DLC: Love it or hate it?

In my experience most gamers despise downloadable content as feeding off gamers, providing them with half a game unless they buy the DLC.

However, I also know gamers that appreciate DLC extending the life of a game that they love.

How about it: Do you like DLC? Yes, no, and why?

Happy gaming,

Boz

I tend to come down more on the side of DLC rather than against it because it can add tremendously to the experience. I'll happily wade through all the weapon skins, costumes, map packs and horse armour that devs can throw at us if it means more treats like Minerva's Den, Lair of the Shadow Broker, Project Overlord and Pigsy's Perfect 10.

Depends on the content.

Lets take the Skyrim DLC for example. Vampires and werewolves do nothing for me so Dawnguard is a bust. Making your own house should have been in the vanilla game IMO so Heathfire is fairly craptacular, but then again it's only $5.

I think it's only outrageous when developers launch separate DLC the same day the full game comes out. That I just find criminal!

Day one DLC, on disk DLC and online passes are all in the same group...I hate it.

DLC in FPS games are welcome, but should be sold at a reasonable price like KZ3. They had all their map DLC for around $8 in one bundle. Their was a lot of good maps too.

CoD selling 2 maps with a zombie map for $15-$20 is ridiculous, but people pay it.

I think it's only outrageous when developers launch separate DLC the same day the full game comes out. That I just find criminal!

Amster_G

This is one of the things I want to understand. Why is this criminal?Bozanimal

I understand games can be very expensive to develop, but why can't they just cram those extra few multiplayer packs and weapons into the game? More money? Of course. I mean, they develop DLC as the full game itself is still in the works as well. If they could at least just not launch DLC alongside a newly released game... That makes no sense to me. I'm ok with DLC a while after a game's been launched.

I love the good DLC (GTA 4, Fallout 3/New Vegas, Red Dead, Borderlands, BC2 Vietnam, etc). I hate the bad DLC (Call of Duty, Saint's Row, those kind of stuff).

I love the good DLC (GTA 4, Fallout 3/New Vegas, Red Dead, Borderlands, BC2 Vietnam, etc).speedfreak48t5p

This exactly. Good DLC. Grand Theft Auto IV's DLC was pretty damn good. Fully loaded episodes with plenty of added things to do in Liberty City. It was like an expansion pack.

Day one DLC, on disk DLC and online passes are all in the same group...I hate it.

DLC in FPS games are welcome, but should be sold at a reasonable price like KZ3. They had all their map DLC for around $8 in one bundle. Their was a lot of good maps too.

CoD selling 2 maps with a zombie map for $15-$20 is ridiculous, but people pay it.

ristactionjakso

Agreed.

I don't have a problem with DLC, I have a problem with games being released incomplete. DLC to me, should be add-ons that genuinely came after the game was made. The fact that dev's and publishers plan on releasing DLC means, they already had those ideas whilst making the game, and therefore should be in the game.

I know I'm being somewhat idealistic, but at the very least like you said, DLC should be a reasonable price, and Day one DLC should Always be free. Infact, I'll extend that, I think any DLC releaseed within the first 6 months of the game should always be free.

I have no real problem with DLC. If they keep the price of games down then I do not have a problem with them.

Also if they want to have the game use DLC then they must make at least one DLC while they make the game. I guess I am saying that if they want DLC then the must have day one DLC as well.

It's not a yes or no question. That's like asking if I like food. I like ice cream and chicken but I hate crawfish. I like good DLC that provides enough value for the cost and doesn't hamstring the main game with broken design, but I hate bad DLC that makes it feel like I'm missing a core part of the game if I don't buy it.

One specific type I hate is map packs for multiplayer games. They are one of the worst because they split up the community and kill off part of the game.

It's a case by case basis for me. DLC that is already on the disc is never okay with my and I will never buy it. Extra costumes are usually a ripoff as well since they were just unlockable in previous gens. Some examples of DLC that I did like include expansions for Fallout3/New Vegas, The Missing Link for Deus Ex: HR, and a lot of the really cheap DLC that has come out for Magicka that has a lot of new content.

Valve is great with DLC sincei t is always free and gives me enough reason to revisit their games (Additional Portal 2 co op puzzles for example)

I liked some DLC that actually adds a lot to the game, like in GTA. GTA IV was a complete game by itself and fine without the DLC.

But in general I liked expansion packs back before DLC, those actually offered tons of content, compared to DLC nowadays is for stuff that should've been part of the game before for free. Stuff like extra clothes, weapons, little bonuses, modes and maps were all unlockables back in the day, now they offer the extras as DLC's instead as part of the package you pay for. The industry will only get worse, slicing off parts of games that were available for free before and making you pay for them as they are 'extra' and call you 'entitled' if you complain, when those parts were commonly part of the game in the past. In the past, developers would really put in the effort to put in extras and polish everything to make the best game they could, when it wouldn't have really made a different in sales, but they did it because they wanted to create games for people to enjoy and take in their world and ideas and now they've found they can make more money by selling them aside.

[QUOTE="Amster_G"]

I think it's only outrageous when developers launch separate DLC the same day the full game comes out. That I just find criminal!

Bozanimal

Sure, it does make sense. Business sense. Usually business interests do not have the consumer's in mind.

There was once an article written in Game Informer a few months back named "In defence of Day-One DLC", and I wrote in a letter. It'll save me the effort so I'll just paste it here...

"Having just read Joe Juba's argument in defense of day-one downloadable content, I have a few points I'd like to make. First off, where is the line to be drawn in what should be included in the initial purchase and what's to be included in the DLC? Joe claims gamers are upset because they are not getting fries when they only pay for a hamburger. Isn't it just as likely that gamers are not getting tomatoes, lettuce, and all the toppings from the get-go? Who's to know if that game content was initially a part of the main product, and why is it always assumed it was developed aside from the main game to be sold separately instead of cut out from the core game in order to be able to nickel and dime us? Joe states, "the presumption that a publisher owes you more content beyond the complete game you are purchasing is absurd". And how is the presumption that one is buying a complete game on release day not equally absurd, especially when finished content is offered right next to it with another $ beside it? Obviously it's not complete on day one until more money is spent. Who honestly believes a game released today with day-one DLC would not have that same content included if the game was released in a world where the net did not exist? The simple fact is, if developers and publishers did not have the Internet as a means to offer us this "extra" content on the same day the title hits the shelves, it would be included for free.

Secondly, Joe's right, it is ultimately about timing. A delayed release of DLC is indicative that it was material that was still in development at or started after the game's release and therefor could not have been stripped from what was originally intended simply to be able to charge at additional cost. When it's released at the same time that screams to me that it more than likely was removed, as it was playable from the start. Day-one DLC is outright insulting and should not be supported in any way, shape, or form. If it's finished content when the game is ready to ship, it should be included as part of the package on the shelf."

I know this isn't technically right, but rather the way I personally see things.

While the topic is completely about downloadable content, I actually pin the term "DLC" as being crappy little add ons that nickel and dime the consumer, or are just straight over priced. There's no good reason for the maps in CoD to cost $15, for example. Horse armor, bonus costumes, just a random weapon and little crap like that I tend to ignore.

So I 'spose it has something to do with how long I've played games that I respond more positively to DLC that is more synonymous with what "Expansion Pack" used to mean. If I pay $15 and get an expansive add on to the game I already love, I'm happy. The Artorias of the Abyss DLC for Dark Souls looks like it'll be right up my alley. Red Dead's Undead Nightmare was like that, Shivering Isles, the GTAIV episodes, etc etc.

So in my troubled mind DLC is useless, expansion packs are great.

It really depends on the quality of the DLC. I always point to Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare as to how DLC should be done - an expansion that adds a ton of quality gameplay to a title, whilst being at a reasonable price (Undead Nightmare was $10). This is DLC done right and I'll gladly buy more if the quality and price is right.

On the other hand though, and more often than not, DLC seems to be mishandled. Take Mass Effect 3, which launched with a $10 DLC seperate from the game, which if not purchased would otherwise eliminate an important character from the story that should have been part of the original package.

In short, it depends.

I love the concept. Uninpressed by most of the offerings so far (map packs and such aren't the kind of thing I care about, really, 'specially when they charge $15 or more for like four items a pack), but it's still relatively new. I'm hopeful things will get better as time goes on.

I love the concept. Uninpressed by most of the offerings so far (map packs and such aren't the kind of thing I care about, really, 'specially when they charge $15 or more for like four items a pack), but it's still relatively new. I'm hopeful things will get better as time goes on.

c_rake

50/50

i like some i dislike some

not like i'm forced to buy it

"Having just read Joe Juba's argument in defense of day-one downloadable content, I have a few points I'd like to make. First off, where is the line to be drawn in what should be included in the initial purchase and what's to be included in the DLC? Joe claims gamers are upset because they are not getting fries when they only pay for a hamburger. Isn't it just as likely that gamers are not getting tomatoes, lettuce, and all the toppings from the get-go? Who's to know if that game content was initially a part of the main product, and why is it always assumed it was developed aside from the main game to be sold separately instead of cut out from the core game in order to be able to nickel and dime us? Joe states, "the presumption that a publisher owes you more content beyond the complete game you are purchasing is absurd". And how is the presumption that one is buying a complete game on release day not equally absurd, especially when finished content is offered right next to it with another $ beside it? Obviously it's not complete on day one until more money is spent. Who honestly believes a game released today with day-one DLC would not have that same content included if the game was released in a world where the net did not exist? The simple fact is, if developers and publishers did not have the Internet as a means to offer us this "extra" content on the same day the title hits the shelves, it would be included for free.

Secondly, Joe's right, it is ultimately about timing. A delayed release of DLC is indicative that it was material that was still in development at or started after the game's release and therefor could not have been stripped from what was originally intended simply to be able to charge at additional cost. When it's released at the same time that screams to me that it more than likely was removed, as it was playable from the start. Day-one DLC is outright insulting and should not be supported in any way, shape, or form. If it's finished content when the game is ready to ship, it should be included as part of the package on the shelf."

MirkoS77

I generally think it's a complete waste of money and every time I'm dumb enough to buy some my opinion is reaffirmed.

The only truly good DLC I've ever bought was for Fallout 3.

I like the concept, deeply dislike the people that abuse it for greed.koospetoors

A lot of DLC is not worth the money.Best DLC I've played was Enslaved...Pigsys perfect 10.It added to the main game,but let you play in a totally different way and was a good length.

Hate it.

all that extra stuff should be in the game from the start. to me it's just another way for game companies to get more money out of you.

Paid DLC is a plague on this industry. Aside from Xbox Live it's the worst thing that ever happened to console gaming.famicommander

I like single player DLC, but I hate multiplayer DLC, especially when it adds on about 10 trophies to each addition, in doing so decreasing my trophy percentage for that game, which is annoying.

Its easy with DLC

Love it when its extra like GTA´s two DLC packs, which really add new life to the game.

Hate it when its like Mafia II´s DLC where its so obvious that its content which was meant for the main game and then taken out to cheat customers out of more cash.

Unfortunaley the 2nd option seems to be what a lot of developers are choosing..

I think it can be used to meaningfully expand a game without making it seem like the extra content should have been there to begin with... Good example is Borderlands.  Each expansion was awesome in its own way, but it didn't seem like they were just thrown in there for a quick profit.  They were obviously effort filled projects. (although the main game should have had a vault from the get go to store guns in, but aside form that my comment stands.)  

On the other hand, far, far too many developers are abusing the piss out of the concept of DLC, which is why so many people despise it (and rightfully so).

It'd be rgeat if more games took the dragon Quest IX approach.  DQIX gave a free quest once every week for a set amount of time after it was released, and it had an in game shop that would have brand new rare items every day.  It meaningfully expanded the game, gave players a great excuse to play for even longer, and did it all FOR FREE.

[QUOTE="Amster_G"]

I think it's only outrageous when developers launch separate DLC the same day the full game comes out. That I just find criminal!

Bozanimal

I like DLCs that provide more content for a game like quests. Example for this is Skyrim' s Dawnguard and Dragonborn DLCs.

Hate it with a passion.