The Big DLC Debate

PermaBanned · 19 Nov 2011 at 00:57

Well this seems to be a current 'big thing' elsewhere, so i thought i'd give it a go here (although i wasn't sure which sub to go for), and it's been sparked off partially by this article:

http://gamersxtreme.org/2011/11/18/nintendo-stands-tall-against-dlc/

Now personally i don't agree that DLC is a bad thing, what i agree with is that making people pay a sizable portion of the cost of the actual game again for it. Especially when it's been released sometimes only a few weeks after the game itself.

If developers want to add more content after the game is released then most of the time that can only be a good thing. I think a large part of the problem is XBL and PSN - which seem to be basically profiteering, especially when they (well Microsoft for one, see Valve and TF2, which itself raises questions as to how the problem differs from consoles to PC) don't actually let developers put free content up. Do they have the right to do that? On the one hand they are using their servers. On the other hand it's the developer's game, the owners of the servers have probably already made far more than they need for the maintenance of said servers purely from the existence of that game and in the case of XBL the "subscription fee" covers those costs hundreds of times over.

What's changed, since now and the days of, say, Halo 2 Map Packs? You could get them for a small fee when they came out, or you could get them for free a few months later. I believe Bungie said that they liked this model, and were sort of forced out of it for most of the Halo 3 and beyond DLC. They just said that they loved that they had fans that would pay. I think that's a very different thing to being forced to pay for a third party's benefit.

cu3ed · 19 Nov 2011 at 01:03

I don't think the idea of DLC is messed up..but the amount of money say for the maps in COD:BO was just messed up!

Vonhelmet · 19 Nov 2011 at 01:08

Nearly £5 for Nightwing or Robin in Arkham City? 50 gamerscore for doing the same fights you've sweated through with Batman and Catwoman? Ridiculous.

PiKe · 19 Nov 2011 at 01:15

I don't agree with DLC that just unlocks content on the disc, that just feels like a con to me.

TheVoice · 19 Nov 2011 at 01:33

PiKe said:
I don't agree with DLC that just unlocks content on the disc, that just feels like a con to me.

Agreed.

DLC as a system is gppd and when done properly it works very well, as Valve have with various games on PC, Rockstar with the GTA episodes and RDR packs, Dice/EA with Bad Company 2 but other times it's clear that it's just a money-making ploy. Considering the purchase cost of the game itself, I do tend to find that DLC is often massively overpriced for what little you're getting (a few meaningless weapons/skins for £4-5 is not good value).

pmbuzz · 19 Nov 2011 at 01:38

Tiger Woods 2012:The Masters.
You cannot complete a full season without buying DLC courses, now that is just plain wrong in my opinion.
I did a whole season but i had to skip 4 or 5 events as i did not own the courses and wasn't prepared to fork out more money for them.

OpenToSuggestions · 19 Nov 2011 at 01:44

The only game I ever bought DLC for is Bad Company 2 on PC.
From memory I paid about £7 for the Vietnam add-on and it was well worth it imo.
To me, DLC is an expansion pack. In the majority of cases I am not interested, but (again imo) DLC should be so good that I want the extra content for the price, not feel I missed out on the core game for it.

K1LLSW1TCH · 19 Nov 2011 at 01:45

The DLC for Mafia 2 was a joke, not only did the game feel completely lacking in content they then decided that bringing out a bunch of mundane crap and charging a premium for it was the way forward. So soon after the release of the game too.

The GTA episodes though were decent value I felt, added quite a few hours of story and weren't particularly expensive considering the content.

PermaBanned · 19 Nov 2011 at 01:46

mglover070588 said:
To me, DLC is an expansion pack.

Interesting point, and in theory yes, that's largely true. But in practice expansion packs are often essentially the same as having a whole other game to play through for less than the price of the whole game, DLC consists of small bits of content downloadable for (most of the time) extortionate amounts of money.

cheets64 · 19 Nov 2011 at 03:21

DLC is its current state is a joke, already you have map packs coming out for BF3 MW3 next month.

how about bring them out after 6 months, to give the game so extra life, or a SP game after a year to get you playing the game again.

Or just put the whole content in the ******* game from the start.

K1LLSW1TCH · 19 Nov 2011 at 04:14

cheets64 said:
DLC is its current state is a joke, already you have map packs coming out for BF3 MW3 next month.

how about bring them out after 6 months, to give the game so extra life, or a SP game after a year to get you playing the game again.

Or just put the whole content in the ******* game from the start.

I agree, a few developers recently have already had their DLC finished before their game has even shipped. If they have content already created for the game then why couldn't they have just included that content from the beginning? On the flip side there are games which have given quite a lot to begin with, but are then bolstered by a good mix of free and paid-for DLC, Burnout Paradise for example.

Bennie-Mac · 19 Nov 2011 at 08:23

I have no problem with dlc provided a bit of effort has gone into making it, think Borderlands, Fallout etc etc. What I do have a problem with us basically what killswitch said, where they don't include stuff already developed and flog it at silly prices instantly on release. Call of Duty really takes the pre with its pricing because it can, I don't like it one bit.

wannabedamned · 19 Nov 2011 at 08:29

DLC should be things developed after the games release. Some of what gets sold as DLC, is so obviously developed already. And that is where they're taking the ****

If its ready for the games release, it should be included in what we pay for originally. Alternative costumes, Extra maps, A few extra missions. Put them in the game, after all we're paying near enough £40 for it already!!

jellyjelly · 19 Nov 2011 at 08:42

I agree with the idea of DLC but in practice it's just overpriced. Most of the time I buy the actual game but tend to avoid shelling out for DLC.
With the amount some companies are charging for DLC you could probably buy another full game with the money spent.
Not to mention that most companies these days hold back content just so they can use it as DLC.

Jay794 · 19 Nov 2011 at 09:21

DLC should be free, I don't see why, once you've bought a game you should pay again to play a modified version, however, I have always bought Expansion packs for the PC (lol)

Twentyone · 19 Nov 2011 at 10:36

PiKe said:
I don't agree with DLC that just unlocks content on the disc, that just feels like a con to me.

Yep!

I think Borderlands and RDR are good examples of what DLCs should be like.

I also think that a DLC should add more to the main story and not be completely far fetched from the original game, but it can not be so important that it sucks if you miss it. I hate the ones where the DLC just feels like a short bolt on that lasts for 30 mins and gives you nothing new (when it's obvious it's just a moneymaking quick thing)

exhashdotdot · 19 Nov 2011 at 11:11

I remember when expansions to games were actually sizable

Nexus · 19 Nov 2011 at 11:16

wannabedamned said:
DLC should be things developed after the games release. Some of what gets sold as DLC, is so obviously developed already. And that is where they're taking the ****

If its ready for the games release, it should be included in what we pay for originally. Alternative costumes, Extra maps, A few extra missions. Put them in the game, after all we're paying near enough £40 for it already!!

Also seeing it from the Developers point of view, these days it's unlikely that once the game is finished that the team will be retained, as they most likely will move on to a new project, so in many ways, they have to start on the DLC the second they send the game off to be printed, or before.

I think the way we play games has changed though.
Yes back in the PC Gaming heydays days we got map packs for free, but at the sametime we played those same games in many cases for years.... Unreal Tournament, Quake 2, Counterstrike etc.

The Developers who released those games had staff release map packs, but also had them working on expansion packs to be sold in stores, which were the equivalent of today's DLC. As the games industry wasn't as big as it is now, they weren't as rapidly moving on to another project once it had finished and teams were no where near the size that they are to make todays AAA titles.

We just don't play games for a particularly long length of time anymore. Sure there will be people who play COD all year until the next release, but in the grand scheme of things, most people will be done with a title once they've got a bit bored of it.

I've had an Xbox 360 since 2006 and in those five years, I can only really say I've bought a handful of DLC. Off the top of my head:

- Left 4 Dead 1 expansion
- Left 4 Dead 2 expansion
- Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare
- Assassin's Creed 2 DLC
- Battlefield Bad Company 2: Vietnam
- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Map Pack 1
- Mass Effect 2 DLC

Left 4 Dead, RDR and Battlefield expansions were fantastic and well worth the money. The one I'd criticise most heavily would be Call of Duty, as that was what £10 for two new maps and one map from a previous game.

I think it's fair to say that map packs for COD are likely the biggest DLC seller anyway. They of course totally overcharge for what you are getting and is the reason I don't really bother with them.

Nexus · 19 Nov 2011 at 11:17

Jay794 said:
DLC should be free, I don't see why, once you've bought a game you should pay again to play a modified version, however, I have always bought Expansion packs for the PC (lol)

How do you propose they keep on and pay the staff if they are going to release content for free though?

DLC is the modern day version of the expansion pack.

dannyjo22 · 19 Nov 2011 at 11:28

If I was a developer I would do the same thing. There will be loads of pirated games that they can now atleast get some money from regardless if the content is on the disc. This is just one method of making a revenue from those people and the rest of us have to suffer as well.

Season passes and Elite memberships for the bigger games is an excellent way to charge people a monthly fee without actually saying they are charging a monthly fee, like saw World of Warcraft.

If it was me I'd make the single player game disc £30 and charge £10 in points to unlock the multiplayer by way of DLC.

Until they can find better ways of combatting piracy they will tinker about with various methods of still gaining revenue from them and people renting games.

I like DLC normally, If a developer continues to support a game I like I don't mind buying it. If they are Infinity Ward and dump and run I won't buy their packs.

In all honesty I've bought very little DLC for the 360. Graw packs and Rainbow 6 were free after a period had elapsed. I bought Halo wars which I thoroughly enjoyed. I got the Gears season pass because I love the game and can see me playing it for a year. If they continue to support and fix it as they have so far I don't mind spending a bit more on it.