Anyone else getting miffed off with DLC ?

I don't mind DLC a lot of times, and have bought it. the Last of us was good, fallout 3 burnout paradise and red dead redemption in particular all spring to mind as dlc I've bought and had no qualms over.

trials fusion also done it right I think two, with two levels to pay for the initial game but you could get the season pass later.

I have problems with things like WWE 2k15 holding back popular wrestlers for DLC as that is just taking the p and they should have been in from the start. Same with a lot of driving game holding cars back.

I think driving games should give like 20% of the dlc for free as an effort to get you back into a game you may have forgotten about or long stopped playing and entice you to buy the new dlc.
 
After buying battlefield 4 premium and hating the game from day one i now refuse to buy DLC and it just encourages game makers to be lazy and leave half the games content out
Its thats same old saying though, if no one buys it they will soon stop it...
But people will buy it so they keep doing it

I can understand day one patches to a certain extent because they have to produce the game like 6 weeks before its released but why not delay the game by 6 weeks?
 
Yes and no.

Yes - it's BS that a game is no longer a game and rather a expensive half finished shiney turd.

No - I like to support certain dev's and franchises and if that means waiting and paying a bit extra for decent stuff then so be it.
 
Only DLC i buy is proper expansion packs for games like Fallout and Skyrim. Even then I wait for steam sales or GOTY editions to get it cheap, I hate the companies that just release DLC for the sake of it, mainly car packs or extra equipment etc. :mad:
 
shatpank81 said:
I can understand day one patches to a certain extent because they have to produce the game like 6 weeks before its released but why not delay the game by 6 weeks?
Click to expand...

Because publishers set a deadline, and it costs them **** tons of money to move it so they will only move it if they really have to.

Quite often developers will work right up until the last minute, and then ship the game unfinished to meet the deadline, then carry on working on those last bits with the intent to finish it with a day one patch.

Gone are the days when publishers let developers ship a game "when its ready" unless of course you're Take Two / Rockstar. They have it right. But the likes of EA / Activision won't
 
IMG_8284701148084_zpsxexxcpex.jpeg
 
I tend to just wait for game of the year editions that has stuff bundled in.
There's a load of bad DLC out there, and day 1 stuff is absolutely pathetic.
 
If it offers a reasonable amount of gameplay for a reasonable price it can be fantastic. Day 1 DLC is generally a crock of **** though and while season passes can be good value I think the idea of buying into something when you have no idea of the quality of the product is stupid at best.
 
Dlc can be done great, ie extra content to flesh out a full game.
For example halo 2 maps on original xbox, around 6quid for 3 if I recall correctly then made free a few months later.
Other good examples, gta4 expansions.

Dlc is only bad when it's content that should have previously been in the game. If you don't want it don't buy it. Considering games used to be 60quid new on n64 the fact that most new releases are about 35 to 40 I don't mind paying more for dlc that will increase playtime /enjoyment
 
The idea of DLC is fine - it's just rarely utilised well.

The problem is that the cost of DLC is always a lot more than the comparative cost of the initial game. Considering it takes considerably less work to produce given you're just adding to what you've already created then the pricing structure for DLC needs a major overhaul.

But as others have pointed out - the production process of creating a game has increased costs a lot but the price of the products remain the same - often lower due to online sales competition.
This is a valid point, but at the same time you have to consider that costs have only went up because their is consumer demand for top notch graphics.
Costs have only went up because of the evolution of gaming - but I guess you'd need to decide how much of that is consumer pull and how much is technological push in the market. Most like a bit of both.

So if a bunch of people buy DLC which in turn keeps the original purchase price down for someone like me who does not buy it then that is my preference over the alternative - games increase in price for the core product.

What I do NOT agree with is how far they go with it which creates confusion with customers. Too many editions and DLC items spread between them all.
If they just keep it simple then i'm fine with it - even if I don't care for it myself.

Release the game at £40-£50 - then after a few months bring out clearly communicated DLC packs priced at £7.99 or whatever.
I purchased Borderlands DLC because by the time each one hit I enjoyed the extra 5-6 hours or more of content.
 
Battlefield: Hardline have just announced what's going to be included in the premium version of the game and already announced the DLC ?!?!?! The games not even out until the end of the month what the hell !!!!!!
 
BF:HL problem is what they have left out of the standard game play in order for it to be included as DLC.

DLC is fine in some games, Forza has done it right IMO, the car parks are cheap, Storm Island was worth the money as its already a very large game.

Its when they start taking basic gaming out of it and locking them away to make them not content you WANT...but content you NEED in order to play competitively or at least with the same pace as friends etc.
 
I think it is silly to think that DLC has increased the cost of gaming - it hasn't but people do not accept the value of money.

To make it simple take a snes game from 1991 - £50 was going rate, intact many were lots more, into days money that is pretty much doubled to £100.

Super mario Kart v Mario kart 8 - £100 vs £51 inc DLC...

Compare Street fighter 2 - SF4 for a proper lol at the cost of gaming back in the day
 
Actually SFIV is a very expensive game if you add up all of the expansion packs (SSFIV, SSFIVAE, USFIV) and all for the costume packs (multiple per character, 44 characters) it ends up way more expensive than the original SF2 on the SNES.
 
Kreeeee said:
Actually SFIV is a very expensive game if you add up all of the expansion packs (SSFIV, SSFIVAE, USFIV) and all for the costume packs (multiple per character, 44 characters) it ends up way more expensive than the original SF2 on the SNES.
Click to expand...

You sure on that, Snes launch was £80 or £149.84 taking inflation into account :o

Also remember you need to add turbo, super, & super turbo just on the snes....
 
Shimmyhill said:
You sure on that, Snes launch was £80 or £149.84 taking inflation into account :o

Also remember you need to add turbo, super, & super turbo just on the snes....
Click to expand...

SNES SF2 was £64.99 although it was available as JAP import for some time before that at around £100. I remember a local game import shop dropping the price of SF2 and Mario allstars to £89 and it being pretty big news at school!
 
Last edited:
That's correct, Nintendos pricing in the Snes era was scandalous. SF2 Turbo was £79.99 when it was released.
New releases were all around the £50 mark, and they were region locked.
Sega were not much better, although you could defeat their genius region lock by just filing the plastic lugs away on the cartridge port, hey presto multi region console.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom