Chargeable Download Content

Razor Time · 1 Sep 2010 at 14:44

Chargeable DLC is starting to creep its way onto pc's at an alarming rate.

Companies are releasing partially finished games and are charging us for the rest of the game via DLC. This has been happening on consoles for some time now and it is starting to creep onto the pc where DLC was always traditionally free. One company which seems to be doing this allot lately is 2k.

- Borderlands had 3 chargeable DLC's with in 3 months of the games release.

- Bioshock also had chargeable DLC which was included on the actual disc.

- Mafia 2 would have been out less than 2 weeks and already there is chargeable DLC for was has been described as a short game.

I don't mind paying for DLC if it adds to an already complete game. However when companies release a game which is already short and then offer the rest of the game via chargeable DLC with in a few weeks/months of the games release it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and makes me feel as though I am getting shafted.

'Wes · 1 Sep 2010 at 14:45

I don't buy it, it makes me believe they don't put all their effort into the product.

manbearpig · 1 Sep 2010 at 14:46

Thats why I never buy DLC.

sammo62 · 1 Sep 2010 at 14:48

It goes both ways though - if DLC is the only way for developers to fund extra content and I really like the games, I'm not against it. If it is being used solely as a cash-cow by Publishers like it is for MW2, then it takes the ****.

barmyllama · 1 Sep 2010 at 14:50

manbearpig said:
Thats why I never buy DLC.

+1

Spektor · 1 Sep 2010 at 14:51

So rather than getting a £15 expansion 1-2 years later, which pretty much all games have done always. Now met with the convenience of technology they can deliver multiple £5 smaller expansions every 6-9 months.

Net result in actual terms: No difference other than the player being able to get access newer, smaller amounts of content, quicker.

Net result you're trying convey: OMG! STEALING MY MONIES FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU!

Evilsod · 1 Sep 2010 at 14:52

Borderlands i disagree. The DLCs are pretty big cept Moxxi's which should've been worth considerably less but they are still very good quality. They also aren't things that should've clearly been in the game in the first place. Ok the ending was diabolical and couldn't of been made worse by the inclusion of a zombie island and a secret armoury but seriously, how could you get it in? If you combined them together you'd get about the price of an expansion and they are big enough to be worthy of the title expansion, and theres a 4th coming now.

But the other examples you gave i'd definatly agree... they were clearly going for 'release less pay more' or 'insert generic DLC mappack here'.

Spektor the point is an expansion was a pain to release so normally contained enough content to make it a) worthwhile to them to ship it and b) value for money for you. DLC, as activision proved so completely, has become a way they can produce something with the bare minimum effort and sell it at the highest price they can. Eg. MW2 mappacks that not only contained maps from MW but also charged an arm and a leg.

gettothechopper · 1 Sep 2010 at 14:56

not keen on the idea of paying to unlock things already on the dvd

as for dlc later on I wouldnt complain if it was available after the release date

also it depends on the content

£7 for Arma 2 british forces was a bargain
£10 for 4 cod maps (2 rehashes) is about five times too expensive

also releasing a unbalanced-mega-super-lazor-gun that you have to pay for to use but can get killed by is balls too,

SkeeterUK · 1 Sep 2010 at 14:57

For consoles it allows add ons, for pc they should be free because their isnt as many restrictions as it is for consoles. As they need to pay MS or Sony to put the addons out their for players but not on PC. So yeah i can understand the cost for consoles DLC but since they dont have to pay MS or Sony it should be free for us PC users. I mean its just stuff they cut from the game specifically to charge for i mean if its part of the game then it should be sold as a whole tbh.

Expansion packs i can deal with as they add a lot of content but the DLC usually adds tiny things to a game which should be free i mean mods are free why charge ppl?

I mean look at Egosoft they add in tons of new content after the games been out for years in their patches which are bug fixes too but they always add loads of new content. They are a tiny developer too with a small fan base compared to say TF2 or COD games.

If they can do it so should the big players.

Spektor · 1 Sep 2010 at 15:01

Evilsod said:
Spektor the point is an expansion was a pain to release so normally contained enough content to make it a) worthwhile to them to ship it and b) value for money for you. DLC, as activision proved so completely, has become a way they can produce something with the bare minimum effort and sell it at the highest price they can. Eg. MW2 mappacks that not only contained maps from MW but also charged an arm and a leg.

There was plenty of **** poor expansions with minimal effort before digital distribution, plenty of games that were released in a bug ridden state and required months of patching to become playable. Just as now there are amazing DLCs (some even free) which add more than a new map to a game. The introduction of easy to distribute content which can be turned out quicker for lower cost to the player hasn't changed this, the quality and overall substance of the original game or the subsequent DLCs is purely down to the developer / publisher in question.

Razor Time · 1 Sep 2010 at 15:02

Spektor said:
So rather than getting a £15 expansion 1-2 years later, which pretty much all games have done always. Now met with the convenience of technology they can deliver multiple £5 smaller expansions every 6-9 months.

Net result in actual terms: No difference other than the player being able to get access newer, smaller amounts of content, quicker.

Net result you're trying convey: OMG! STEALING MY MONIES FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU!

Not really what I am getting at. Take Mafia 2 for example. The game takes about 10 hours to complete and chargeable DLC is going to be released with in 2 weeks of its UK release. This basically just shows that the full game was not released and that they have held back part of the game for chargeable DLC.

UbiSoft used to do this allot with their console games. Games like GRAW would get released with not a great amount of multiplayer maps. 2-3 months later out would come a map pack with a few new levels and some old levels but instead if it being in the day time it might be set at night. In reality there was no reason why these maps weren't included in the original game and were only held back so Ubisoft could sell us these maps.

I have no problems in paying for genuine extra game content and sometimes welcome it. Games like Fable 2 had chargeable DLC which on an already massive game was fair enough. I was happy to pay for this. I also have no problems with expansion packs like the Command and Conquer series has.

Spektor · 1 Sep 2010 at 15:08

Razor Time said:
Not really what I am getting at. Take Mafia 2 for example. The game takes about 10 hours to complete and chargeable DLC is going to be released with in 2 weeks of its UK release. This basically just shows that the full game was not released and that they have held back part of the game for chargeable DLC.

UbiSoft used to do this allot with their console games. Games like GRAW would get released with not a great amount of multiplayer maps. 2-3 months later out would come a map pack with a few new levels and some old levels but instead if it being in the day time it might be set at night. In reality there was no reason why these maps weren't included in the original game and were only held back so Ubisoft could sell us these maps.

I have no problems in paying for genuine extra game content and sometimes welcome it. Games like Fable 2 had chargeable DLC which on an already massive game was fair enough. I was happy to pay for this. I also have no problems with expansion packs like the Command and Conquer series has.

Yes but your original statement in your OP was how alarmed you were at the rate paid DLC was creeping onto the PC and in particular low quality DLC. What I'm saying is poor quality games with poor post-release support has existed before the age of digital distribution; DLC is not what is at fault here and hasn't changed anything other than make it easier for a good developer to get good content to you or easier for a bad developer to get bad content to you.

Evilsod · 1 Sep 2010 at 15:11

Spektor said:
There was plenty of **** poor expansions with minimal effort before digital distribution, plenty of games that were released in a bug ridden state and required months of patching to become playable. Just as now there are amazing DLCs (some even free) which add more than a new map to a game. The introduction of easy to distribute content which can be turned out quicker for lower cost to the player hasn't changed this, the quality and overall substance of the original game or the subsequent DLCs is purely down to the developer / publisher in question.

No **** sherlock, of course there were going to be some poor expansions and some that fired rainbows out there arses they were that good. DLC is *NOT* a way for developers to dish out less content for less price, its a way for developers to dish out considerably less content for slightly less price. Sure some developers still put them out for free and others at a minor cost that seems fair, but more and more of the big name developers are going down the route of less for more. That was not a problem with expansions, you could generally rely on the big name devs at least putting the effort in.

At the end of the day the ease of releasing a dlc compared with an expansion is that things are being left half finished or deliberately left out so they could be sold later.

Spektor · 1 Sep 2010 at 15:15

Evilsod said:
At the end of the day the ease of releasing a dlc compared with an expansion is that things are being left half finished or deliberately left out so they could be sold later.

Again, wrong. You're still trying to crowbar a particular experience with DLC from a poor quality or overly financially motivated developer / publisher into an industry wide summation of the value of DLC to gamers. DLC is not what is at fault, the same deadline enforcing publishers or budget constrained developers that made for crappy games with crappy follow up expansions 10 years ago are the same deadline/budgetry constrained failures of today; it's irrelevant that now you happen to have Steam.

Evilsod · 1 Sep 2010 at 15:19

Razor it looks like you got a perfect example of it just now. Kane n Lynch 2, released 19th August.

Current date, 1st September, not even 2 weeks later, there are 3 DLCs available. 1 of them is purely a weapon set for multiplayer for 3euro and are probably broken to encourage you to buy it, 1 literally has masks in it for multiplayer for 2euro, probably all reskins of each other, and the 3rd is a couple of maps and some more guns for 6euro.

I guess it figures when i've seen nothing but bad reviews for it.

Razor Time · 1 Sep 2010 at 15:21

Spektor said:
Yes but your original statement in your OP was how alarmed you were at the rate paid DLC was creeping onto the PC and in particular low quality DLC. What I'm saying is poor quality games with poor post-release support has existed before the age of digital distribution; DLC is not what is at fault here and hasn't changed anything other than make it easier for a good developer to get good content to you or easier for a bad developer to get bad content to you.

This is what is alarming me the most (see quote below). It has nothing to do with how good or bad a game is but how devs are now releasing 70% of the game and charging us full price. Then 2 weeks later are charging us again for the rest of the game.

Evilsod said:
is that things are being left half finished or deliberately left out so they could be sold later.

Evilsod · 1 Sep 2010 at 15:22

Spektor said:
Again, wrong. You're still trying to crowbar a particular experience with DLC from a poor quality or overly financially motivated developer / publisher into an industry wide summation of the value of DLC to gamers. DLC is not what is at fault, the same deadline enforcing publishers or budget constrained developers that made for crappy games with crappy follow up expansions 10 years ago are the same deadline/budgetry constrained failures of today; it's irrelevant that now you happen to have Steam.

Thats funny because at the moment the 'budget constrained developers', ie, indie, seem to be the 1 releasing the free or fairer dlc. Its pretty much only the big companies that are releasing these crappy excuses for content.

bledd · 1 Sep 2010 at 15:23

Some developers should have DLC with optional payment

I'd happily pay more to keep TF2 updates rolling out, the game was free after all!

Razor Time · 1 Sep 2010 at 15:24

Evilsod said:
Razor it looks like you got a perfect example of it just now. Kane n Lynch 2, released 19th August.

Current date, 1st September, not even 2 weeks later, there are 3 DLCs available. 1 of them is purely a weapon set for multiplayer for 3euro and are probably broken to encourage you to buy it, 1 literally has masks in it for multiplayer for 2euro, probably all reskins of each other, and the 3rd is a couple of maps and some more guns for 6euro.

I guess it figures when i've seen nothing but bad reviews for it.

Thats another good example. I didn't know KnL2 had chargeable DLC.

Evilsod · 1 Sep 2010 at 15:27

Razor Time said:
Thats another good example. I didn't know KnL2 had chargeable DLC.

All released today. I just spotted it on the new releases tab in steam. 11 euros (no idea what it is in GBP) for quite literally, a couple of maps, some multiplayer weapons and some masks.