Poll: Do You Like DLC?

[HangTime]

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

The thing is though, in many cases a game that is 80% what it should be is still a good game and still good value for money. If people don't think it is up to standard with the DLC 'stripped out' then based on the reviews of the game, just don't buy it, simple as that. In many cases, a game 'crippled' in this manner will actually be better than another 'full' game with no DLC.

Heck, we could even take things a step further and look at something like the HL2 episodes. Could you argue that Valve are screwing us over by releasing only a portion of a game in EP1 and then 'making us' buy EP2 and at some point in the future EP3? Is EP2 just a glorified DLC for EP1? Most people would probably say they were happy with what Valve did despite them releasing partial/crippled versions of their game.

Ultimately, computer games are not some sort of public art form that we have a divine right to experience in their full glory. Publishers will increasingly seek to move towards models with recurring revenues and that is just natural behaviour for them.

One good thing about DLC that is rarely mentioned is that it increases the chances of the development team (or a proportion of it) remaining dedicated to the game in question. This in turn increases the likelihood of them patching the game to fix bugs etc, compared to a situation where there is no DLC and the publisher is desperate to move the studio onto their next revenue-making endeavour, leaving the game they've already released to rot.

 

[Vampyre]

Like most of the other posters I will buy DLC that adds to the single player game (I very rarely play anything online) so it really depends what the DLC is and which game.

 

[chid76]

If you engage your brain before buying DLC, there is nothing wrong with it. I mean £10 for the Vietnam pack for BFBC2 is good value. Releasing day 1 DLC is what annoys me, that content is obviously something that was ready to go into the game and they are just milking you.

 

[G18241]

i wont buy just costume packs etc, but am happy to pay for decent DLC...awaiting dungeon defenders DLC on the steam sale for the extra levels and higntmare mode

 

[gettothechopper]

£10 for the Vietnam pack for BFBC2 = yes
£10 for ARMA BAF or PMC = yes

£15 for cod map pack = no
£2 for a hat = no

£anyprice for something that gives someone an advantage in a game over you= this ruins games

 

[Semiskimmed]

no, i dont like it that much.
some games it can work on but not many, online FPS for instance is a terrible example as each dlc map pack lets say, splits the community more and more.
single player missions like mafia 2 are ok i guess if theyre priced well

 

[nuttyprot]

Yes if they spent time on it after the game has been released.
No if they rip you off and release it on or within the first couple weeks of the game launch. I feel it should be included in the original release if they do this.

 

[Jongo]

I have nothing against the concept of DLC and actually like the model.

Fact is the model is used to generate £££££ and abused by removing content from title launches and offered very shortly after for cash. Content that is already created as part of the initial development of the game and held back.

I hate the way DLC is used.

Pretty much spot on, for me there has been some dlc that has been great value for money and actually worth buying (borderlands and fallout stuff). Then there is dlc that is an extra gun for £3 which is just another gun but re skinned and released about 2 weeks after the actual game, the latter is what really irks me with dlc these days.

I miss the days where huge expansion packs were the norm

 

[harenzo]

I feel that if it's a substantive part of the main game/storyline, Day1 DLC is cheating you out of content. It speaks of the developers splitting the game up to add revenue.

Smaller DLC such as different armor/weps are fine for immediate release as long as they aren't overpowered for multiplayer.

 

[pingwing]

Yes only because civ3 and 4's expansion packs wound me up a treat, was such a big fan of the game's that I got play the world and warlords at full price so when it came to conquests and beyond the sword I effectively payed for them twice

DLC just means I buy the bits I want and only once!

 

[pgi947]

It depends what effort has gone into the DLC or if its just a case of paying extra to unlock content already on the disc, how resident evil 5 did things, was pretty disgusting. Really off putting spending £30 on a game then another £5 to unlock something that in theory you already own.

I'm more inclined to buy something branded as an "Expansion Pack". Bethesda usually get things right, just think of the mountain of expansions that got released for Fallout3, the great packs for Oblivion and no doubt the mass of packs that will get released for Skyrim.

 

[carlazai]

As someone above stated buying advantages in MP is terrible dlc. Shogun 2 had some of that and it put me off playing online straight away.

For games like saints row 3 where it is obvious they striped the game of content to increase revenue (seen by the size and the price reductions after release) it has made me wait for a sufficient price drop that i can get all for £15. Same with batman.

 

[Edrof]

DLC is great when it is actually EXTRA content that the devs have produced to augment or lengthen the life of the original game. If it is, in reality, content that should have been already included in the original game, or is overpriced and clearly 'cashing in' then it is the work of Satan and should be avoided at all costs!

CoD DLC is the perfect example of the worst type of DLC.

 

[Mark3h]

CoD DLC is the perfect example of the worst type of DLC.

Couldn't agree more. 4 Poorly designed maps + 1 map for a gamemode you'll probably play twice a month.
Unless people stop being stupid and forking out for these overpriced map packs, companies are just going to keep bleeding them dry.

I recently purchased DLC for Dungeon Siege 3, which was I think 50% off, probably about a month after it was first released.
It raised the games level cap by 5, loads of new quests and items, new areas to explore.

 

[pumaz]

Voted NO.

I dislike DLC with a passion and feel it will be the ruination of modern gaming. Take a long hard look at what they're doing with Ridge Racer on PS Vita that imo is where we're ultimately heading. it's one thing to sell kids who would normally spend their pocket money on ring tones clothing for their avatars which that as no effect on the game itself. But it's another to have to buy as in the case of "Dirt 3's Monte Carlo track Pack" extra content just to be able to complete the game.

I miss the glory days of recieving a bucket load of free Maps in the latest Quake or Unreal patch! Now when I buy a game I feel I may never actually own the full game unless I'm willing to spend a fortune on DLC

I've made a stand though, I will never buy DLC again unless it's a massive expansion pack and I won't buy a game like Dirt 3 again that is known not to be complete.

 

[FightingFirst]

I like DLC if... it does not feel like it was being made at the same time as the initial game and just held back. Nor do I like dlc if it breaks up a community, map packs in my view should always be free for MP games as they have the potential to split the community. My biggest gripe though is that more and more devs seem to be going the way of holding back content to sell to gamers later (I can understand why as they are a business after all) but the practice just seems underhanded to me. Much prefer expansion packs to dlc though.

 

[Dave****]

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I could not answer the poll.

 

[Nevakonaza]

For me it depends on what your getting with the DLC and most important the price,For example the DLC for the last couple of Call of Dutys were a ripoff...did not buy them.

 

[kylew]

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.

This goes to show that a lot of people don't quite "get" what DLC is or even means. "DLC" doesn't indicate the type of content on offer, just that it's content that's downloadable.

DLC can be a crappy release day thing that should have been in the game in the first place, to a complete large expansion pack, the only criteria it has to satisfy is that it's "downloadable". Look at Borderlands, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, they all had substantial expansions in the form of "DLC".

People need to establish that they dislike how some developers/publishers use DLC, not that DLC itself is disliked because the entire Steam catalogue would be considered "DLC" as it's content that you download.

 

[LokiS]

Yes and no. I like DLC's/Expatiation packs that are a continuation of a story or a new addon. But i do not like Expansion packs that are Short/Over Priced.

This really, I prefer the old way expansion packs for game works, were like smaller campaign, new units etc etc and was worth it. Todays DLC of having to pay out your nose for tiny areas for items or maps is greedy rubbish and I stay clear of that stuff.