Downloadable content - what do you think?

Hey all

I am thinking of getting myself a points card or two over the coming weeks for Banjo Kazooie or Banjo Tooie (I am on Nuts and Bolts and really enjoy it and have tried the first at a friends house on XBLA and it was just as good so I am wanting it for the cross compatability for new parts in Nuts and Bolts and I have a liking for the occasional platform game).

However, it got me thinking about this as a topic. What do you think of this new way of getting games? Do you think they are worth it and also now with the DSi joining the other platforms (Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii, PSP, and PC/MAC) do you think there is too much focus on this? Are the Pit and Shivering Isles good enough or would you prefer the time made to create these used on full games instead?

Discuss

I like downloadable content. Those that don't are in for a shock in a few generations. It's the future.

Wait, are you talking about Games(XBLA games like SSF2THDR) or DLC(like SFIV costume packs)? Games I absolutely love, they are all sitting on my system ready to be played at the fly. DLC I never ever buy. It's just not worth it to be paying $x+ $60+tax for it. If they released the game in sections for cheaper(like 4 chapters for $20 each) that would be cool. But putting out a full $60 game then a month latter putting out more content for $20 more? Fuck that.

I don't mind some DLC, I think it can add interesting new features to a game. Now the nature of a game can change by just downloading some news maps or weapons.

"Wait, are you talking about Games(XBLA games like SSF2THDR) or DLC(like SFIV costume packs)? Games I absolutely love, they are all sitting on my system ready to be played at the fly. DLC I never ever buy. It's just not worth it to be paying $x+ $60+tax for it. If they released the game in sections for cheaper(like 4 chapters for $20 each) that would be cool. But putting out a full $60 game then a month latter putting out more content for $20 more? Fuck that."

"I don't mind some DLC, I think it can add interesting new features to a game. Now the nature of a game can change by just downloading some news maps or weapons.

On the other hand XBLA games I think can be very overrated. I've downloaded UNO, Castle Crashers, and a few others, but the few minutes of enjoyment I get out of them never seem worth it, and a few months later I feel the urge to delete them just so I still have room for everything.

But as it is right now, I hate all downloadable content. Despite it's convenience and positive qualities it is way too overpriced. Microsoft is slowly jacking up prices to the point of getting away with murder. I would mention the PSN but I don't want to make anyone sick. And as for Wiiware, again overpriced even if I do end up with the original Mario. I'll just plug in my SNES thank you very much. All 3 companies need to come back with some heavy hitting titles and some cheap prices for me to fully buy into downloadable content. 

I am curious to see where it goes though, seeing the type of gaming thats coming out of XBLA (aka Braid) is interesting.

"

I think most people are stupid when it comes to their opinions on DLC. You know?

Listen, I understand that paying for content that should have been on the disc is BS. If a game seems to be unfinished, or is incredibly short, it's wrong for developers to expect people to pay for additional content a month after releasing an incomplete experience. That I get. But what I don't understand is why all DLC "has to be free." Why should it be? When it comes to substantive additional content, for games that were fully fleshed-out from the get-go, there's no rhyme or reason for any gamer to think they somehow earned the add-on by playing the game, and so they shouldn't have to pay for it. Like W.T.F., mate?

Almost as bad as this, is the incessant demand that games have to have DLC. Huh? What do you mean the game has to have DLC? Sure, it's nice to see developers supporting additional content but that doesn't make it necessary. Don't be so spoiled. Many developers put out legitimately kickass games and then when they are done, they move on to the next project. Since when did working overtime become the bare minimum?

Tsk-tsk, gaming community. Tsk-tsk.

Good points raised, I agree it cant be generalized (thus my topic goes out the window) but I do get what your saying. Some DLC is good, free is nice but if its worth the price then thats cool with me as well. I mean the people are paid to work on this. The Resident Evil 5 and other games with DLC on the disk I dont really know much about and dont own the game so it would not be fair to comment but some have been a tad over priced like the GRID content (I did get it but its not really in the same bracket as say Banjo Kazooie DLC or Fallout/Oblivion as it has not really added the same ammount of content in single player) but that said it does offer good content if you play it online alot as the 2 new modes would add more hours I assume to it.

On the second point, I agree as well. Games do not really need to have DLC if it does not fit in, some games its good as it adds to it but a game can be equally excellent or terrible without DLC.

For another question, what DLC have you all got (if any) and what persuaded you to get it? This included full price/arcade games or extra in game content.

Get Banjo Kazooie first then Tooie.

"Listen, I understand that paying for content that should have been on the disc is BS. If a game seems to be unfinished, or is incredibly short, it's wrong for developers to expect people to pay for additional content a month after releasing an incomplete experience. That I get. But what I don't understand is why all DLC "has to be free." Why should it be? When it comes to substantive additional content, for games that were fully fleshed-out from the get-go, there's no rhyme or reason for any gamer to think they somehow earned the add-on by playing the game, and so they shouldn't have to pay for it. Like W.T.F., mate?"

"Get Banjo Kazooie first then Tooie."

Any further thoughts on this?

"Now expansions, or "DLC", consist of one stupid mission and one extra little area. DLC thats worth it is worth it but there has yet to be any DLC this generation that screamed worth it, the newest Oblivion one and extra rockband songs are the only things that come close.

I decided to just go for it and got a points card. Got Banjo Kazooie to get me going with Nuts and Bolts for the hot swap. I am looking forward to the second game as well.

It's great if it's done right. Obviously, not every game needs it, though game developers often seem to think otherwise. They also seem to think every game released needs online multiplayer, which I disagree with. Grand Theft Auto IV's The Lost and the Damned is some pretty fantastic DLC, for instance. Being able to download older games, such as the original Banjo-Kazooie, is always something I'll support, as long as the games aren't ridiculously overpriced. There actually hasn't been too many instances where I've bought DLC as an add-on to a game. Generally companies just seem to use it to add new multiplayer maps, and considering there are so few games that I actually devote time to with multiplayer, I hardly ever bother with those.

Garfield, if you're not aware, Rare just released some new DLC for Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts. It's only 400 points too, so that's pretty cheap. I think that comes out to be $5. I haven't played with any of it yet, though I've read the new challenges are tough. Anyway, have a great time with the original Banjo. It's one of my all-time favorite games. I'll also be downloading Banjo-Tooie as well when it comes, which I think should come out sometime this month? Or maybe it's next month, I can never remember.

"CoverlessTech said:

"Now expansions, or "DLC", consist of one stupid mission and one extra little area. DLC thats worth it is worth it but there has yet to be any DLC this generation that screamed worth it, the newest Oblivion one and extra rockband songs are the only things that come close.

The Pitt adds a new city and Operation Anchorage is an entirely new plot in a simulation of a battle in Alaska. What are you talking about?"

"BiggerBomb said:

"CoverlessTech said:

"Now expansions, or "DLC", consist of one stupid mission and one extra little area. DLC thats worth it is worth it but there has yet to be any DLC this generation that screamed worth it, the newest Oblivion one and extra rockband songs are the only things that come close.

The Pitt adds a new city and Operation Anchorage is an entirely new plot in a simulation of a battle in Alaska. What are you talking about?"

I've never actually played them but aren't they quite small with little substance? I was under the impression that they where basically like knothole island for Fable 2. New place with little substance that can be completely finished within an hour or so of getting it.

Like I said I haven't bothered with Fallout3 stuff because honestly it is just way to early to be releasing an expansion pack that I would deem worthy of paying for on top of the $60 game.

Maybe the Fallout 3 stuff falls on the very small side of "good" DLC but from what I've seen it hasen't. "