 hour DLC, it's suddenly a crime.

It doesn't matter if the content was cut from the game or made from scratch, it's the same question REGARDLESS.

1. Is the full game worth the price I can get it for?

2. Is the DLC worth the price I can get it for?

In the end, there's nothing wrong with a company wanting to make some extra money (we all want to make more money, yet when someone else is making money, it's a sin).  Companies OWE us nothing.  It's supposed to be an even transaction that benefits both the gamer and the developer.  If they aren't selling products people want, their sales will reflect that.  And the DLC (paying $15 on top of a full game you already paid for) is a matter of whether it's worth it to you.  If it's a company I love and a game I love, I don't mind at all.

But to say it's unfair is entitlement mentality at best, and ignorance at worst.

To say a 1998 Tahoe with all of its parts is better than a lamborghini with one broken or missing headlight (which is essentially the anti-DLC argument) is wrong to me.

I think DLC is a good thing because add its more to your expeirience with certain games! Anyway the DLC doesnt really cost that much anyway so there is no need to complain!

But to say it's unfair is entitlement mentality at best, and ignorance at worst.

drekula2

You should really delete that - there's absolutely no reason to be calling anyone names because of some utterly unimportant subject like people's opinion of DLC.  It makes you sound like a child.

[QUOTE="drekula2"]

But to say it's unfair is entitlement mentality at best, and ignorance at worst.

Jackc8

You should really delete that - there's absolutely no reason to be calling anyone names because of some utterly unimportant subject like people's opinion of DLC.  It makes you sound like a child.

I don't mean to single out anybody or generalize about everyone who is opposed to making DLC.

And I could have used better words.

But there is nothing wrong with raising prices to make a profit.  And just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad for everyone.

Charging for a DLC is just not the same thing as raising the price of a necessity like heat or water.

People don't like companies being greedy, however if they can get away with it there is very little reason for them not to be. I agree with you in a way but it's still frustrating because stuff like this never happened before in previous gens, I think it's something we'll need to get used to unfortunately. I actually think there are advantages to dlc, not quite the same thing you were talking about but for example I doubt battlefield 3 would be free on ps+ if they didn't have loads of dlc for people to buy after getting the core game for basically free.

I just think its odd how its greed when someone else wants to make money but it's not greed when we want more money.

my issue with dlc in a nutshell is that it's symptomatic of how we went from a situation where people made a game, intending it to be entertaining so that it could sell a lot of copies; to a situation where a game idea is used as a generator of revenue that requires the release of a game to get the whole process started. the problem is not the act of making money but the large increase in importance of money making, which more often then not tends to happen at the expense of things like creativity, fun, quality, etc. i would argue these to be more important than money.

If I payed for a full product I expect a full product. Just because I was getting a Lamborghini doesn't mean I wouldn't care about missing headlights. It's just plain sleazy to hold something so vital like that back from a paying customer and then to say that they're just feeling entitled would be a slap to the face.

I've never understood any reasoning behind "for the devs/pubs." It's not your responsibility to make sure they stay in business or get their cut. It's their job to figure out what the market wants/needs and to appropriately respond. The moment you hand the reins of the market over they'll walk all over you.

Now I personally don't care about post-release DLC. Once the game is out I couldn't care less about them making it, in fact I've enjoyed it quite a few post-release DLC's. But to buy a game and to find out I won't be getting a complete experience or I'll be missing vital info to the story if I don't shell out an extra $5-$15... yeah that's a quick way to lose a customer's trust.

I think DLC is a good thing because add its more to your expeirience with certain games! Anyway the DLC doesnt really cost that much anyway so there is no need to complain!

I-AM-N00B

I never complain about DLC.

If it makes you angry about the DLC...Don't buy...pretty simple

If the game has day one DLC and that pisses you off...Don't Buy it...once again... Pretty simple

Same with Season passes...people pay for them then get mad when contents released that's not included in the season pass, or when it takes forever for DLC to come out...or when not enough content is made. If you want to buy them then do so...if your just gonna complain then wait until the DLC is released and pay the couple extra dollars and know your getting what you want.

And myself just like everyone else have issues with the way the gaming industry is going but when its something such as DLC, the biggest thing I can do to show I don't approve of it is...DONT BUY IT.

The only thing that really annoys me that I don't know of ahead of time is buying a game with a huge patch that doesn't necessarily fix everything because the developer knowingly released a broken game

I've been thinking recently. In Japan there is a sub-industry of game spin-offs and entire games created for the purpose of fan service. I believe this is why you don't really see major DLC for Japanese games (I'm thinking very much of those intended for the Japanese market) beyond quite small stuff like costumes (generally speaking). We are talking games that are spawned from the popularity of a game/franchise, not a franchise built with DLC in mind ahead of time.

Compared to full-blown expansion packs or revivals (things like VF4: Evolution or Ninja Gaiden Black) DLC isn't good value for money. The problem arises when there is no longer an alternative avenue for additional content (expansion packs or the kinds of games I mentioned above). DLC is problematic because it is not only a low value proposition, but because it is the only proposition.

Occasionally though we get something brilliant like Blood Dragon. Which from what I've heard is good bang for buck.

The point about value is extremely important because it shows that 'don't buy it' isn't a viable counter to these practices.  When the profit margin is so big on these things they hardly have to sell any at all in order to make a killing.  And sadly that is why it doesn't matter if I don't buy it; someone else will, and their vote with their wallet is many times more heavily weighted than my vote to not use mine.  

I don't mind DLC if it's done right - a good DLC can pretty much be the equivalent of an expansion pack.  The problem is it's often times not done right, especially in the case of day 1 or on the disc DLC - it's taking content out of the game then charging extra for it - plain and simple.  It makes the effective cost of the game significantly higher - so if you get it day 1 instead of being an already expensive $60 it becomes $70-80.  It's not a positive in any way, shape or form - it's just making me pay more.  And quite frankly, I'm not going to fall for that shit.  

This is often why I don't buy a game when it first comes out anymore - why pay $60+ for the game plus DLC when you can wait a bit for the inevitable edition later which includes the game/DLC and offers it on sale for $20 instead?  You can always defend even the most annoying of these practices in a "everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for it" market view, but by the same token I say paying for some of this DLC is a flat rip off.  

Again, good DLC which gives a significant amount of content in addition to the full original game is fine because it's pretty much a more modern equivalent of expansion packs at that point - but some of the stuff is ridiculous.  For instance, black dye DLC in Fable 3 when it was included in Fable 2...really?  Also I know some people cite Bethesda for examples of good DLC and with Dragonborn for Skyrim which adds more area to go to, quests, new enemies, items, etc. I'd agree... but do I also have to remind people of the horse armor DLC?  Also, DLC for armor and weapons always struck me a stupid, especially on PC when I can just get free mods easily for the kind of thing...so why buy the DLC? 

My issue is when the DLC is something stupid, like a fighting game adding only 4 characters for one DLC pack (idk if this actually happens, just an example).  I don't like when the DLC contains important story information, because I wouldn't want to get a book and have a chapter missing, nobody would stand for that.  Though, while I do think $15 for a map pack is expensive I also see why they do it since people do buy them.  The only DLC I've gotten this gen has been for Skyrim as it really is like another 15-20 hours of gameplay.  Actually, most Bethesda DLC is worth it, which is nice when they package it all together on a single disc.

I cant say I mind DLC since 9 times out of ten it's not mandatory that you but it. In some cases though you're compellrd to buy it simply because it's there and you gotta have it. I site Injustice GAU as a prime example. I mean do I need every skin and every character, no but I'm gonna buy them anyway simply because they're there. Cant blame the developer from wanting to profit off my nerd like collectorism.

[QUOTE="Jackc8"]

[QUOTE="drekula2"]

But to say it's unfair is entitlement mentality at best, and ignorance at worst.

drekula2

You should really delete that - there's absolutely no reason to be calling anyone names because of some utterly unimportant subject like people's opinion of DLC.  It makes you sound like a child.

I don't mean to single out anybody or generalize about everyone who is opposed to making DLC.

And I could have used better words.

But there is nothing wrong with raising prices to make a profit.  And just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad for everyone.

Charging for a DLC is just not the same thing as raising the price of a necessity like heat or water.

The important thing you left out though, was the 2nd main reason for dlc, and that is to combat the used games market. It's more so that, than game companies trying to make extra money. That is what day 1 dlc is all about, has nothing to do with extra money.

The $60 retail price is a great point though and one I think about often. It's incredibly unbalanced in terms of price for game quality/quantity. I'm not going to pay full price for an 8 hour game when there are other quality games with more content.