DLC/Add-ons...what are your thoughts on them?

[ShadeSplit]

It really isn't a terrible idea. If done well, it would be a pretty positive situation. However, considering every company is out there to make the biggest profit they can get without regards to us, it was obvious the system would be abused. You are kidding yourself if you think we aren't losing out on content we would of had, if it were say last generation. Instead of completing a game within its given time-frame and budget, then later on creating addition content to be downloaded, they are just cutting out bits and pieces from the original developmental time-frame, and selling it back to us. Some companies have even been so arrogant as to brazenly show off that they're doing so.

I know some people love to say that whatever they decide to give us is the "full game", but really, it's no different than if they used some of the money and time for the game to instead buy fancy cars and race them around in the parking lot. It's taking away from what we do get, because they're wasting the time and money that they're supposed to be using for the game on something separate. Some people might not care, but I certainly don't think that's right.

That is why I don't buy download content. But honestly, I don't blame the companies for doing it. If people keep buying into what you're selling, there's no incentive to stop. If download content doesn't make them much money, they'd stop doing it pretty quickly. People have more power than they think. They just can't seem to get themselves to use it.

Unless I am greatly mistaken, there is no DLC that "requires" you to purchase it. If you don't like it, find it too expensive or whatever,

DO NOT BUY IT, it really is that simple.

If one has some overwhelming fixation to have to earn every trophy for 100%, and thus feel they "need" or are "required" to purchase DLC for that reason only, I would say that is a whole different issue than the DLC itself.

"If you don't like _______, then don't ____." is always a poor argument. First of all, it's completely obvious and therefore adds nothing to the conversation. I really don't think there is anyone out there that sees something, like download content for example, and feels like there is a gun to their head, forcing them into the purchase. Second of all, people expressing their thoughts and feelings is the best way to change something, so if someone doesn't like something, expressing that is part of trying to change it. They could always turn around and say, "if you don't like what I'm saying, then don't listen to it". And we'd be stuck in a ridiculous loop

If people do happen to buy into what they already don't like, it's obviously a fault of their own. I'd like to be able to get 100% in every game, but I'm not going to buy download content that isn't worth it just to do so. It's a not a good situation to be in, but as I mentioned before, you're only enabling things to continue as is by buying into it.

[Wade_VC]

"If you don't like _______, then don't ____." is always a poor argument. First of all, it's completely obvious and therefore adds nothing to the conversation. I

Really......there is NO difference between this:

Unless I am greatly mistaken, there is no DLC that "requires" you to purchase it. If you don't like it, find it too expensive or whatever,

DO NOT BUY IT, it really is that simple.

If one has some overwhelming fixation to have to earn every trophy for 100%, and thus feel they "need" or are "required" to purchase DLC for that reason only, I would say that is a whole different issue than the DLC itself.

and this:

If people do happen to buy into what they already don't like, it's obviously a fault of their own. I'd like to be able to get 100% in every game, but I'm not going to buy download content that isn't worth it just to do so.

They say the same damn thing just worded differently.

[ShadeSplit]

Really......there is NO difference between this:

Unless I am greatly mistaken, there is no DLC that "requires" you to purchase it. If you don't like it, find it too expensive or whatever,

DO NOT BUY IT, it really is that simple.

If one has some overwhelming fixation to have to earn every trophy for 100%, and thus feel they "need" or are "required" to purchase DLC for that reason only, I would say that is a whole different issue than the DLC itself.

and this:

If people do happen to buy into what they already don't like, it's obviously a fault of their own. I'd like to be able to get 100% in every game, but I'm not going to buy download content that isn't worth it just to do so.

They say the same damn thing just worded differently.

You aren't reading correctly then

[Wade_VC]

You aren't reading correctly then

Oh....a Smart-ass huh? AWESOME, we need more peeps with a sense of humor!

[HeyItsSpanky]

I hate DLC... Personally I think most should have been included in the game to begin with such as Borderlands and Fallout 3. New map packs are different since they add new value to MP one the current maps get old.

[Wade_VC]

I hate DLC... Personally I think most should have been included in the game to begin with such as Borderlands and Fallout 3. New map packs are different since they add new value to MP one the current maps get old.

Now see, I would rather pay for DLC such as those for FO:3 than I would online MP map packs.

Just goes to show that we all have different ideas on what constitutes a good or bad DLC.

[magnus_deacon]

On one hand I love game DLCs. Because it adds something extra to the game. On the other hand, I hate DLCs because a game I had finished and moved on from suddenly has more trophies and my 100% turns into a 70% or 75%.

[Brenden]

DLC is fantastic, It means I get to play my favourite games that little bit longer. Day 1 DLCs are a joke and rip off I rarely buy them only if its too good to miss out on. I buy a lot of DLC only if it has trophies a lot of the time or adds in an extensive amount of content. Map packs for games are great, aswell as single player content if it adds a good amount of game play to it.

The main reason that puts me off DLC is only if the price is a bit too high, most DLC in my region are 15-20 dollars and that just is a bit too much to ask.

[Lil_Mermaid_Girl]

I hate DLC... Personally I think most should have been included in the game to begin with such as Borderlands and Fallout 3. New map packs are different since they add new value to MP one the current maps get old.

Fallout 3 and Borderlands are both substantial, big games upon launch. Their DLCs added a lot of new gameplay for the single player stories*. They probably would have delayed the games a month or two if they had waited to get the DLC content in with the main game's releases. It's not like the DLC release 1 week after the games were out.

*Excluding Borderlands Underdome DLC, but that's 1 DLC out of 4 for that game

Most MP games have 10-ish (give or take a few) maps upon release. Each new DLC adds an average of 5 new maps probably. You could argue that the devs should have waited and put the DLC maps in with the main game so there was more variety in the main game's MP for launch. 10 maps really isn't that much.

Single player DLCs (especially like the two games you used as examples) add life into the game and keep it fresh just like a MP DLC could. I like DLC if I like the game and if it didn't release just 2 weeks after the game came out.

[Artemisthemp]

I love DLC that add story like example Arrivel (ME2) or Legacy (DA2) and Character DLC like Cory (Atelier Totori), HI-res Asagi (Disgaea 4), but DLC like Mappacks and Opening (Gallery, Voice opening (Agarest) I dislike)

[Parker]

I'm a fan of DLC if it's done correctly. DLC should not be available on release day, or within the first few months, in my opinion. I thought DiRT 3 was a fantastic game but the constant DLC stream right after the game released really put me off because it was obvious that it was content that could have been included with the game.

Polyphony Digital do DLC right. GT5 had been released almost a whole year before DLC was released and it was priced right and it obviously hadn't been held back from the disc to be released later. They are now releasing DLC every few months with cars people want and tracks people have been asking for.

It's unfortunate to see so many developers hold content to release as DLC and I hope it's a trend many other developers will not follow.

Parker

[Mio]

Look at the DLC for GTA4, Battlefield and GT5, GT5 especially has added loads of things through patches and DLC, and it was all based on feedback from user polls on GTPlanet, its amazing how PD has responded to the user outcry for things like mid race saves and adding new tracks and the list goes on, More Devs should take a page from PDs book in this case, a reason why GT5 has such a satisfied fanbase.

Pretty much what I am trying to say is that Devs should look at what the fanbase for the game wants and add that, rather than developing a DLC with no input from the people who actually spend the money on the game.

[Spark-N]

The only DLC I truly hate is the DLC that just unlocks everything for you for example Burnout, Need for Speed and now Saints third has that cheat pack, which clearly should have been in game from the beginning

[Coolcat44]

DLC well if the price is good Ha Ha there is no free DLC

[Shadowrider50]

I dislike them altogether, they ruin my 100% trophy lists.

Also, to buy them i have to spend money on the psn store which i can't sell on ebay when im done with of course

Unless the dlc EXPANDS ALOT on the main game, then i generally hate it

[DaRe]

I don't mind them as long as they're not friggin overpriced (looks straight at BF3 and CoD). Also if they don't take up alot of space and the patch for that DLC isn't too long like 500 MB either (slow ass download/upload speeds isn't fun).

[SIDEWINDER_21X]

I generally only buy the dlc if I'm really into a game. I think its a good idea for developers to keep you coming back and it really increases a game's longevity.

The only problem is that, for example, if you bought all the Black Ops dlc it would have cost you the same amount as a game would on release day. This is of course ridiculous as when you compare the content in the 4 map packs to that of a full game, you can't help but feel ripped off!

[Christopher]

DLC has to be a great deal for me to invest. Borderlands was easily the most fun DLC I have bought, no regrets there.

[Wade_VC]

if you bought all the Black Ops dlc it would have cost you the same amount as a game would on release day.

Try checking out Tiger Woods The Masters 12, you can see that to be true very easily.

Game: $60

DLC Courses: $60

[Artemisthemp]

Try checking out Tiger Woods The Masters 12, you can see that to be true very easily.

Game: $60

DLC Courses: $60

Is one of the DLC, where you have to steer Tiger's wood into the hole?

[Wade_VC]

Is one of the DLC, where you have to steer Tiger's wood into the hole?

Oh...you mean the "Wood & Hole" expansion pack eh?

[Artemisthemp]

Oh...you mean the "Wood & Hole" expansion pack eh?

Yes that one

[Zenpai]

This year, I've played more on my PS2 than on my more recent consoles, and it's becoming increasingly hard not to notice the difference between the way games were made then and how they're made now. Especially with regards to DLC.

 

Personally, I have nothing against DLC - in principle. Sometimes, the developers later remember to add something that they think would be beneficial to the main game. Sometimes, it's something added to address fan response. And sometimes, it's something to just update certain kinds of games due to external factors. All of those are certainly good things, and if people still don't want to get the DLC, nothing's forcing them to.

 

The thing is, more and more, DLC is being seen almost as an obligation in gaming. An imperative. Something that has to be in almost every game. And this is not good. Sometimes, developers add an extra, a side-story to the main game. It's all fine and dandy, and we can all just skip it if we don't feel like getting it, but... whenever DLC's being done just for the sake of being done, it's very rarely anything decent. Something that might as well not have been done in the first place.

 

And this isn't even the worst kind of useless DLC (I wish). Some just add (oftentimes with trophies attached!) multiplayer skins, extra music, extra stages, or the worst kind, time-saving DLC. Time-saving DLC just blatantly screams that the game was made more annoying than it should just for the sake of selling the DLC. And that right there is letting your creative vision die at the hands of your greed. Games should be made with the intent of being fun. Of being a great experience. I know that, obviously, publishers and developers are in it to make money, but when your will to make profit is superior to your will to create a great experience (if it even exists), it shows. And we can all tell.

 

As for the other kinds of DLC... well, it isn't as bad, and again, we can just skip it if we want to, but still... it just makes me feel like the main game, which I paid good money for, is somehow incomplete. Like all of these "extras" are content taken from the main game. No matter how minor that content may be, it's just hard not to feel ripped off. Especially when there are way too many DLC packs for the one game.

 

I know that games are getting more and more expensive to make these days, and that gaming is a riskier business than ever, but still. There has to be a certain amount of goodwill, lest you alienate your customer base. When the customer feels like they're being respected, they start not even feeling they're paying you, but more like they're rewarding you for your efforts. And if you're afraid you won't be able to earn enough money to make a profit from your game or even break even... well, then just make a good game. Good games, heck, good everything sell themselves (with a bit of a push from marketing). When people really like something, they even tend to buy new instead of used (and the used game market is, as we all know, one of the gaming industry's biggest pet peeves).

 

Danny O'Dwyer best summarized my thoughts in this excellent video:

Edited December 18, 2015 by jrdemr

[SuffyZorugelion]

DLC could be great. Unfortunately a lot of companies don't do it right. There are some add-on's I've highly enjoyed like the ones on GTA 4 or The Missing Link in Deus Ex. Allthough that DLC feels like cut content because it's a piece of the story taken from the middle. I guess releasing it on the Directors cut was alright.

 

I don't like map packs as DLC because they split the community in half. The idea is inviting and I do buy them, but it's better to release additional maps free so everyone can play them and have the actual payed DLC be something else for online games.

 

Ridicilously priced microtransactions is what I hate. A skin pack wouldn't be so bad if they were reasonable price. I can't understand why they cant sell a simple weapon skin for 25 cents. No it has to be 5€, it's fucking ridicilous.

Edited December 18, 2015 by LovesAnInjection

[effdeegee]

Holy necro posting, Batman!

This thread's been dead for 3 years 10 months.

On topic: DLC is completely out of control. I blame this generation for not being smart enough to notice it until it was too late.