No Right Answer: DLC: Good or Bad?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

DLC: Good or Bad?

Downloadable content, expansion packs, money grabs...content added to an existing game after launch has many names. Is DLC an insult to gamers, or is it a tool for good?

Chris and Dan are going to be at the Escapist Expo! Get your tickets today!

Watch Video

Disc Locked Content is bad.... I bought it so I wouldn't have to play with my friends that think DLC is evil.

Edit....
Sheer stupidity....
Ahem....
I claim this post for *Fronts!....
My bad I had to say something stupid....

*France

Honestly I've got nothing against day 1 DLC when it's content that isn't already on the disc and is free for whoever purchase the game new. It should never touch the story regardless. If you need to either buy it new or pay extra to see the core game then that's bad and you will be punished.

Alan Wake was a game I think did a good job of giving away DLC to those who bought the game new. The first DLC expansion built on the story of the core game and showed us what happened after. It was released a couple months later giving us time to finish it and think it through. Also

Fully complete DLC on the disk is terrible. If what's on the disk is incomplete, initially meant to be in the game but something that couldn't be completed on time so turned into dlc, I'm fine with that. There's a lot of stuff like that in KOTOR 2, before the days of dlc, later completed by fans. Even Ocarina of Time has data like that in the cartage.

DLC used to extend the enjoyment of the game = Good
DLC used to fix an unenjoyable game = Bad
DLC used to make a game unplayable without it = Ugly

DLC to change pixel colors = Who cares?

Remember when you used to unlock stuff like costumes and cheat codes in a game by playing the game well? Yeah, now you get pointless points towards your stupid gamerscore, and those costumes have to be purchased piecemeal.

What most people don't get is that what companines doing with DLC, instead of ADDING contents as it should it's CUTTING them, on DAY ONE and asking you to pay more to access it. That is fucking bullshit!

Another way that companies does is making DLC affect gameplay of the core game, like locking away skills or lock outs that directly affects the balance of the game thus breaking the game. It's like they are trying to make the DLC mandatory but hiding the fact that it is.

DLC can do good, but it will never be good because of human nature and greed. I can probably be done properly by indie developers that acutally like making and play games. But in the hands of big coperations they will use it as a tool to lock out contents that should have been in the game in the first place.

Cursed Frogurt:
Remember when you used to unlock stuff like costumes and cheat codes in a game by playing the game well? Yeah, now you get pointless points towards your stupid gamerscore, and those costumes have to be purchased piecemeal.

Also remember when you use to just put in the game into a console or PC and just play with new patches and updates every 2 weeks because certain developers aren't even bothered any more mean test the game properly before launch anymore? I agree with you things were more simple back then because you had to be good at a game in order to get the best rather than pay to win, pay to add extra story, pay to get extra costumes and pay for cheat codes.

The other two guys are doing... What?

I have to disagree with the idea that DLC keeps the cost of games down.

A) Extra work (ie: paid time for developers) goes into making that DLC, which obviously raises the costs of development
2) There is very little reason development budgets need to be as high as they are presently, so there shouldn't be a need to increase prices at all; The indie dev scene is in the renaissance it is because developing a game is cheaper than ever; smaller projects, yes, but not every release needs brand-new physics engine. Price a game based on it's value as decided by the market. If Orange Box had cost $60 per game it contained, I doubt it would have sold anywhere near as many copies
#) Ask yourself if this argument would work for anything else. If the burger shop described charging extra for the Wooden Pickle as the reason the burger only cost $5 instead of $10, you'd be flabbergasted

Just my 2 cents

Most of this just made me angry about DLC. But i do think that the Dark Souls DLC was awesome, especially because the game (with artbook & soundtrack) only cost €35 on Day One.

So, we're just gonna ignore that, contractually speaking, you're just buying exactly what they say you're buying, and the disk is just a distribution method? You wouldn't have a problem with the dlc if it was all on the hard drive, but because some of it was on disk, the company needs to be burned at the stake? You know exactly what you're getting when you buy a game, or at least you should if you have access to the internet. If you don't like what you see, just move along. They'll probably release a complete version of the year with all that content you feel entitled to, and it'll probably cost less.
The bottom line is, games are a luxury good. No one is holding you at gunpoint and demanding you buy Call of Duty 2014 and all of it's DLC. If you don't like product, don't buy it. Buying it and then complaining about everything that it didn't come with is just supporting the current system, and makes it quite clear that you lack self control.

Why is it called DLC? Downloadable is one word. But it is far to late for this to be brought up.

The first DLC for Bioshock Infinite Clash in the Clouds is not bad, but not all that great. Ran though it quickly and I don't have the desire to do it again. Maybe I might go ribbon hunting in greater depth. Though Burial at Sea seems like DLC done absolutely right. I can't wait to play a Bioshock game that plays out like film noir. I can't wait to run around Rapture before the fall. I can't wait to play Elizabeth's side of the story.

Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon is another good example of DLC done right. I have beaten it so many times yet it just refuses to get stale with me. Maybe it's Michael Biehn's voice over as Sargent Rex Power Colt. Maybe it is because the weapons in the game are straight out of great sci-fi movies. Maybe it's because if you press the R3 buttom you give the bad guys the finger.

That other dude on the b team has no idea what he's talking about. DLC has nothing to do with the cost of games. DLC is made for the purpose of preventing gamers from trading in games, extend gameplay, or simply nickel and dime gamers for cosmetic perks that were once unlockable.

The cost of games rises and falls with development costs relative to the era of gaming.

I use to pay $75 for SNES games and $50 for PS1 games. Both have no dlc and are at to drastically different prices. It's all based on the cost to create that game, the cost to publish, the cost to manufacture (cartridges costs more than discs), etc.

ParsonOSX:

Cursed Frogurt:
Remember when you used to unlock stuff like costumes and cheat codes in a game by playing the game well? Yeah, now you get pointless points towards your stupid gamerscore, and those costumes have to be purchased piecemeal.

Also remember when you use to just put in the game into a console or PC and just play with new patches and updates every 2 weeks because certain developers aren't even bothered any more mean test the game properly before launch anymore? I agree with you things were more simple back then because you had to be good at a game in order to get the best rather than pay to win, pay to add extra story, pay to get extra costumes and pay for cheat codes.

Reminds me of an old Stolen Pixels strip (when's that guy going to make more of those?) with the opening monologue of After Curfew with Dr. Wallace Breen. One of Breen's jokes is about DLC, and he says "DLC. Hmph! Back in my day, the only DLC we had were called Patches." [Audience laughter] "And they were free!" [Loud cheering]

ccggenius12:
So, we're just gonna ignore that, contractually speaking, you're just buying exactly what they say you're buying, and the disk is just a distribution method? You wouldn't have a problem with the dlc if it was all on the hard drive, but because some of it was on disk, the company needs to be burned at the stake? You know exactly what you're getting when you buy a game, or at least you should if you have access to the internet. If you don't like what you see, just move along. They'll probably release a complete version of the year with all that content you feel entitled to, and it'll probably cost less.
The bottom line is, games are a luxury good. No one is holding you at gunpoint and demanding you buy Call of Duty 2014 and all of it's DLC. If you don't like product, don't buy it. Buying it and then complaining about everything that it didn't come with is just supporting the current system, and makes it quite clear that you lack self control.

Typically you wouldn't find out about disk locked content until after you've bought the game. People feel cheated knowing there is content on the disk they bought but can't use because of arbitrary reason.

Oh, come on!
This wasn't even a debate!!!!
You're supposed to make me laugh and fight each other for points, darn it! :(

DLC is bad period. When games get their content cut, just because their publishers wants to skim more money out of their consumers is a disgusting technique that should die already.

Whenever I hear Expansions like Starcraft 2 Heart of the Swarm or Brave New World for Civ 5 named as DLC it makes me foam at the mouth how ignorant some people are. It's not the same thing, stop naming it like that. Good thing we still have the PC developers such as Blizzard, Firaxis and others that still do expansions.

DLC's should be wiped off completely off the map and give us the complete game instead. Once the game is done and finished you move onto the next one or work on an expansion.

I don't buy DLC 99% of the time. But every once in a while a CONTENT DLC comes out that peeks my interest and i may buy it it when goes on sale.

I don't buy cosmetic DLC because i don't play dress up. Frankly i just don't care what my character(s) looks like.

Whether its good or bad seems irrelevant at this point. Its staying whether we like it or not. Changes can only happen when we as consumers collectively stop buying them.

edit: i prefer Expansion packs. But its semantics really. Shoguns 2 2 expansion packs were called DLC but they gave you 2 very different games so that kind of DLC i am for.

DLC just discourages me from buying a video game most of the time. "Hey, there's a new game I want. Oh there's a season pass? That must mean there's going to be more stuff later. Guess I'll just wait until they're really done with it and see if there will be a deluxe edition or game of the year." *Six months pass* "Hey, there's a new game I want." Telling me that there's more stuff coming is just giving me future buyers' remorse.

However, if they ever put Swamp Thing in Injustice, then I guess my argument is nullified because I'll be buying that fairly quickly.

Disc-locked is nothing short of annoying money-grubbing, but I'm not sure I'm down on the idea of placeholders for DLC that comes out later existing in the game. Not ideal, but acceptable, at least.

But then, I'm a fan of DLC anyway, and inclined to buy certain things for the titles I like. I didn't mind the Warden's Keep guy in Dragon Age, but I hated the cut missions in Assassin's Creed. And sometimes, we get some nice tasty treats reminiscent of the old ex-packs, but other times we get $5-10 affairs that are shorter, but are simply more of the game. The recent Fallout games did this, and while some of those add-ons weren't exactly the right mix of gameplay (lookin at you, Operation Anchorage), but other times they put you in a new map with all new toys to play with and plenty of skill checks to get your hands dirty however you like (see Mothership Zeta, Old World Blues, Honest Hearts, The Pitt, etc), and that's exactly the kind of thing I want to pay for more of.

4:50 Unless it's Tales of Xillia and it's the 300,000 Gald for $5.
The Lvl ups and 3 bucks for costumes however....are bullcrap.
Giving players sample packs with 1000 Gald and 3 of high value materials each (as in 3 each of 6 items) for free....
are not. That is a good idea.

5:54 Again,the 300,000 Gald for 5 bucks a decent idea. Who has played a recent RPG and
wanted a bunch of that game's currency real quick? Especially if it's early on?

SOme games are improved with DLC. (See DA2: Legacy)

Ukomba:
Fully complete DLC on the disk is terrible. If what's on the disk is incomplete, initially meant to be in the game but something that couldn't be completed on time so turned into dlc, I'm fine with that. There's a lot of stuff like that in KOTOR 2, before the days of dlc, later completed by fans. Even Ocarina of Time has data like that in the cartage.

On the other hand, with the push to get games out faster, it's almost impossible to get all the planned content finished for launch. Monetizing what was supposed to be in the game but wasn't due to unreasonable time constraints seems sketchy to me.

I'm playing Mass Effect 3 for the first time just now, about 80-90% through from what I understand (having avoided most spoilers since it's release). One of my mates insisted that I should finish it without the extended cut the first time so I can understand fully the outcry that occurred.
However I have bought "From Ashes", aka Javik expansion, aka everything-he-says-totally-changes-your-perspective-on-everything-in-the-games-universe.
Seriously, I can't believe he was an extra cost, he is SO critical to the game universe.

I think there was a fundamental bias in this episode of having a guest speaker. The opening question asked was 'what is good about DLC?' not a bad question as such. But there was bias here.

I would like to see more guests come over and two-on-one 'challenge' that persons beliefs (in a friendly way of course). I don't mean conversion. But real discussion. This sounded more like a sales pitch for more DLC. Of course I would guess it might be hard to get industry volunteers to come in if they know it would be challenging.

The ME3 From The Ashes dlc wasn't on the disc and came with the collectors edition (if you're going to hang shit on a game at least get the facts right) and how the hell are they supposed to put by demand post release new endings on the disc? Think guys. The other dlc packs WERE almost complete new games, at least 8hrs (Citadel was well over 15)in each with almost nothing recycled from the main game.

They also did tones of FREE multiplayer stuff.

You did seem to be mixing up microtransactions with DLC in a few instances there... regardless, it's as you said in the closing statements, it can be used well... it just too often isn't.

Games in Australia start at $90. Think of us when you say games are expensive.

More publishers and developers need to follow how CD Projekt Red treats DLC and expansion packs. The Lost and Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony were pretty good examples of good DLC/expansion packs.

It so depends on the DLC, some are really good adding extra hours of fun. Others are indeed clothes.. yup clothes.

Worst of course is if you take a game with a story and take out 2 whole chapters as DLC. [looks at a certain game with an assassin]

Don't get me wrong DLC yes in the past tended to be freaking big things. Now.. sometimes you have another 6-7 hours of story added and that is kinda kewl for the right price. But that is said already right.

It is nice we nowadays can add to games, in good games it is awesome to return. Skyrim has gotten a whole new end game for instance. Not bad for that price..

But yeah a $5 money cheat DLC? Seriously? A Final Fantasy xiii-2 bikini DLC? Eeeeh yeah I guess that will sell.
And some things are priced so low they are like the small change of gaming DLC.

Of course we could remember the Horse Armor DLC....oh my. That was a good laugh!

Dan has touched upon it but ill expand as this is my usual response to DLC:

Back in the old days we used to call DLCs patches and they were free, we used to call expansions DLC and paid 10 bucks for it, we used to call Sequels expansions and paid 30 bucks for it. Just because they renamed them does not mean it got more content.

Evil Smurf:
Games in Australia start at $90. Think of us when you say games are expensive.

Well to be fair your dollar has fallen a lot lately.

Count_A'ight:
Why is it called DLC? Downloadable is one word. But it is far to late for this to be brought up.

The first DLC for Bioshock Infinite Clash in the Clouds is not bad, but not all that great. Ran though it quickly and I don't have the desire to do it again. Maybe I might go ribbon hunting in greater depth. Though Burial at Sea seems like DLC done absolutely right. I can't wait to play a Bioshock game that plays out like film noir. I can't wait to run around Rapture before the fall. I can't wait to play Elizabeth's side of the story.

Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon is another good example of DLC done right. I have beaten it so many times yet it just refuses to get stale with me. Maybe it's Michael Biehn's voice over as Sargent Rex Power Colt. Maybe it is because the weapons in the game are straight out of great sci-fi movies. Maybe it's because if you press the R3 buttom you give the bad guys the finger.

Is Blood Dragon actually DLC considering it's stand-alone and not auxiliary to a pre-existing game?

Personally I don't mind DLC as long as it's reasonably priced for what it offers and it's not content cut directly from the initial game.

Strazdas:
Dan has touched upon it but ill expand as this is my usual response to DLC:

Back in the old days we used to call DLCs patches and they were free, we used to call expansions DLC and paid 10 bucks for it, we used to call Sequels expansions and paid 30 bucks for it. Just because they renamed them does not mean it got more content.

Evil Smurf:
Games in Australia start at $90. Think of us when you say games are expensive.

Well to be fair your dollar has fallen a lot lately.

Not by anywhere near enough to consider 90AUD for a 60USD game "fair".

If it is on the Disc already it's content they Cut from the game. I doubt you can send a game off to get certified and then switch the certified game out with a disc full of additional locked dlc because it wasn't certified.

Not only is it disrespectful to the customers, But it can lead to loss of money ((Hackers)) and rightfully pissed off customers ((Hackers using locked content against paying customers)) Just ask capcom

Street fighter x tekken, Hackers were using locked characters online against people that legit buyers of the game, couldn't even purchase if they wanted to. http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Hackers-Use-Street-Fighter-X-Tekken-DLC-Characters-XBL-Ranked-Matches-40551.html

Dragons Dogma, For lolz people were hacking their game, unlocking and rebuying DLC stuff that wasn't availble yet, and just giving them to people's pawns that the player could take off and have for themselves. Why buy the DLC when you already have the bonus equipment?

anyone who argues dlc is generally bad, please take a look at bethesda. their "addons" are dlc. and as i see it, you get much bang for your buck.

New Troll:
DLC used to extend the enjoyment of the game = Good
DLC used to fix an unenjoyable game = Bad
DLC used to make a game unplayable without it = Ugly

DLC to change pixel colors = Who cares?

Yup spot on : ) Unfortunately I find DLC to be too tempting of a cash grab for companies not to abuse.

I think the DLC Mona Lisa explains it the best though : )

edit: typo

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here