DLC: Love it or hate it?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Bozanimal
#1 Posted by Bozanimal (2494 posts) -

MK9-DLC-4-1024x575.png

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

Avatar image for Business_Fun
#2 Posted by Business_Fun (2282 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Boddicker
#4 Posted by Boddicker (4347 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Amster_G
#5 Posted by Amster_G (4329 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Archangel3371
#6 Posted by Archangel3371 (23078 posts) -
I love it as it gives me more to game that I already enjoy. I always research both the game itself and the DLC that comes out for it and if I feel they are each worth my money then I'll buy them. I've purchased some games and passed entirely on their DLC offerings, purchased some games and bought some of their DLC offerings, or purchased some games and bought all of their DLC offerings. Using my own judgement like this has lead me to overwhelming satisfaction in my purchases so it's definitely working for me.
Avatar image for ristactionjakso
#7 Posted by ristactionjakso (6118 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Bozanimal
#8 Posted by Bozanimal (2494 posts) -

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? It's a larger version of shareware: You can play a certain amount of the game for the base cost, and additional game for more. Games are expensive to develop, in some cases very expensive, so instead of charging $100 for everything, they charge less and incrementally for DLC. It makes sense, and those gamers that want more buy more. Happy gaming, Boz
Avatar image for famicommander
#9 Posted by famicommander (8524 posts) -
Paid DLC is a plague on this industry. Aside from Xbox Live it's the worst thing that ever happened to console gaming.
Avatar image for Amster_G
#10 Posted by Amster_G (4329 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for speedfreak48t5p
#11 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (12681 posts) -

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).

Avatar image for Amster_G
#12 Posted by Amster_G (4329 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Bandit_Haze
#13 Posted by Bandit_Haze (4950 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for wiouds
#14 Posted by wiouds (6233 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for deactivated-57e5de5e137a4
#16 Posted by deactivated-57e5de5e137a4 (12929 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Bozanimal
#17 Posted by Bozanimal (2494 posts) -
Alright, so people like good DLC and don't like bad DLC. This seems even more silly to me, like saying you like good games and don't like bad games. The thing is, people don't get mad at bad games, they just don't buy them. Buying a game and finding you're missing material content, like missing characters in Mortal Kombat, now that I can understand. Character and environment variety is all there is to Mortal Kombat. Happy gaming, Boz
Avatar image for BPoole96
#18 Posted by BPoole96 (22817 posts) -

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)

Avatar image for Blazember
#19 Posted by Blazember (108 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for DJ_Lae
#20 Posted by DJ_Lae (42748 posts) -
In general I like DLC. It's offered me great stuff like Minerva's Den, Red Dead's Zombie addon, Point Lookout, Gay Tony, songs for Rock Band, cars for Forza 4 - more content for games I enjoy. There is plenty of bad DLC too, but I don't buy it. I think the advent of seasons passes are stupid, so I don't give them my money. Am I losing out on content? I guess so, but at the same time in almost every case the core game has felt complete and finished. It's also possible to game the system via half price points offers on XBL cards, which in some cases makes DLC more worth it than it would have otherwise been. That and I'm big into GOTY editions as it lets me scoop up games I may have missed with all of their content for less than what people paid at launch for the original game.
Avatar image for MAILER_DAEMON
#21 Posted by MAILER_DAEMON (45906 posts) -
If they'd take more of an expansion pack approach to it rather than micro-content (or "oh we didn't finish this, we can sell it to them later") or Disc-Locked-Content (pure money grab that fortunately has been backfiring as of late in the PR circuit), then I'd be all for it. Instead, it's being used as a crutch that diminishes the value that you get with a $60 game, especially if that content is available at or close to launch - it is basically saying that you have to pay more to get the complete experience. Even micro-content can be good for certain genres, like songs for music games or cars for racing games. When you lock out characters or have something in the game that tells or hints that you need DLC to access it (I'm looking at you, Bioware), then you've lost perspective. Game content on the disc should be included in the initial sale without exception, and what you have on the disc needs to be the complete experience. Release DLC too soon, then as I said before, it makes it feel like the full game is only available for those who pay the premium. I refuse to pay full price for a game that approaches DLC in a way that tries to monetize the full experience too much.
Avatar image for MirkoS77
#23 Posted by MirkoS77 (12669 posts) -

[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

This is one of the things I want to understand. Why is this criminal? It's a larger version of shareware: You can play a certain amount of the game for the base cost, and additional game for more. Games are expensive to develop, in some cases very expensive, so instead of charging $100 for everything, they charge less and incrementally for DLC. It makes sense, and those gamers that want more buy more. Happy gaming, Boz

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."

Avatar image for IndianaPwns39
#24 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Vari3ty
#25 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#26 Posted by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for GodModeEnabled
#27 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -

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
Same here. Like the idea, dislike the execution. Too much cash grabbing and not enough quality content. When a game actually has worthwhile DLC, it's a rare thing. I am not hopeful it will get better.
Avatar image for almasdeathchild
#28 Posted by almasdeathchild (8922 posts) -

50/50

i like some i dislike some

not like i'm forced to buy it

Avatar image for Bozanimal
#29 Posted by Bozanimal (2494 posts) -

"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 really, really appreciate you pointing to that article. This thread was created to help me assess certain aspects and opinions regarding DRM that I might not have already considered, and the article you linked - as well as your response - went a long way to educating me on public opinion. I do believe that I have something in mind nobody is addressing, but that will have to wait until I have time to write an editorial of my own! ;) Happy gaming, Boz
Avatar image for koospetoors
#30 Posted by koospetoors (3653 posts) -
I like the concept, deeply dislike the people that abuse it for greed.
Avatar image for Jackc8
#31 Posted by Jackc8 (8515 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for yagr_zero
#32 Posted by yagr_zero (27850 posts) -
I don't mind it as long as it actually adds to the game like extra episodes and not like, say, horse armor.
Avatar image for Bozanimal
#33 Posted by Bozanimal (2494 posts) -
I like the concept, deeply dislike the people that abuse it for greed.koospetoors
Now this is interesting: How do you gauge this? At least in corporate America, the goal of any public company is to maximize profits. Is every developer abuse and greedy, then, or is there a point at which the transition is made from reasonable profit to abusive pricing to players? Happy gaming, Boz
Avatar image for OneInchMan99
#34 Posted by OneInchMan99 (1248 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for PlayBox39
#35 Posted by PlayBox39 (420 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for Ashley_wwe
#36 Posted by Ashley_wwe (13412 posts) -
I love DLC, but it has to be good. For example, I love the Gears of War series, but I will never buy all of those weapon skins. I have the odd ones that I got from around the time the game came out, but only like 1 or 2. It's a waste of money to get them all in my opinion. I also am not really a fan of the on-disc DLC either, as it should just be well, on the disc. DLC has to be worthwhile though. For example as already mentioned the GTAIV Episodes, or campaign extensions, map packs etc. Map packs are great, but only if you are REALLY in to those games. My favourite type of DLC is probably campaign. I am much more likely to go out of my way to get campaign DLC when I am not currently playing a specific game than I do when, for example, a map pack gets released. I will just get the map pack when I get back in to that game. But if I enjoy the game and I hear there is campaign DLC, I will be really interested. I like way too many games and there are way too many map packs to consider most of them because I have to know that I REALLY want them unless they are pretty cheap, so I don't get them often. But if more companies released them with campaign DLC, I would probably get them all. Or even if more campaign DLC was released, I would get them all if the game interests me enough. An exception is the Gears series. I am going to get the season pass soon, but I know that it will be worth it because of not only the campaign, but also because of the horde and beast mode stuff (I also got ALL DLC in Gears 2 and also own everything in Gears 1). You can also play these maps at any time, even on my own with Horde, which I sometimes do with Gears. So yeah, you have to be really sure you want the map packs. So to answer the question, yes, I love DLC, but it has to be done right :).
Avatar image for jdc6305
#37 Posted by jdc6305 (4712 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Venom_Raptor
#38 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for wavey_gravey
#39 Posted by wavey_gravey (11155 posts) -
I make a decision on DLC as and when it comes out. With games that I like I will be more inclined to review the DLC and at some point purchase it. Fallout 3 was an example of this. I loved the game and got all DLC packs for it - some was good, others like Mothership Zeta, not so much. I am unhappy with day one DLC as it smacks a little of "with held content" to me, and I have never purchased day one DLC, preferring to wait a little while. I have never purchased a DLC map pack for the likes of COD or Battlefield.
Avatar image for Jacanuk
#40 Posted by Jacanuk (11980 posts) -

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..

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
#42 Posted by turtlethetaffer (18598 posts) -

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.

Avatar image for ESPM400
#43 Posted by ESPM400 (96 posts) -
I tend to treat DLC much like I did expansion packs back in the day. Additional content for those that want to continue their gaming experience with said game. However;
[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
This is one of the things I want to understand. Why is this criminal? It's a larger version of shareware: You can play a certain amount of the game for the base cost, Boz

Using shareware is a very poor example here, as shareware was always free (not a $60USD release) unless you wanted the full game (I had a ton on my old 486, anybody remember 'Solar Winds?'). Same day DLC sends the implication that, 'this could've been in the full game, but we decided to charge you more for it.' The fact that if they would've waited a month or two to cash in on that extra gameplay wagon, and nobody would have complained kind of baffles me. As previously mentioned on this thread, I have no problem with DLC and the like, but releasing on-disc and/or launch day DLC is a shoddy practice that should be shunned outright by anyone that's ever held a controller in love of a game. EDIT: I thought I'd mentioned it earlier, but probably on another thread and not here... I treat DLC like the expansion packs of yesteryear. Additional gameplay in a game I love for less than the price of a full game.
Avatar image for johnd13
#44 Posted by johnd13 (9290 posts) -

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

Avatar image for JimmiCottam
#45 Posted by JimmiCottam (105 posts) -
I love DLC when it is free and/or included on the disc. Borderlands' GOTY edition had them all content on the disc and I got the entire lot for less than £12 where on PSN, it's well over £32 just for the DLC, not including the game. I think I got a good deal there!
Avatar image for crimsonman1245
#46 Posted by crimsonman1245 (4253 posts) -

Hate it with a passion.