Poll: Do You Like DLC?

Do you Buy DLC? [not including expansion packs]

  • Yes

    Votes: 62 32.8%

  • No

    Votes: 127 67.2%
  • Total voters
    189
  • Poll closed .

Kosmiche

Kosmiche

Kosmiche

Permabanned
Joined
3 Oct 2009
Posts
14,033
Location
North Wales
I recently bought all of the civilization 5 dlc, now I'm not grumbling because I didn't pay much but really it got me thinking. Would all that content be released for free in the form of updates if the game came out a few years ago?

It seems to me that a lot of the dlc that comes out now could easily have been released free of charge if we rewind a few years ago.

Do you think dlc represents value for money, or greed from publishing companies looking for a fast buck?

What are some examples of dlc you've bought recently that you thought was excellent and offered a good amount of content?

The civ 5 dlc I thought was value for money for the faction content, but I also payed for some maps...paying for maps for a civ game? I don't think firaxis would have dreamed of charging you for maps when civ 4 came out.

What is your stance on dlc, do you think it means games now are lacking in content which should already be included in the product on release day. I mean dlc comes out on the same day as the game sometimes, obviously the dlc could have been included as part of the game on release. Is that a bit underhand in your opinion?

Thanks for reading
 
But then again, civ 4 did have expansion packs.

Does the civ 5 dlc represent expansion pack content, which we have always been paying for? I don't think the civ 5 dlc specifically includes as much content as an average expansion pack for a game, but also the amount I paid for all the dlc was less than I would have paid for a expansion pack.

So is dlc the new expansion pack, do they offer similar content for less money.
 
Yes but is DLC value for money, they cost less than a expansion pack.

Or would you rather have the huge amount of content a expansion pack offers.
 
depends on the game really, i dont mind if its a game i'm going to sink a lot of hours into or if its fairly cheap, but DLC must be worthwhile addition* to the game.
what has concerned me recently is games being released not unfinished but clearly lacking features it should have been released with solely to release it as DLC a month or so down the line purely to squeeze as much cash out of customers as they can, its a clever but infuriating business model.

*note i said addition, not unlocking features puposely omitted from the original release.
 
Yeah I don't mind paying for additions,

But Saints Row 3 has annoyed me somewhat by including dlc on release day for content that has clearly not just been rushed out during the final stages of development but has been omitted from the final product, and could have been included in the main game.

This I think needs to stop!
 
Yes it is really new, no it it is already on the disk or download. Right after release is just cash farming. Karkand et al should have come with BF3 imo. tbh I can't remember the last good dlc
 
DLC is just a natural evolution of expansion packs IMO.

Traditionally, an expansion pack had to have sufficient content to be sold at retail (i.e. priced at £9.99+ on release), whereas the advent of digital distribution has opened up the possibility for 'microtransactions' or basically minor enhancements (new characters, items etc) at a low price in addition to your more traditional expansions (new races, new campaigns/levels etc).

At the end of the day it is down to the consumer whether they choose to buy DLC or not, rather than whinging about DLC coming out on release day, take a glass half full view and think "this is fantastic, normally I have to wait 6 months for an expansion, so I can now buy this earlier than I would normally!". If you aren't happy with the amount of content in the main game as outlined in reviews, then just don't buy it. I actually think publishers are taking the right approach; release a game and then strike while the iron is hot with DLC, get players who liked your game stumping up more cash before they've moved onto something else and forgotten about your game.

The only slightly annoying thing is when you buy a combo pack that includes DLC but then more DLC comes out later (and is included in updated versions of the combo pack), effectively it means you are penalised for being an early adopter as you've now got an 'incomplete' version of the complete package (i.e. missing some DLC). Still, as I mentioned above, you were happy with the original purchase you made so can't complain too much.
 
I have mixed opinions of DLC myself in that a lot of it does seem to be just cash farming (Arkham City for example)

One DLC i got not long back that was worth it's price was the Deus Ex HR The Missing Link. It gave additions to the main story and a good challenge that lasted long enough on first playthrough (5 hours or so) to be worth it's price.
 
Expansion packs, good.

DLC, bad.


Expansion packs are often worth the extra money (See recently Mssing Link, Back to Karkand).
DLC is bull**** and they may as well have gone F2P with the amount of pointless **** you can often buy.
 
The packs for Dragon Age weren't too bad, can't recall how much I spent on the extra missions etc but they were nice for what they were.

Oblivion's DLC was messy, two proper packs, then plenty of homes with a couple quests and of course horse armour. I bought the pirate cove home thing, using Microsoft points given to me through that XBL rewards thing, you got two quests. One was going in and killing a few skeletons, the second was buying "upgrades" for the house. I'd never have bought it if I'd actually bought the points.
 
Eames said:
Do You Like DLC?
Click to expand...

No.

I feel that now they are developing the dlc at the same time as the game. Basically your buying a game that is 80% what it should be and then you need to buy the other 20% later as DLC. Obviously this is just to increase income as they still charge the same if not more so i find DLC very bad indeed.

To me, DLC should be something the developers start after the game has come out which should be released after 6 months for a small fee with new features/ skins/ etc etc - not developed during the original game time.

Not all devs do this, but ive heard an increasing number are - what really takes the biscuit is then the DLC is actually on the original game disc that you buy from the shop on release! instead of giving you the game you bought, they give you most of it and then you have to pay for the rest - and the best part is - it was on the original disc that you bought so they dont even need to provide servers etc which cost them money to distribute the DLC!

Rant over :)
 
It depends massively on the game, MAFIA 2 which (as I understand it) stripped out bits of the game to then sell on as an expansion pack does not represent value for money.

The fallout new vegas DLC I think represents reasonable value for money at the £6 its listed at on steam (tho I didnt buy it untill it was in the sale).

The DLC that ****es the hell outa me is the sorta DLC that they announced for space marine where you pay money to reskin your character....thieving **********.
 
d_brennen said:
Depends what the dlc is tbh. Hats and outfits can gtfo. Extra levels and content might be welcome
Click to expand...

its still no, if modders have created far better levels and maps/ mods in the past for free, no dlc should be payed for. I'd rather buy the game and pirate the dlc
 
Neil79 said:
its still no, if modders have created far better levels and maps/ mods in the past for free, no dlc should be payed for. I'd rather buy the game and pirate the dlc
Click to expand...

Definately dont agree with that, take nee vegas as an example I completed the game and loved it, I then replayed it with all the DLC and it was like a totally new game. There would be hundreds of hours that were invested into creating this new content, do you think the additional sales of the core game would be sufficient to generate an acceptable profit? Hell no!

DLC that genuinely adds value is worth it
 
Neil79 said:
its still no, if modders have created far better levels and maps/ mods in the past for free, no dlc should be payed for. I'd rather buy the game and pirate the dlc
Click to expand...

That's a really stupid argument Neil.

Player made content is so rarely up to the standard of an actual developer made DLC, even for games that have been out several years like F3 or Oblivion there are really only a few mods that could be considered along side the DLC and even they are usually pretty limited in size.

Textures/models/fps etc maps yes, I agree generally mod communities do a better job but talking about bigger games like Fallout and TES etc? No, modders don't even come close to creating content that the devs themselves release.

It always surprises me when people pirate DLC, in some cases I can get it, stuff like Day1 DLC that they only release with pre orders or stupid little things like the Mass Effect DLC for guns and armor, but look at some of the F3/NV DLC, they are bloody amazing, adding dozens of hours of game play to already massive games. They went to the trouble of making a great game, they released a finished product, did they stop? no! They made even more great content to go along with a game which stands up perfectly by itself, they didn't just change the colours of a few items or add some pointless gimmicks, they added real engaging content. DLC like that allows Devs to make more money from a single game whilst not just screwing the fans, which I am all for.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom