How do you feel about DLC in games?

DLC is never necessary unless the core mechanics are improved by it. I like DLC when it's worth it.
But saying 97% of the content is already there behind a paywall is nonsense. Care to provide your sources?

Expansion DLC = yes
Cosmetic DLC = not really
Day-one DLC with content that should have been in-game = hell no!

Nowadays, most DLCs seem forced and overpriced, but it's not that the idea itself is wrong, I'd rather say that it's exploited in some very wrong ways.

Nowadays, a game without DLC is just a demo. I know it's nonsense but devs tend to think that way seriously.

I remember the days expansions that actually added to the games were the norm.Now,we have disc-locked content (Hello,Capcom),content outright ripped from the game (Hello,EA),tons of useless in-game cosmetics (Hello,Bethesda) or pay2win bollocks (Hello,EA...again).
sigh I miss the last Golden Age of Gaming...

Depends on the dlc. If it's an expansion to the game, like new area and missions, I'm cool with that. But day one dlc feels like a complete f- you.

Recently I watched some YT video from a gaming channel which stated that AAA studios REALLY don't want to exceed the 60$ price, so instead they often splice the complete game into a base game + content DLCs which works much better for them.

Personally I hate how the DLC policy looks like for most of the AAA studios today and would much rather like the games to be complete from the start...

More expansions is great, excluded trials, thats just fucking lazy

I think there is a difference between microtransaction/cosmetic stuff and DLC.
As for DLC (mostly new content that is not in the game yet) it is not necessary but there are awesome dlc out there (borderlands for example)...

On skins... unpopular opinion but yes, they are necessary. At least in games like R6S, Overwatch or Fortnite. Keeping the game updated, keeping servers running, paying for licences, adding new content... all this stuff costs money and as a developer you can't do all this with one payment if you want to support your game over years.

There are also some mixed/messed-up mixed formes like we had in deus ex... of course noone need stuff like that. And no, nobody need microtransactions in singleplayer or p2w content in multiplayer...

And yes, "back then" we had "complete games" without dlc... But these games from the golden area back then also only had support for up to 6 months (or they released an addon/dlc)

Just like games there are good and bad dlc's out there. For instance, the 4 dlc's in the industries first "season pass" in Borderlands 2, were really fun and a great addition to the game.

The DLC's for Deus Ex mankind divided were also quite fun. Not mandatory, but did add to the game experience.

The addon for The Talos Principle was great as well. Different story, but added a lot to the universe as well.

It varies

Incomplete games or incomplete stories - hell no
Pay to win - grrr
Cosmetic DLC - not my thing, but I get some people like it
Extra levels (see eg borderlands 2) - fine; can add extra play time to a fun game
DLC that enhances the game / increases playability (most paradox, firaxis) yep, replay a game you love with a new twist

It gets a little iffy sometimes like with total war where factions are coded in but you need DLC to add them in.

look at terraria, free updates and no dlc's
also

View attached image.

Expansions? Hell yeah if they are well made and actually add substantially to the game.
Free content updates? Hell yeah, you support your customers and I'll keep supporting you.
Cosmetic DLC? Meh, doesn't affect me as I don't feel the need to play dress up barbie with my game characters.
All other DLC? Hell no. Scummy money grabbing accountants are making the gaming industry worse every day. You do this kind of shitty greed driven crap and I just wont buy your games, ever.

It really depends on the company and the game. The Witcher 3's DLC for example is amazing, and all the cosmetic stuff was free. But most games from, for example, Ubisoft, just feel like they get parts of their content removed just to be able to sell them as DLC later.

Lets look at it from another perspective, if all DLC AND its prices were added to games, would you be happier?

I'm all for cosmetic DLC that let ppl willing to spend more support developers and get something out of it

As for additional content its hard to say what should and what didnt have to be included in base game...

For example, if Total Warhammer had price of all its dlc added on top i would probably never bought it.
But with DLC, I got base game that had my fav race, and bought another DLC race that got my interest. That way I got option to pay less and ignore content which I would probably ignore anyway.

What I do not like, is DLC expansions that change/fix core mechanics, but are not included in base game. Improvements to base gameplay should be called patches, not paid dlc.

Depends on the game. Sure it is theoretically possible to release games as CK2 or EU4, with all their expansions over 4-6 years, straight away in one big release.
It would be an insane financial risk though, with a far greater chance of failure and bankruptcy. And even if successful it would require even more development time and wouldn't result in a product of the same quality.

So yeah, DLC is good. But it can be abused just like anything else too.

Depends on the game and the DLC. DLC should never be needed to make a game good, but if the DLC adds more things to the game (not restore cut content), I don't see anything wrong with it. Is the DLC worth buying? Well that is going to depend on both you, and the content on hand. Is 3€ for a new skin for your favourite faction in an RTS money well spent? That depends entirely on you. Is 20€ for a new campaign worth it? Again, depends on you.5€ for a mission or two? Same thing again.

I don't feel like I can vote in the poll though, because it feels like the way the question is phrased is skewed to begin with.

DLC is a very broad concept. Technically everything you get on Steam could be classified as such.

But that aside, DLC is one of those things you can't really make a blanket statement about, but rather should be judged on a case by case base.

What if instead of realeasing a game at a price of 50, you release it at a price of 25, with roughly the second half of it's contet (storyline for example) for another 25?
Is that asking extra money? Or is it giving you the chance to find out whether you like the game and only 'wasting' 25 for it and not the additional 25 if you don't like it as much as you might have thought, while playing it. Of course this lowers the treshold of buying the initial game and thus (from dev/publisher pov) in theory increasing revenue. Along the lines of Life is Strange I guess (not played myself).

Then there is the multiplayer aspect, do you lock out people who bought/didn't buy the DLC? Like Battlefield 3, when I bought that (including DLC) on xbox 360 years back, it was really hard to find servers with certain DLC maps. Because servers didn't want those in the map rotation, as any player on that server, not owning the DLC, would be kicked from the server once such map was loaded.
But in other games you can still play together, just not use certain features of DLC. Like Arma 3, all the DLC's (bar one) have underlying game mechanic updates that are available to everyone. And the features you're locked out of, you can still use with a lot of high quality mods like RHS. Although I don't think it's perfect, I do think they did do their best to find a middle ground. As you can't really expect to get years of in-depth updates for free.

And then there's the cases like CoD, especially the Modern Warfare remake (remaster?) of people remember that. Maps that were in the original by default as paid DLC, and not to forget, you had to buy a deluxe version or something of their then latest CoD, to even be able to buy the remaster... If that isn't an example of what you would think of when thinking about bad practices with DLC, I don't know what would be.
Don't get me wrong, I like CoD in general. Have had (and still have) my fair share of fun playing different versions of it on xbox 360 with split screen, but I'm not buying any of the DLC.

And there's there's a whole other range of games you can mention I've probably never had any experience with myself (league of legends for example).
So yeah, can't really make a blanket statement about DLC.

Since absolutely no one read it the first time (I feel so lonely!), I will leave this here.

Cheers!

Ketchup

Do you really think that DLC for a game is completely necessary?

It's fine. Hi-res texture pack is a good example, imo.

... extra content that is already there but can't be accessed otherwise?

Never liked this, it's a waste (even if I have unlimited quota and speed). I'd prefer they separate it into DLCs.

You seem fine with content released at a later date, so when is the tipping point? A day after release, a month, a year? I don't really see the difference if its available at release or not, I'd still base my decision on the cost, quality and quantity of content. If its not worth it, then there are other games and other DLCs to chose from.

A good advantage of DLCs being released with the base game is that you would get an idea of what additional content there is and being able to factor that into your purchasing decision. Perhaps the day one content is so value added that it tips the balances in favor of getting the game compared to not with just the base game. Another advantage is that it should be cheaper to produce in conjunction with the base game.

The base game would've been the base game regardless if they produced additional content for day one release or they simply walked away when the base game was finished and came back at a later time. I don't stress over it.

I almost never buy DLC, if i get it with a GOTY or bundle - great. Otherwise, No. Especially not special guns/vehicles/pets etc etc

I figure the game is 90% complete anyway