Unlike expansion packs, DLC are often NOT required to play with your friends even if they have it. Also DLC lets you pick and choose which parts you want.
DLC can go both ways, look at Fallout/The Elder Scrolls DLC, it adds a dozen hours of content for the price. Which is great, because its practically like what most expansion packs used to do.
But then look at DLC for games such as Saint's Row 3 (Except for the 3 major DLC for the game), which is just to push out new skins or a weapon or two. That's over the top, who should have to pay $2 for a couple skins twenty times? But like I previously said, it lets you pick and choose (unless you're a completionist who wants it all), so there's a positive side to it as well, instead of bundling up all of them into a $2 x # of DLC megapack.
Dead Space 3 - DLC CAN be bought for money, but it reportedly can be bought for playing in-game as well, meaning it's only for lazy people who can't be assed to get it in game, or people who wants a quick boost.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think expansion packs are fine. If you want to charge an extra $10-$15 for the equivalent of that in gameplay, that's great. I love being able to extend the games I like, even if it costs a bit extra.
But paying extra for skins, maps, weapons, gold is WRONG. I see it as a waste of developer time and money, which they could be using to put more work into continuing the series, or working on the above expansion packs.
Paying extra for content that can only be enjoyed with others who have that content is inherently wrong. You're splitting up the player base and creating exclusion for a profit.
Now, if content can still be earned from playing, that's great, as long as it's reasonable to obtain. League of Legends does this pretty well.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm both for it and against it.
I'm going to use Fallout: New Vegas as an example also since I believe it's how every DLC should be done. The campaign/story DLC didn't relrease close to each other so that's good, also you didn't need them to enjoy New Vegas, but if you got them you were in for a (really good) treat.
But I also have a problem with New Vegas DLC because if you wanted to know more about the most mysterious person in the game you had to get the DLC, but still I believe it's worth it.
As for any other DLC such as skins and whatnot that's what plaguing the gaming industry, muchacho, and for some odd reason Killing Floor has lulled me. >':
I just miss the days of expansion packs that brought hours worth of content ;_;
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I do think it is a problem when you don't get to find out the whole story unless you buy the DLC (much like Mass Effect 3 and the Protheans).
But like you said, Fallout: New Vegas allowed you to do your own thing in the DLC with plenty of hours of gameplay, whereas most DLC doesn't seem to have a purpose.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good for some games if done as a patch/fix bug solution. Bad if like in Payday:The Heist where you only had 6 "heists" in the initial release and then DLC gave you 2 more "heists" that were already shipped with the initial release and not true DLC. Shame on you Overkill.
Comment has been collapsed.
for the developer they get moneys but dlc is fucking shit
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you think that enough people will ever boycott DLC to the point that they stop making it?
Buying games can almost be addictive.
Even though I don't like DLC i do find myself being drawn to it because I feel like if I don't buy it then i am missing out on something that is rightfully mine. (The rest of the story).
It'd be like going to a movie, seeing three quarters and being made to pay for the last twenty minutes.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe it is a good thing, IF done correctly:
1) any content created before or on release date should be free
2) depending on the level of content released in the DLC, it should be considered as to whether it should become "free" DLC to anyone who has the game at the time of release for the DLC, for a set amount of time (e.g. how dungeon defenders did the Halloween content, as they released it free for the first week and after that you had to pay, sort of like rewarding those who supported the game from day 1 with an extra map or two, or in the case of other games, maybe a skin/alternate look to a model)
3) the DLC should be a "worthwhile investment". At no stage whilst you are still interested in the game should you ever feel as though you wasted money.
4) in cases like terraria, i believe it would be okay to charge for a new update/DLC as they have released basically a second game's worth of content for free. I say well done to them and hope their next game, starbound will be just as epic.
Comment has been collapsed.
huh, guess i heard wrong then ^.^ can't remem where but i swear someone/somewhere said they were working on it, on the plus side it at least seems to be similar in style (lots of content for a low price and seemingly no DLC in sight)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not against DLCs as an idea. What I don't like is the pricing; nowadays games are ridiculously cheap few weeks/months after release even to the point the base game is cheaper than some 1-2 hours long DLC.
I don't like DLCs that should be part of the base game; for example: telling us that Javik in ME3 was a huge part of the story and definitely should have been included in the base game.
I don't like DLCs that include content that used to be free or done in editors by community; I'm looking at you CoD and your overpriced map packs.
I don't like long delay after the base game release; who is interested in some one hour additional content to the game that was release a year ago?
So what I like about them? Fallout: New Vegas had some pretty cool DLCs as well as Borderlands. If DLCs are done right they are good if not they are horrible.
After all I still miss those days of expansions; WarCraft III - Frozen Throne, Diablo 2 - Lord of Destruction, CoD - United Offensive, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
I completely agree with what you've said about ME3. The DLC they released was story related, and also the way ME3 works makes it very hard to continue your Story mode with new DLC chars, i ended up doing it all from the start again after my flatmate got the DLC (I refused to buy it because the ME2 DLC was pretty weak).
Also COD maps are a huge ripoff. The amount they charge is awful AND they always put rehashed maps in there.
Comment has been collapsed.
If every DLC would be as good as The Secret Armory of General Knoxx for Borderlands 1 I'd be fine with it.It's lengthy,full of content,oozing quality at all times and clearly isn't something cutten away from the game's middle in creation process to make a quick buck.Sadly this is an extremely rare case as most DLC's are short,lazy and something we should have had access from the very beginning.
Comment has been collapsed.
It first hurts the buyers, then the industry.
Not as bad as timed exclusives though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll paste my post from another thread:
Most of us hate DLCs and we wish the one who "invented" them will suffer in hell. Most games without DLCs are kinda unplayable with "you can't do that without xy DLC" messages and missing content. Imagine you buy Magicka for $2.5 and then you notice you'll need DLC's for $60 to normally play it. Fable 3 have 5 DLCs that cost $19...i can't and don't want to pay more for content that should be included (i mean quests, i don't care about outfits) to get the feeling of having a "complete" game like i had at purchases prior to 2006 (or whenever no one knew about downloadable content). Games nowdays are exactly like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do think that DLC pushes down the costs of the base game, which is nice. They are more willing to give it out in a big sale or bundle it up, just to get you to buy the DLC or the next version of the game and its DLC.
I don't necessarily think that ends up being great because it always means you pay about the same in the long haul if you have to buy the DLC later. They know that and they don't lose much on reducing prices. I actually think of the pricing of most games/dlcs as simply being the total price of the game. Since the games with DLCs tend to drop in price faster (I'm talking bigger games, not $5 games or something), you can almost count the overall cost to acquire everything as being what you actually paid for the game. For example, I got Max Payne 3 really cheap, but I also had to factor in the season pass. Even though it was on sale, as well, it still cost me extra to get what was available. I got Saint's Row: The Third as part of the Humble THQ Bundle, but I still have to pay for the DLCs if I want a complete game.
At this point, it is more like paying for another Blu-Ray, DVD, or digital version of a movie, to get a couple of extras. They simply hold stuff back that should have been included in the first place, to profit off it later. Prices go down on individual things, yes, but the company still makes mostly the same profit.
I do like when everything goes way down or when DLCs are bundled with the main game in the bundles. That usually means they are going to be pushing a new version out eventually and they are trying to get you hooked, now. You also see a lot of suddenly new DLC releases following these types of deals.
So are they good or bad? I really don't think I pay any more money now than I would have in the past. I just am not sure of what I am getting anymore. If I buy a game brand new, will I regret it later when I have to pay for everything else, if I want it. I'm not saying I do, I'm just asking "if". Do I wait for it all to go on sale together, then sit around waiting to see if anything else comes out. What about waiting for some complete version? Who knows how long that takes with any game or if you will even see it.
The sad thing is, I find myself passing on some games because I feel like there is too much DLC and I might have to wait for it all to drop together. A great example would be Cities in Motion. Now I don't really want to play it right now and might not ever like it, but I got it as part of a bundle, with no DLC. Steam doesn't sell the DLC in a pack, so I have to actually buy the whole game again, to get a pack discount. I don't really want the DLC, but I would pay a little for a pack to get a complete game, but now I am stuck with a game and no pack of DLC. Even on sale, individually, I didn't see the DLC as being worth purchasing. I might feel different if they packed only the DLC and put it down on sale, again. I know it wasn't much money, but that little extra for the game that I wouldn't be able to do anything with, actually made me cringe.
At this point, it isn't going away. All you can do is to maneuver it as best you can. I missed the Darksiders/Darksiders 2 complete deal and am unwilling to purchase the content at full price. I actually just started to put some of my points on here into the DLC and won two pieces that way. Now I am stuck in another position where if it goes on sale on Steam, I might have to pass on it because I now own two pieces and might not want to waste money since I own one of the bigger parts of it. So maybe now I win it all or just wait for a day where it is so cheap I can get it all without feeling like an idiot.
The worst part? I don't even care so much for DLC that it keeps me up at night or anything. I am not a money waster, either. That is how bad it has gotten. You have to weigh each purchase now, to maximize the value of your money and the return. If you make the wrong move, you can end up paying more in the long run. Of course this would be easier if Steam gave you a giftable copy of anything you already own, but we know that will never happen. I can't buy the Darksiders 2 Season Pass and get parts of it back.
I don't know at this point. I am late coming into the game. I took too many years off. When I left, none of this was going on. Now I come back and it has all gone to hell. :) If I am going to buy something, I want to buy something complete. If I am going to play something, I want to play something complete. I don't even know what to do sometimes.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess that's why Mass Effect, Skyrim, DmC, Street Fighter 4 (and especially Street Fighter x Tekken) were all cheap right?
Most devs use short term release DLC to squeeze more money out of consumers. They pile in DLC in the newer weeks of release to make more money while the game is popular and releasing more while it's still popular to keep interest. Honestly, I like when DLC is a forethought sort of like what expansions were. They have this great game that has either lost interest or has a lot of unanswered parts. Examples of DLC that I think work best are like the Missing Link DLC for Deus Ex or the DLC's for Fallout 3 and NV. Or maybe like Assassin's Creed 2's case. From what I understand they had to cut out a chapter or two because the game wouldn't meet deadlines. Now while I think it's stupid to cut out a chunk of game in favor of deadlines (cough Brutal Legend cough), I think readding them at a later date to refine it is not to bad... unfortunately this spawned a bad habit of Ubisoft (and I'm sure other companies before and after did this) of actually cutting out chunks of game to resell as DLC (or sometimes include it on disc and lock it from consumers (Street Fighter X Tekken and Mass Effect 3 are PRIME examples of this). Honestly, I think it's sad the industry has geared to making their product "accessible" and "appealing to a wider audience" because it really creates a barrier from it's older loyal customers who would have guaranteed them sales instead of them making a gamble trying to reach a "wider audience"
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by:
"I guess that's why Mass Effect, Skyrim, DmC, Street Fighter 4 (and especially Street Fighter x Tekken) were all cheap right?"
That was a strange list to compile. I wasn't talking about brand new games, just hitting the market. I also wasn't talking about best sellers that won't come down in price, very often. It is more of a by company type basis that tends to lean more towards what I said, as far as I can tell, through my own purchasing/browsing experiences. They basically reserve a way to make money, while dragging you in as a customer.
Also DMC hit dirt cheap right off and Skyrim coincidentally went back down on sale right when Dragonborn hit. They will find ways to make money, one way or another. It is hard to judge brand new games and best sellers. They may choose to release more at any time to take advantage of the demand and they may price drop at any time, as well. It isn't like there is only one thing being factored in.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, so Skyrim drops down when Dragonborn comes out. DMC has been $20-$25 all over, since it hit. Mass Effect 3 is $20 right now. Street Fighter, well I can't imagine that many people rush to it, so they keep the price high because they know the diehards will pay it. Once a Street Fighter fan, always a Street Fighter fan. Here is a link to some simple charts.
At what point did I say every game is like this? It was quite clear that I meant only some or even most of the games.
Now that of course has you trying to make some point with caps. That none of them ever do it. That makes no sense. Watch the sales. They almost always revolve around pushing the game down a bit, but still trying to get you to buy the DLC. They get creative, but they make their money.
If you aren't tracking the sales, then I pity you. You should not be paying full price for games. I understand your point of view if you aren't tracking sales, but there is almost no way someone would have it if they were.
Also, on what planet would I be mentioning top sellers or brand new games for sales? I think it is very clear that games like anything Call of Duty and Skyrim don't tend to follow the same rules as everything else, though they can sometimes, if you are lucky. We certainly don't live in a world where everything can be lumped into one category. This makes it even funnier that you went all caps lock on me, with the whole "NOT". Yeah, ok... One of your games just did it, so you defeated your own list.
Lets see, can't leave without some examples. THQ basically gives away Saints Row: The Third. No DLC, though. Borderlands 2 is on sale, but the Season Pass isn't. Most of those Paradox packs only included some or even in some cases, none of the DLC. You saved money on the smaller ones, but you didn't get everything. The Dungeon Siege pack doesn't have the expansions.
You think that they don't know these aren't included? When the sales start to run low, they put stuff on sale or even bargain bin it up. They either include the DLC in the sale, whether it be as a pack or just on sale itself, or they keep it up and expect it to be bought. DLC is for making money, but sometimes you have to sacrifice something to get something else. I see many, many cases of companies using DLC to make profits, while tinkering with the cost of the base game. I don't know how you don't, unless you aren't looking.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fuck DLC. few companies understand how to do it right, so just get rid of it. Look at gta iv and fallout. There is good dlc there. Same for skyrim... and arguably oblivion. But things like cod take the post piss. Charge way too much for very little content. Maybe if you calculated play time they could come out on top, but I hate that feeling of an incomplete game. DLC should be more like an expansion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bad. It's like cutting out a game's content and then selling it just for the profit. It's thievery IMO. In white gloves.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like those that used to be called expansion packs. Like Borderlands 2 or Bethesda games. Couldn't care less about hats and guns, maybe even like them because potentially, I'll get a better game at the expense of people who bought those hats.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think expansion packs are different. They usually add a new mission or story aswell as giving you new hours of gameplay and Bethesda do usually do a pretty good job of 'DLC' because they fall more into what would have previously been classed as an expansion.
Comment has been collapsed.
its a good thing for the gaming industry (which was your question) - it makes publishers shitloads of money, and gamers seem to be incapable of stopping themselves from buying it. the dlc plague will get worse as publishers realise they can make more and more money out of it, so yes, this is a great thing for the industry as its profits are increasing hand over fist with it, i think they're wondering why they didnt start this dlc stuff sooner, and push even faster for increased pricing and greater numbers for all the money it makes them.
its a BAD thing for gamers though.
Comment has been collapsed.
4 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by thenevernow
18 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by devotee
1,363 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by Bazilius
499 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by voidbreather
50 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by OneManArmyStar
1,466 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by star4you
8 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by WingsOfHope
504 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by Fluffster
51 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by CheMan39
9,025 Comments - Last post 38 minutes ago by Fluffster
110 Comments - Last post 42 minutes ago by LuckyStrike1305
2 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by Bazilius
10,404 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by JMM72
2,426 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by JMM72
Personally I don't like DLC. I don't like paying for something and knowing in two weeks another part of the game (that has usually been made before the base games release) will be coming out and cost more.
There are a few exceptions when games give you another few hours of gameplay (Fallout: New Vegas had some pretty good DLC), but when you get an extra gun or outfit is it really worth it for real life money?
Eventually I know i'm going to stop playing that game and for me it feels like money wasted.
I think i'm mostly bothered that Developers think we should pay extra for content THEY want to put in the game. When I was younger i never needed another five levels for £2.99 or 100,000 gold coins to buy new gear.
So, DLC, do you think it is a good thing, or a bad thing?
Edit: Also, companies now receive masses of praise for their DLC. Often consumers see it as companies continuing to care about their game but who wouldn't care about their game when they see an opportunity to earn another $20+ off of the consumers that care about the game. It seems the gamers are the ones who suffer, especially those who have supported a game since the start. I played Mass Effect since game one so I did want the DLC for ME3 because I wanted to know the end of the story. Most people who DO purchase DLC are those who believe in the game they are buying for, so it's the loyal customers that are being ripped off.
Comment has been collapsed.