DLC abuse

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

A while ago my friends and I got to talking about DLC. my friends said that DLC would be the next step in in gaming since it allows new content without the need of a expansion disc and while I agreed with this I said that this could be used as a excuse to charge us more for things that are already finished.

The street fighter x tekken hacking has got me worried that what I said wasn't a load of bull and companies are really thinking this way. The future is bleak if other games meet the same fate all because where charged extra for content that's already there so now well all be suspicious of DLC.

disscusion:
1.Is companies abusing DLC for personal gain?
2.do you believe that DLC is one of the best things in resent gaming ?

I Should also say that I don't hate the idea of DLC I just hate what's being done to it

whoops whong place

Its interesting. It occured to me just today that they actually intentionally left a small gap in the story of Deus Ex revolution purely for dlc.

When adam hides in this cargo hold on a boat. He lost contact with the guy on the radio he talks to for a long amount of time, I think a week. The guy on the radio asks him when Adam gets radio contact with him again what happened and Adam replies "Ill tell you later"

Then they release DLC about what happened while Adam Was in transit.

So....Intentionally leaving a hole in the story for dlc? I dunno, It doesnt upset me that much, just makes me uneasy....

I used to like DLC. Now I hate it and think it's one of the worst things to happen to gaming. Companies are determined to abuse the hell out of it and people are more than happy to support them. Oblivion: "Shivering isles", Fallout: "Operation anchorage" and "Broken steel", GTAIV: "Lost and damned" and "Ballad of gay Tony".

These were great examples of DLC, I loved these pieces of DLC, they added plenty to the game after it had been released, they were also well worth the price. Most of the DLC now seems to just be content that was cut out or should have been in the game originally.
DRM and DLC abuse are two of the most **** companies do. This is why I hate EA and Ubisoft, because they do **** like this.

Personally , i don't buy DLC, ever . Never have , never will , no matter what . I didn't like dlc when it first started , i still don't like dlc . I am old fashionned like that . When i buy a game , i play whats on the disc, then move on to the next game . That being said , i have no problem with peoe willing to shell out more money for their favorite games . But i have too many games to play and too little time to play it. Hell out of PRINCIPLE , i don't even enter the codes when they include it in games i buy new .

The advantage AND the problem of DLC is the ease with which it can be produced and published. One one side it makes it easy to get addons to games with minimum effort. On the other side it get's abused for tons of minimal dlc.

Now companies even started trying to offer endings to games as DLC. The simple solution? Only buy those you deem worth your money, give them a clear answer with your wallet what kind of DLC won't be tolerated.

Fieldy409:
Its interesting. It occured to me just today that they actually intentionally left a small gap in the story of Deus Ex revolution purely for dlc.

When adam hides in this cargo hold on a boat. He lost contact with the guy on the radio he talks to for a long amount of time, I think a week. The guy on the radio asks him when Adam gets radio contact with him again what happened and Adam replies "Ill tell you later"

Then they release DLC about what happened while Adam Was in transit.

So....Intentionally leaving a hole in the story for dlc? I dunno, It doesnt upset me that much, just makes me uneasy....

Well, it wasn't "left for the DLC", as much as it was "game rushed because of executive meddling", the way I understood it. It would have made more sense to just have it in, but...yeah, executive meddling.

On topic tho; I prefer full expansions for more story related stuff, DLC should be purely cosmetic.

lapan:
Now companies even started trying to offer endings to games as DLC. The simple solution? Only buy those you deem worth your money, give them a clear answer with your wallet what kind of DLC won't be tolerated.

You've said it better than I could.

I tend to be cynical about the DLC which are intended as game endings, or additional content.. I think the only additional content I actually liked was Oblivion's "Shivering Isles" DLC. I thought that was amazing. <3

Nowadays, I only seem to end up buying cosmetic DLC. Costumes and stuff like that. I have no idea why. ><

The biggest problem I have with DLC is not that its overpriced, or that companies are intentionally cutting out core parts of games to sell them later on, its the inconsistency in quality.

If I wander into a random game store right now and just buy a 60 dollar title at random, theres a 80% chance the game will be at least decent.

If log onto xbox live or go to Steam and buy a random piece of DLC for 10 bucks, theres a 60% chance its going to be a complete pile of shit. For 10 bucks I could get a mission pack for Deus Ex: HR, which is decent at least, or I could get something like the Normandy Crash Site, which is terrible.

Theres just so much straight up terrible DLC out there. No one really reviews it, most people just buy it on a whim since they liked the core game, and thats my biggest problem with DLC. Developers and publishers seem to think "Hey, its DLC, we dont have to put any effort into this!"

krazykidd:
Personally , i don't buy DLC, ever . Never have , never will , no matter what . I didn't like dlc when it first started , i still don't like dlc . I am old fashionned like that . When i buy a game , i play whats on the disc, then move on to the next game . That being said , i have no problem with peoe willing to shell out more money for their favorite games . But i have too many games to play and too little time to play it. Hell out of PRINCIPLE , i don't even enter the codes when they include it in games i buy new .

I've also never used DLC's mainly thats because of my internet connection, but also I dont like companies exploiting me for coin.

Buuuuuuuut....... expansion packs filled with tonnes of new content on the other hand..............

DLC is a double edged sword at best.

The thing is it can (& sometimes is) used to just add new 'chapters' or a few nice extras that are all purely optional but worth playing or using.
That is wonderful and can add more value to a good game.

On the other hand, what seems to be more often is basically making a game where you need to buy DLC. Or at least stuff that for no real logical reason was left out of the game is released instead as DLC.

I'm going to sound like an old man out of touch with the times but.... in some ways I kind of miss the old pre-internet connected gaming when they kind of had to put together a complete game with no need for DLC and absolutely having to have a good single-player experience.

Dont like it. Dont buy it.

If you think that the game isn't complete without all the extras, then you just got to calculate the price as such.

A good example is Dungeon Defenders. Sold with the intend of making dlc and selling it. The models were available on launch, but has only resently been finished as DLC. Do we deserve them because the models were there?

No we get an offer, and we can take or leave it. We dont go into McDonalds and pay for a hamburger then expect a cheeseburger. You get what you pay for. Inform yourself what you are buying, and in this case what you arn't buying.

DLC has great potential, in the positive and negative sense.
Sadly when it comes to business you can expect any dirty trick that can be used to be used, so the majority of DLC right now is overpriced garbage or simply part of the game they witheld.
And because these packages are so small and floded noone reviews them so unlike expansion packs you get no concrete info on what you might get for your money.

I got some old school mates in dev teams and their consensus is: "don't fucking buy it because it's not our idea, management pushes these asshole moves and if you keep paying for it then it will never stop".

There's been some really good DLC such as Minerva's Den for Bioshock 2, and all the ME2 DLC (bar Arrival) so its not a total waste of money, but the number of map packs pumped out is almost criminal. Double edged sword indeed.

This is why I like valve.

Dlc is free.

I just want to go back to the expansion pack model. My brain is still in the whole expansion pack system to be honest.

If you have $30 of DLC and it wouldn't amount to what I could get in a good expansion pack for $30, then I value it as a waste of money.

Theo Rob:

disscusion:
1.Is companies abusing DLC for personal gain?
2.do you believe that DLC is one of the best things in resent gaming ?

I Should also say that I don't hate the idea of DLC I just hate what's being done to it

DLC is awesome.

It's unfair to blame DLC for behaviors of the game pub/devs abusing it. I've never viewed DLC as an expansion but as a game mod released by the game developers. As a gamer the ability to purchase additional content developed after the game has been released that can enrich your gaming experience is great. As a devloper, the ability to create additional content for a game after release is an additional revenue stream.

DLC is a win-win situation when done properly.

well let me put it this way, Fable The Lost Chapters (yes its a decade old or so) but a full game on steam for 7, day 1 dlc for mass effect 3 nearly 10

having said that dlc is still overall awsome, but is being abused

Depends on the DLC. I like to judge DLC individually. I've purchased some, haven't purchased others. Hit and miss, I think.
Judge wisely if your money is involved.

Like alot of people have said, it really depends on the DLC. Stuff like Dandark mentioned (Shivering Isles, TLATD.etc) are amazing for how much they cost, but then they're basically old school expansion packs. Even some of the smaller DLC that adds to games but aren't really neccesary are also good (I quite like Desperate Escape from RE5 for example).

The problem is that companies are using it as a green light to make shite and charge for it. They're basically making stuff that is Horse Armour Mk2 but getting away with it because some people will buy ANYTHING.

I guess it depends on the DLC. GTA, The Elder Scrolls, and Dead Rising are some companies I can think of that have done DLC the right way. Just extra chapters for the story and not much else

Lagao:
This is why I like valve.

Dlc is free.

Not too difficult when almost your entire line of games are nothing more than DLC to Half Life or Half Life 2.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
snip

Exactly my issue. How is actual content priced the same way as esthetic items?

AC10:
I just want to go back to the expansion pack model. My brain is still in the whole expansion pack system to be honest.

If you have $30 of DLC and it wouldn't amount to what I could get in a good expansion pack for $30, then I value it as a waste of money.

I liked that model. 20€ would be comparable in length to a Call of Duty, and 30€ would usually be like a full game - many times a standalone pack! A complete bargain if you compare it with 10€ for aesthetic content that doesn't change your experience.

Dandark:
I used to like DLC. Now I hate it and think it's one of the worst things to happen to gaming. Companies are determined to abuse the hell out of it and people are more than happy to support them. Oblivion: "Shivering isles", Fallout: "Operation anchorage" and "Broken steel", GTAIV: "Lost and damned" and "Ballad of gay Tony".

These were great examples of DLC, I loved these pieces of DLC, they added plenty to the game after it had been released, they were also well worth the price. Most of the DLC now seems to just be content that was cut out or should have been in the game originally.
DRM and DLC abuse are two of the most **** companies do. This is why I hate EA and Ubisoft, because they do **** like this.

those were not dlcs. those were mostly expansion packs.

I think part of the problem is the degree to which companies tend to value their product. Take Just Cause 2, for instance. The main game is many, many hours of content, of all sorts, for $50. The addons are a couple of weapons or a new vehicle for $1-$2. Marginal value, but they cost as much as 1/50 or 1/25 of the full game. Judged on the same price scale (which any gamer is apt to do), DLC of this sort is incredibly overpriced.

Or take Deus Ex. The full game is a $50, 30-hour adventure. The expansion is 1/4 to 1/3 the price for 1/10 to 1/8 the content. Plus, as with so many of these things, it's clear that the level of dedication that went into the main game didn't find its way into the rote, by the numbers expansion.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure good DLC on the micro-transaction level is commercially viable. There's just too much overhead involved in making quality content, such that 1 hour of new content may cost half as much as 5. And when the DLC is priced according to what the company spent on it, not according to what it's worth to the consumer, we have a problem.

Expansion packs truly were the way to go, I think. Large enough to offset the overheads, and expansive enough to FEEL like value-for-money, even if they weren't quite as big or engaging as the main game.

Still, if your expansion pack is only 20 hours to the main game's 60, please don't price it at $40 to the main game's $60. We can tell when someone's pulling one over on us.

Vegosiux:

Fieldy409:
Its interesting. It occured to me just today that they actually intentionally left a small gap in the story of Deus Ex revolution purely for dlc.

When adam hides in this cargo hold on a boat. He lost contact with the guy on the radio he talks to for a long amount of time, I think a week. The guy on the radio asks him when Adam gets radio contact with him again what happened and Adam replies "Ill tell you later"

Then they release DLC about what happened while Adam Was in transit.

So....Intentionally leaving a hole in the story for dlc? I dunno, It doesnt upset me that much, just makes me uneasy....

Well, it wasn't "left for the DLC", as much as it was "game rushed because of executive meddling", the way I understood it. It would have made more sense to just have it in, but...yeah, executive meddling.

On topic tho; I prefer full expansions for more story related stuff, DLC should be purely cosmetic.

That's pretty convenient. Sounds suspicious to me but even if it's straight, that excuse is no doubt used all the time. We couldn't fit "xxxx" in before the deadline but if you pay us $10 more you can get it.

Buy it or not buy it. Not worth moaning about it, your not forced to. Me personally i will only buy huge expansion pack missions, those like in ME2 and Fallout/Elder Scrolls. The extra objects (weapon, cars etc), anything online related or characters i dont give a crap about.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
The biggest problem I have with DLC is not that its overpriced, or that companies are intentionally cutting out core parts of games to sell them later on, its the inconsistency in quality.

If I wander into a random game store right now and just buy a 60 dollar title at random, theres a 80% chance the game will be at least decent.

If log onto xbox live or go to Steam and buy a random piece of DLC for 10 bucks, theres a 60% chance its going to be a complete pile of shit. For 10 bucks I could get a mission pack for Deus Ex: HR, which is decent at least, or I could get something like the Normandy Crash Site, which is terrible.

Theres just so much straight up terrible DLC out there. No one really reviews it, most people just buy it on a whim since they liked the core game, and thats my biggest problem with DLC. Developers and publishers seem to think "Hey, its DLC, we dont have to put any effort into this!"

I think you're overestimating your odds of getting a good game and underestimating your odds of getting shitty DLC.

rhizhim:

those were not dlcs. those were mostly expansion packs.

I know where you are coming from but times have changed from the days of yore, those listed were pretty much all created, marketed and sold as DLC.

That is why we have such a varying grey area at present.

Theo Rob:
A while ago my friends and I got to talking about DLC. my friends said that DLC would be the next step in in gaming since it allows new content without the need of a expansion disc and while I agreed with this I said that this could be used as a excuse to charge us more for things that are already finished.

The street fighter x tekken hacking has got me worried that what I said wasn't a load of bull and companies are really thinking this way. The future is bleak if other games meet the same fate all because where charged extra for content that's already there so now well all be suspicious of DLC.

disscusion:
1.Is companies abusing DLC for personal gain?
2.do you believe that DLC is one of the best things in resent gaming ?

I Should also say that I don't hate the idea of DLC I just hate what's being done to it

Let me ask you something, what is the purpose of a company?

Lagao:
This is why I like valve.

Dlc is free.

I don't think every other company has a store to get profit's from though.

Crono1973:

Vegosiux:

Fieldy409:
Its interesting. It occured to me just today that they actually intentionally left a small gap in the story of Deus Ex revolution purely for dlc.

When adam hides in this cargo hold on a boat. He lost contact with the guy on the radio he talks to for a long amount of time, I think a week. The guy on the radio asks him when Adam gets radio contact with him again what happened and Adam replies "Ill tell you later"

Then they release DLC about what happened while Adam Was in transit.

So....Intentionally leaving a hole in the story for dlc? I dunno, It doesnt upset me that much, just makes me uneasy....

Well, it wasn't "left for the DLC", as much as it was "game rushed because of executive meddling", the way I understood it. It would have made more sense to just have it in, but...yeah, executive meddling.

On topic tho; I prefer full expansions for more story related stuff, DLC should be purely cosmetic.

That's pretty convenient. Sounds suspicious to me but even if it's straight, that excuse is no doubt used all the time. We couldn't fit "xxxx" in before the deadline but if you pay us $10 more you can get it.

Well, the DLC was released a few months after the game, as opposed to day 1 DLC...

I didn't know you could abuse extra content. You know, since it's optional. And extra content.

GoaThief:

rhizhim:

those were not dlcs. those were mostly expansion packs.

I know where you are coming from but times have changed from the days of yore, those listed were pretty much all created, marketed and sold as DLC.

That is why we have such a varying grey area at present.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Shivering Isles is the largest official expansion pack for the role-playing game The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Announced on January 18, 2007, the expansion was developed, published, and released over the Xbox Live Marketplace by Bethesda Softworks;

Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony is the second of the two episodic expansion packs available to the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and PC versions of Grand Theft Auto IV, developed by Rockstar North and released for the Xbox 360 on 29 October 2009.

it was later sold with lost and dammed in a standalone version if i remember right.

the fallout ones were sold as dlc.
but i would rather eat 50 lemons than call shivering isles a dlc.

and yes dlc can be good.
but the path it start to take now, is bad.
also:


Difficult to link properly thanks to being on my mobile but have a look at the page address on the official Elder Scrolls website; http://www.elderscrolls.com/oblivion/dlc/.

Under the DLC heading, aye? I agree with your sentiment, however.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked