Is everyone just okay with this recent DLC trend and why has Giantbomb not been more avid at calling out the industry on its mis use of it. COD is already selling a $50 dollar DLC package before the game was even released. GOW3 did the same thing. Why the hell isn't more ppl calling out this scheme to rape consumers and sell unfinished products. I remember when a sequel was released they would just add more maps and or content, not give you the same ol same ol and ask you to pay a 100 bucks for a game in its entirety. To think that this DLC isn't already on your disc or already developed is silly cause you know it is. Salty practices. I miss the old game model, where you bought a complete game and that was it, not to be bothered with micro purchases later. And this is not an attack on just Activision cause all the big boys are doing this, it's bullshit.

i miss the old days too. everything was better in the old days.

Well it is basically a season pass for the content and it usually works out cheaper, plus no on is being forced to pay for it. I bought the Mortal Kombat pass and I was fine with it, simple answer is if you don't agree with it don't buy it.

Don't like, don't buy. The sheer amount of content in these games makes the, "buying an incomplete game" argument a crock imo and I don't see how the option to get more content for a game you like without having to do the old school console thing of waiting 2+ years for a sequel is better.

Dont buy it. No one is forcing you to. Evaluate the package the base game consists of and base your buying decision on that. Seriously wish people would stop making these threads bitching about DLC as if they have no choice but to buy it. The fact is, on games I can't get enough of, I love DLC. I bought all of the DLC for Borderlands and don't regret a bit of it. Vote with your wallet and get on with your life.

In the "old days", the game came out and that was it. You never got anymore content for the games you loved. You can still live in those days by not buying DLC. It's really pretty easy.

I'm usually voting with my wallet, but so many gamers are just mindless drones that DLC is still a profitable thing to do for devs.

And this attitude of Don't like Don't buy is just enabling these companies to continue this shady schemes to sell its customers a partial game with every intention to get in your pcket book later. Of coarse I don't buy it but that doesn't mean we as the consumers should just shut up about it. It's a shady business practice and why video game fans just accept it is beyond me. We know the kids don't care what they do with moms money but us Adults who are very much apart of the consumer base should be more outspoken on the topic. Yet we are complacent.

Of course the map packs are in development/ already planned, it doesn't mean that the game is incomplete because of it. And if you don't like the season pass idea, you can still buy the content piecemeal, or not at all. I agree with the sentiment: vote with your wallet.

How about vote with my wallet then be sure to bring it up on every video game site I visit in hopes to one day get a voice loud enough for these shady developers to hear. @rebgav thanks for sharing that and hats off the Giantbomb for calling out GOW3 for it bullshit weapon skin DLC, more stuff that use to just be unlocked in games. I'm telling you if you gamers just sit quiet on the issue, you will one day be paying for a blank disc and subscribing monthly to DLC.

It doesn't bother me 'cause I don't buy most games like that. Uncharted 3 has a similar thing but I don't care about the multiplayer.

In the "old days", the game came out and that was it. You never got anymore content for the games you loved. You can still live in those days by not buying DLC. It's really pretty easy.

i really don't think its as big a deal as your making out. some DLC is pretty cool.

Publishers will continue the "DLC trend" as much as the market will bear. As soon as the market stops paying for it the publishers will stop. It's as simple as that. If you think posting on forums will effect enough change in the market mentality that it will make a difference in the publisher's bottom line then by all means continue. Personally I think forum posts aren't nearly enough if you really want to create change in market perception.

Also I would just like to say that "rape" isn't really the correct term here since no one is being forced to do anything.

I don't mind it as long as I get get a constant steam of new content that wasn't taken out of the shipped product (like the fact that the latest Gears of War 3 map pack was on the disc).

There's nothing shady about offering a heavily discounted DLC 'pass' up front for people who know they're just going to buy all the DLC later on anyway. As long as publishers release quality DLC that is up to standards set before and the discount is a legitimate savings, then there's nothing to complain about. Move along.

The incessant complaining over DLC gets old. The season pass stuff isnt bad at all. If you are going to buy all the DLC, then you can get it cheaper with the pass. All the other DLC stuff is there if you want it, but you dont have to get it. I feel like I am saying this over and over again.

I think in most cases companies have gotten DLC right, in that the main game always feels "complete" and worth the money I spent on it. If I want to go play extra side-missions, maps or new characters after I finish the game I like having the option of purchasing DLC. Would you consider Borderlands, Dragon Age, Red Dead, GTA4, Mass Effect 2 to be "unfinished products" because they do not include the various DLC expansions on the retail disc? In each of these cases the retail games encompass at least 20-30 hours of excellent content which I think was worth my money.

Honestly, I cant think of many games I've played that have felt like "unfinished products" due to content being later released as DLC.

The reason I see for devs doing the "up front" DLC, like season passes, CoD Elite (which is more than just DLC, if memory serves), or whatever, is that they want to get the money right away. I'm sure that, the longer a game is out, and the longer it takes to get more content like map packs, etc. to the public, the less likely it is that those turn as great of a profit as the companies would like. (i.e., not as many consumers purchasing the new content) So, by giving you the OPTION (yes, option, you don't have to buy it, as has been already stated) to get it right away with a bit of a discount, the devs get their money, and the player is guaranteed new content. It seems like just another new business practice to me, like getting the option to have so many years of "free" oil changes for you new car if you just add a bit more to the cost right when you purchase it.

Oh it's bad and it is just getting worse, I hope the market doesn't bear it but the DLC generation of kids will never know anything different. I'm 30 and trust me I remember when a game was complete upon release and there was never a clever ploy to try and milk you later. The whole notion that this season pass is a savings is in itself a marketing ploy, saying that you felt that 15 dollar map packets was acceptable, I argue it was not.

@IrishBrewed said:

Oh it's bad and it is just getting worse, I hope the market doesn't bear it but the DLC generation of kids will never know anything different. I'm 30 and trust me I remember when a game was complete upon release and there was never a clever ploy to try and milk you later. The whole notion that this season pass is a savings is in itself a marketing ploy, saying that you felt that 15 dollar map packets was acceptable, I argue it was not.

You do know that content is cut from those "old complete games" to make deadlines. Wind Waker had something like 3-4 dungeons taken out, but because the model for DLC wasn't there, no one could EVER pay for it and play it, even if they fixed it all up after the game went gold.

If I could've bought DLC for Goldeneye/Super Mario Kart/Golden Axe I would've been ALL OVER that shit. I'm absolutely in favour of additional content, but it does seem kinda fucked that it's just factored in at the start of development (or so it seems) rather than 'the people like it, let's make some more'. But that's not realistic. The creators of Dark Souls have said there'll be no DLC. If they came back and decided to make a new campaign DLC pack due to it's hugely successful reception, I'd be all for it. I'd like them to, in fact.

But seriously, I've been avoiding season passes because I don't like to pay money for unknown content. I bought the LA Noire one and that treated me well, but I didn't buy into the Mortal Kombat one or the Gears one. There's every chance that I'm not going to want one or two of the pieces of content and the overall saving just isn't enough to gamble. If you saved half, I'd probably do it.

@Dave_442 said:

I think in most cases companies have gotten DLC right, in that the main game always feels "complete" and worth the money I spent on it. If I want to go play extra side-missions, maps or new characters after I finish the game I like having the option of purchasing DLC. Would you consider Borderlands, Dragon Age, Red Dead, GTA4, Mass Effect 2 to be "unfinished products" because they do not include the various DLC expansions on the retail disc? In each of these cases the retail games encompass at least 20-30 hours of excellent content which I think was worth my money.

Honestly, I cant think of many games I've played that have felt like "unfinished products" due to content being later released as DLC.

But there is a difference between Fallout 3/New Vegas, GTA IV, Borderlands - which offered DLCs that add replay value and were right in the price compared to content. On the other hand, DLCs that are either on-disc, just additional maps/skin or both is downright disgusting, and the CoD DLCs are among the worst! In MW2 - 15 bucks for FOUR(!!) multiplayer maps and in Black Ops 15 for FOUR zombie maps!? Fallout 3's DLCs were only 5$ each, Borderland's and Fallout New Vegas' were 10$ each, and they added much more content and replay value than a 15$ multiplayer map pack did.

@Hameyadea said:

Fallout 3's DLCs were only 5$ each, Borderland's and Fallout New Vegas' were 10$ each, and they added much more content and replay value that a 15$ multiplayer map pack.

That depends who you ask. Also, Fallout 3 DLC's were $10. And Operation Anchorage lasted about two hours! Pretty poor value for money if you go along that route. But hey, I loved me some Fallout and $10 is a small amount of money to play some more.

@daveg said:

@IrishBrewed said:

Oh it's bad and it is just getting worse, I hope the market doesn't bear it but the DLC generation of kids will never know anything different. I'm 30 and trust me I remember when a game was complete upon release and there was never a clever ploy to try and milk you later. The whole notion that this season pass is a savings is in itself a marketing ploy, saying that you felt that 15 dollar map packets was acceptable, I argue it was not.

You do know that content is cut from those "old complete games" to make deadlines. Wind Waker had something like 3-4 dungeons taken out, but because the model for DLC wasn't there, no one could EVER pay for it and play it, even if they fixed it all up after the game went gold.

Warcraft III The Frozen Throne. The game had a bonus campaign for the Orcs that contained only one (albeit long) chapter/mission, and guess what? Blizzard added 2 more chapters/missions, post-launch, for FREE, via patches! Heck, they still balance and add maps for the game, even after nearly a decade.

@Hameyadea: I'm sure there are, or will be, someone who will argue that a $15 map pack had much more replay value than anything you listed there. (I am not that person, but they're out there somewhere!)

I agree that it is an unpleasant reality that DLC is now so ubiquitous and costs so much nowadays.... yet at the same time, almost anyone who bought MW3 must have known how expensive the map-packs were. As long as they advertise what the DLC will be and how much it costs, it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not it's worth the price. Frankly, I think the CoD map-packs are insanely overpriced, which is why I have never bought a single one to date (I've bought the games, just not the map-packs. I usually grow tired of a CoD game one or two months after release).

Games are luxury items, so I'm perfectly willing to let the free market decide the price of content or what DLC should be. Remember, the developers make the game, with their own money. They get to decide what they put in it, and how much it costs. We get to decide whether or not we think it's worth the price. No more no less. Remember, we're dealing with video games here. Not clean water. Not education. Not the right to vote. Not food or shelter or energy. There isn't, and there cannot be, a grand moral cause found in video games, since they're just games. Luxury items. Not essentials.

If Activision was the sole Water Baron charging ludicrous prices for water in a town in the ol' West, then I'd agree that they'd be evil for charging what they charge. But they're not Water Barons - they're sellers and publishers of video games. Fun-Fun-Shiny-Electronic Programs to play with in your leisure time.

You wouldn't go up to a Porsche dealer and say "YO MAN! What is this shit! Charging an extra 300 dollars for tinting! That's consumer rape! How dare you!?" because a Porsche is a luxury car. Well, when you really think about it, video games are luxuries too.

Sure, I'd like to pay less for games. Who wouldn't? I also know that I have no moral right to demand that a developer provide me with anything other than what they advertise on the box. If I buy a game and it is missing features which were explicitly stated to come with the game on day one of purchase, then yes, the publisher/developer committed a crime since false advertising is illegal. But Activision/Infinity Ward/Sledgehammer games did not commit false advertising - they advertised numerous times that DLC would cost as much as it does and that it would include maps. Morally, they've done nothing wrong - if you look at the matter from the viewpoint of a sane adult that is.

They're a business. They're gonna charge as much as they can get away with. Now, I am not some sort of hyper-capitalist, rah-rah-go-free-market, Reagan-is-God, Privatize-everything lunatic. When it comes to ESSENTIAL services, I am actually socialist. I think water should be free to those who can't afford it. I think a good education should be absolutely free since it is the biggest facilitator of class mobility. But Video Games are NOT essentials. No one needs video games. You can live your life just fine without video games - humanity has for most of its existence. They're consumer luxury goods, made by the developer and published by the publisher with their own coin. So long as they don't wilfully mislead you, a developer/publisher has the right to charge whatever they want for their game and content, and we have the right to accept or refuse that price. There's no moral dilemma here, unless you're the type who would walk into a luxury goods store and angrily demand that the Caviare is over-priced. Of course its overpriced. It's caviare. Well, the same thing can be applied to video games: they are overpriced because they are luxury goods. If you can even AFFORD ONE video game and have the technology to play it, you're already more well off than 95% of the planet's population. What are you complaining about. You belong to one of the wealthiest stratas of society, and you're complaining about the price of LUXURY GOODS?

Let the market set the price. So far, the market seems to have agreed that the price of a new AAA game is about 70~100 dollars (Australian). And that's fine.

@Hameyadea said:

@Dave_442 said:

I think in most cases companies have gotten DLC right, in that the main game always feels "complete" and worth the money I spent on it. If I want to go play extra side-missions, maps or new characters after I finish the game I like having the option of purchasing DLC. Would you consider Borderlands, Dragon Age, Red Dead, GTA4, Mass Effect 2 to be "unfinished products" because they do not include the various DLC expansions on the retail disc? In each of these cases the retail games encompass at least 20-30 hours of excellent content which I think was worth my money.

Honestly, I cant think of many games I've played that have felt like "unfinished products" due to content being later released as DLC.

But there is a difference between Fallout 3/New Vegas, GTA IV, Borderlands - which offered DLCs that add replay value and were right in the price compared to content. On the other hand, DLCs that are either on-disc, just additional maps/skin or both is downright disgusting, and the CoD DLCs are among the worst! In MW2 - 15 bucks for FOUR(!!) multiplayer maps and in Black Ops 15 for FOUR zombie maps!? Fallout 3's DLCs were only 5$ each, Borderland's and Fallout New Vegas' were 10$ each, and they added much more content and replay value than a 15$ multiplayer map pack did.

In fairness, most of the DLC I mentioned can be completed in 2-3 hours (if not less) and typically cost at least 800 points when first released. I think thats just about right in terms of getting value for my money. If I was way into Call of Duty and played a lot of multiplayer I would probably get significantly longer out of three new maps. The thing here, however, is your dealing with the most popular video game on the planet and demand for DLC is massive. As a business, Activision will capitalise on this. If the extra maps were priced at 800 points I think that would be more appropriate. In this situation people should vote with their wallet.

The point still remains, however, that the retail version of Call of Duty is not "an unfinished product" because it does not include three extra maps. Well thats my view anyway.

@bibamatt said:

@Hameyadea said:

Fallout 3's DLCs were only 5$ each, Borderland's and Fallout New Vegas' were 10$ each, and they added much more content and replay value that a 15$ multiplayer map pack.

That depends who you ask. Also, Fallout 3 DLC's were $10. And Operation Anchorage lasted about two hours! Pretty poor value for money if you go along that route. But hey, I loved me some Fallout and $10 is a small amount of money to play some more.

I took my time with the DLCs, to see what was new, also you get more weapons, armor and other in-game bonuses (like Perks). And maybe the price is different on were you check but on steam Operation Anchorage, The Pitt, Broken Steel, Point Lookout and Mothership Zeta are 4.99$ each. I still remember Bethesda's infamous Horse Golden Armor DLC.

Are video game fans loyal to a fault. I.e. NASCAR fans?

@Hameyadea: My bad, they're $10 on 360. Obviously sell them cheaper on Steam.

I'm 30 and trust me I remember when a game was complete upon release and there was never a clever ploy to try and milk you later.

IN THE OLD DAYS WE BUILT OUR OWN DLC!!! DARN KIDS!

I think the flaw is viewing any game that gets DLC as a game that is "incomplete."

Also, what old school games is the OP talking about? I remember going to stores way back in the 90s and seeing tons of expansion packs for PC games. That's old school yet they were "unfinished" and "incomplete" like the OP suggests. For consoles, you didn't have it for console games but that's because the systems weren't built for expansion. There were like 4 versions of Street Fighter 2 for the SNES and they cost $70 each compared to $20-$40 now. Is that the glory days the OP is talking about?

@IrishBrewed said:

Why the hell isn't more ppl calling out this scheme to rape consumers and sell unfinished products.

Overreacting a bit? I hardly see how the customers are being "raped"; even under the definition of "to plunder", I don't think you are using that word correctly - all you need is the willpower to not buy something you think is overpriced, and you won't be taken advantage of.

If others think the DLC is worth the cash (and apparently they do, as DLC is not going away), then that is surely their problem, right?

Further, DLC doesn't necessarily mean "unfinished products". Just because people are having a hard time wrapping their heads around DLC effectively being the modern "Expansion Pack" - or "more of that game you liked", that doesn't mean that that games with DLC are "unfinished."

And again, don't think it's worth the price? Don't buy it. Which is pretty good advice in general, I think.

Oh when there is DLC on the disk already and only available with money then yeah it's incomplete you are paying for a partial copy of the game rather the the entire game, weapon skins etc use to be available upon the initial sales price, but the trend is now such that you buy the meat for 60 and the frills for more. Why that is acceptable to everyone defending it is beyond me. And why do we even defend this profit driven scheme rather then look at it with a little bit of a critical view. I think there should at least be guidelines on DLC as in it must contain a substantial amount of content to warrant its release. I argue that it is quickly becoming a lucrative business model that is undermining the consumer base and is on a downward spiral unless we the consumer start demanding quality DLC. I understand the vote with your wallet, but with every vote is a long campaign. And discussing ths topic more does not hurt us but if used correctly it could help a community come to a common consensus on a topic. I just ask that you show should question a companies product not just accept it because they are profit driven, that is the reason you should question it.

Occupy Activision.

Let me be clear not all DLC is bad. But most is, and it is getting a little out of hand. If you would of told me just 10 years ago a game would like you to pay $110 dollars to play it, I would have called you crazy. A first person shooter game at that. I guess I give a shit too much about the current model, maybe I should just get in line for the cash cow.

@IrishBrewed said:

Let me be clear not all DLC is bad. But most is, and it is getting a little out of hand. If you would of told me just 10 years ago a game would like you to pay $110 dollars to play it, I would have called you crazy. A first person shooter game at that. I guess I give a shit too much about the current model, maybe I should just get in line for the cash cow.

or just stop gaming if it bothers you so much. i too have been gaming from the beginning. but i never feel short changed with what i get on the disk. ok some DLC might come out but i don't have to buy it and i usually don't.

also games don't rise in price with inflation. games cost the same now as they did 15-20 years ago £30-£40ish. by rights increasing with inflation that should double every 10 years so games should cost around £100 now. but they don't they cost the same.

development cost have not stayed the same though and a game these days cost many times more to produce than it did 15 years ago. so to be honest i don't really mind dev/publishers trying to invent new revenue streams for the games.

and lets not forget expansion pack. which were pretty commonplace. paying £10-£15 for new content that extended to life of the game.

bottom line is dude people are buying DLC.and its not going anywhere. either don't buy it or fuck off and find a cheaper hobbie. something like fishing

There's as much use in complaining about DLC as complaining about adding multiplayer. It's just part of games now. And there's really nothing wrong with them. The people saying the DLC would have been something included in the game really don't understand how games work from a financial perspective, especially in the HD age, where everything became so much more expensive to produce.

Once again the argument that "just accept it" baffles me. Why is it people get butt hurt if they feel like there "game developers" are under attack. You don't have to accept over priced map packs! You buy it to extend the games life I get that but does that mean we shouldn't at least hold developers feet to the fire when they get a little too greedy and at least call em out? Why do we think that we should defend everything a corporation does to the death. Being critical of weapon packs and mis use of DLC should be a discussion that remains on the table as long as it is being abused.

I'm confused. Let's use an example. I like Mass Effect 2. At some point I was given the option to trade money for more Mass Effect 2. I decided that I would agree to that trade and I believe everyone left happy. Are we implying that any game with DLC is "incomplete"? Was Mass Effect 2 incomplete? How is having a choice about whether you want more of something a bad thing? Would you like it more if they just said "fuck it, we'll put the rest of the shit in there that they could possibly want but we are extending our deadline by 6 months and raising the price of the game by $40"?

I guess you don't see the downward spiral? DLC is getting out of control and a game with content on it but requires more money is deceptive considering you paid for the game yet that is not the case, you paid for part of the game. The rest requires more money. It might be a matter of perception but I precieve that as an incomplete sale. I also think DLC will continually get worse.

Isn't it just a pass to get DLC later on?

@IrishBrewed said:

Once again the argument that "just accept it" baffles me. Why is it people get butt hurt if they feel like there "game developers" are under attack. You don't have to accept over priced map packs! You buy it to extend the games life I get that but does that mean we shouldn't at least hold developers feet to the fire when they get a little too greedy and at least call em out? Why do we think that we should defend everything a corporation does to the death. Being critical of weapon packs and mis use of DLC should be a discussion that remains on the table as long as it is being abused.

I don't. And apparently, you don't either. So don't buy it.

I'm not defending any corporation, I'm saying don't buy inferior products (inferior, in this case, implying the price is greater than it's value). I'm also saying that you are overreacting, and that your initial choice of words wasn't the best opener.

Also, exactly what is it that infuriates you so? Is it the On-disc DLC? DLC for Incomplete games? Or Overpriced DLC? You seem to be arguing against them at different points - I think a more focused discussion would probably benefit you getting your point across :)

DLC Gone Wild

Because money

In theory DLC is for extending a game and it's creative teams after its release, in practice it is at the drawing board of a game and pre determined. Instead of getting the entire game at retail price you get the game spoon fed to you one micro purchase at a time. This DLC is already scripted and planned thus robbing the consumer of a complete game. It's a buy now download later model.

@IrishBrewed said:

Oh when there is DLC on the disk already and only available with money then yeah it's incomplete you are paying for a partial copy of the game rather the the entire game, weapon skins etc use to be available upon the initial sales price, but the trend is now such that you buy the meat for 60 and the frills for more. Why that is acceptable to everyone defending it is beyond me. And why do we even defend this profit driven scheme rather then look at it with a little bit of a critical view. I think there should at least be guidelines on DLC as in it must contain a substantial amount of content to warrant its release. I argue that it is quickly becoming a lucrative business model that is undermining the consumer base and is on a downward spiral unless we the consumer start demanding quality DLC. I understand the vote with your wallet, but with every vote is a long campaign. And discussing ths topic more does not hurt us but if used correctly it could help a community come to a common consensus on a topic. I just ask that you show should question a companies product not just accept it because they are profit driven, that is the reason you should question it.

I agree that in the case that when the content is shipped on the disc and unlocked via DLC that it is pretty bad, however, do you consider Gears 3 to be incomplete because you do not have access to weapon skins? Come on dude.

I'm not@IrishBrewed said:

Are video game fans loyal to a fault. I.e. NASCAR fans?

I'm not sticking up for any companies and I agree that they should be called out when the cost / content of DLC is not appropriate, however, I don't agree that DLC is "out of control" and that releasing "an unfinished product" is becoming the norm. In the last few months I've played Deus Ex ~ 25 hours, Dead Island ~ 40 hours, and Dark Souls ~ 50 hours. That's over 100 hours gameplay for about 120 euro and I still haven't completed my first playthrough of two of those titles. I'm hardly getting shafted by greedy companies.