Anyone else getting miffed off with DLC ?

Wilko_Dog

Wilko_Dog

Wilko_Dog

Soldato
Joined
16 Feb 2014
Posts
2,757
Location
North West England
Every single game that comes out now near enough as long as it's successful has DLC coming out a month later which you have to buy in order to play new maps etc .... then it will get another the month after , they even announce the extra content before the frigging games even out ! Which means they must already be working on it , i miss the days when it was just a one off purchase, and they waited a good year before they released 'expansion packs' which were basically another game on top of the original but for half the price , why don't they do that anymore ? Anyone else feel the same or is it just me ??

I suppose you don't have to buy the new maps etc for games if you don't like splashing out but then I just feel like your missing out ..

I just hope games I love playing like counterstrike and that don't go down the same route :(
 
It's become a joke. These days it's all about fleecing the consumer for as much money as possible.
 
I despise DLC. Exspecially things like Car Packs. I do however like expansion packs which add a whole load of new content.

However considering the increases in costs to make games compared to the PS2 era, and inflation etc on top of that, we're pretty lucky to still be paying £50 a game tbh and DLC and micro transactions are kind of necessary.

The ideal solution for me would be that Ubi and EA etc all put out a mobile game like Candy Crush Saga that uses micro transactions and makes them a £kajillion, and the proper console and PC games do not need micro transactions and crap DLC.
 
I love DLC....anything that expands a game. It is when the DLC is released really quickly that annoys me. If the companies waited about 6 months before releasing it would prolong the game and people's enjoyment, rather than handing everything to players within a few weeks of the games release.
 
jamesy505 said:
I love DLC....anything that expands a game. It is when the DLC is released really quickly that annoys me. If the companies waited about 6 months before releasing it would prolong the game and people's enjoyment, rather than handing everything to players within a few weeks of the games release.
Click to expand...

These days the DLC is produced at the same time as the main game. Cynical people, like me, would say that in days gone by that would have been included for your £45 original purchase price.

Spending £70+ for the "full" game and throwing 1GB+ patches around on a weekly basis are two things that are really helping to kill off my interest in gaming now.
 
Minstadave said:
Season passes - wtf. Why does every game come with a season pass?
Click to expand...

Yeah this too! Glad I'm not just on my own ...

And the day one patches then one every week , I think to myself oh I'll just have a quick game .... oh wait it's gotta update ... 1 hour later I can finally play :mad:
 
I refuse to download expansion packs for extra missions etc.

I am so glad DLC for GTA V is free. The only DLC I buy are songs for RockSmith or silly things like weapons or costume packs for Tomb Raider.
 
If only all the people who say they're fed up with it stopped actually buying it. Maybe then they'd get the idea that the consumer doesn't want it.
 
Vinno said:
If only all the people who say they're fed up with it stopped actually buying it. Maybe then they'd get the idea that the consumer doesn't want it.
Click to expand...

That isn't the problem, the problem is all the consumers who are happy to buy it, case in point the the destiny DLC, it's priced at a shocking amount but it's still 'only £20' (Don't even get me started on the cost in the USA vs UK debacle) to the vast majority of consumers and anybody who says otherwise either needs a new job or should be selling their console as they obviously cannot afford it.

DLC is here to stay and it's only going to get worse, now that Bungie have shown how little content they can get away with charging a premium for it wont take long for others to follow.
 
I don't mind DLC really as long as it's decent.
When stuff has blatantly been cut from the game to sell as DLC then it annoys me(kinda like Destiny). Also content that's locked on disc is also a disgrace. And when they announce stuff BEFORE a game is even out then it really winds me up.
 
Nintendo has it right so far. MK8 DLC costs 1/4 the price of the original game, comes with 1/4 the content of the original game ie # of tracks, vehicles etc etc.
This is basically the old PC expansion pack model, nothing wrong with selling more content if its a nice big chunk for a proportional price some time after the game comes out.
But most is just skipping round the issue that it costs too much to make AAA games to charge £40 any more.
Either they start charging £80 a game or they reign in the graphical excess to make them profitable at £40 or choose this sly, backdoor way to get to that £80.
Personally, I'm most happy with the 2nd option. Graphics are so good now that I don't mind not being on the cutting edge if I get a good game & good art style for my money.
 
The last of us did it right with the left behind DLC , although I still Haven't got round to playing the ... they waited a good 6 months or so to release it and they have left it at that....
 
DLC done in the right way is fantastic. Fallout 3 springs to mind. The DLC released for that was magnificent and worth every penny in my eyes.

It is things like Forza 5 that really bug me. All the car packs that should have been included in the retail game were shocking and I think turn 10 will have lost customers because of that. Going from 500ish cars in FM4 to 200 in FM5 was a huge let down.

I am more than happy to pay for DLC that is going to bring new content for me but I am not happy to pay for DLC that should be included in the game. Dirt 3 was my earliest encounter of this. (Lancia Delta S4 was shown in trailers then wasn't included in the game!).
 
I rarely buy DLC tbh because it feels like a rip off, it's annoying when it's released so close to the games launch but I can see why they do it because if they waited 6 to 12 months a lot of people would have moved on and wouldn't care anymore (also explains season passes, even if you don't care they've already got your money). The only games I seem to bother with DLC anymore are Borderlands and Fallout/Elder Scrolls (not horse armor) as I enjoy these and they do feel like something extra that's been worked on after the games release not something that's been cut off so they can sell it on. I flat out refuse to buy on disc DLC even if it seems good. Ubi are driving me mad now because on top of DLC they are throwing in transactions. I miss the mega-drive\psx\ps2 days where you bought a game, it was all there no paid for extras and because they couldn't patch the damn things worked from day one every time!
 
Short answer: No

DLC is often done right. I'm fine with it as long a it really is 'additional content' - released at a fair price following a significant period after a games release. Especially if it's for a game I really enjoy.

These days paid DLC is sometimes 'the rest of the content', which in most cases I don't agree with. This puts me off considering the purchase of a game, although most games that do this don't interest me in the first place.

In the end it's up to the consumer to decide if GAME+DLC+DLC is the right value for them, if people continue to buy into these models then companies will keep using them and pushing limits to make more money.

The whole thing doesn't really bother me, because for me a game at release is either worth the asking price or it's not, same for DLC. And they're just video games, I never feel obligated or pressured to purchase them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom