• 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Creigz (180 posts) -

Absolutely. Need I say more? Not necessarily, but I will indulge any possible arguments with little more than "take a look jackass" because honestly, look at the money you're spending on DLC on a games release. I am ashamed for people these days, not because of anything more than the fact that they buy it. Battlefield 3 is a recent one in my mind that's treating us as such, The game releases and they have a map pack out on release day, which is free to those who pre-order. That's not a pre-order bonus, it's basically going "you buy the game and you don't have to pay for content we already had made for the game and just decided not to put into it for anyone without a premium." which to me, is total bullshit. I had the game pre-ordered before knowing this because I wanted it, and when I found this out, I would've cancelled the order if I was able to. This isn't the only game. Most games have the DLC ready to go on release day.

Fallout's New Vegas DLC pack was pretty much ready on release of the game, considering how short of a time it was until they had it out. Total Annihilation was the first game to my recollection with DLC, and it was TOTALLY free, just intended to keep the game fresh, they announced doing it every week or something along those lines, but only did it for about 15 releases. If you're doing DLC, that's doing it right, give it to the customer, they paid for the damn game, just show some appreciation, and people will buy it. Now people are getting microtransactions out the ass from their game producers, and paying means getting everything you're somewhat entitled to in purchasing the software.

That goes without saying, World of Warcraft as an example, you do not own the game, in no way is it yours, nor do you own a copy of the software, the EULA on it states that you own nothing. It basically says you have purchased the ability to use the software under their terms for an account that you have "ownership" of, almost like a high school would give user accounts on the server. This is how video games are becoming, hence why LAN wasn't in Starcraft, because you don't own the game, you have rights to an account that you've paid money for. The software given and packaging are merely a means of obtaining the software for installation, not for ownership.

Now, game companies like Roxio, giving you Angry Birds content for free are doing it the right way. Buy our game, and we give you updates periodically to give you some more content. That's significantly more reasonable and conceptually more ethical. Now, this goes to say that expansion packs aren't in the same category as DLC, but they're being considered as such, hence the reason it's successful. I didn't mind paying for the Battlefield 2 expansions when they came out, because it was almost a game on its own, which was cool, like Episode 1 and 2 for Half Life 2, and Blue Shift, Opposing Force and the other one for Half Life 1...I forgot the name at the moment. Realistically, DLC should be small patches, and we pay what is considered a microtransaction for it, as in sub 10 bucks on average. This is disappointing. Mortal Kombat, another game I was stoked for on release, sold characters and skins...skins are morderately okay, but characters, what the hell, really? I don't mind being optioned to pay for some things, but DLC shouldn't give you online advantages or anything more than aesthetics or small things. Anything that can change general mechanics or balance is a bit ludicrous.

I find it seriously disheartening, and almost distaste games these days because of it. Anyone else agree?

#1 Posted by Creigz (180 posts) -

Absolutely. Need I say more? Not necessarily, but I will indulge any possible arguments with little more than "take a look jackass" because honestly, look at the money you're spending on DLC on a games release. I am ashamed for people these days, not because of anything more than the fact that they buy it. Battlefield 3 is a recent one in my mind that's treating us as such, The game releases and they have a map pack out on release day, which is free to those who pre-order. That's not a pre-order bonus, it's basically going "you buy the game and you don't have to pay for content we already had made for the game and just decided not to put into it for anyone without a premium." which to me, is total bullshit. I had the game pre-ordered before knowing this because I wanted it, and when I found this out, I would've cancelled the order if I was able to. This isn't the only game. Most games have the DLC ready to go on release day.

Fallout's New Vegas DLC pack was pretty much ready on release of the game, considering how short of a time it was until they had it out. Total Annihilation was the first game to my recollection with DLC, and it was TOTALLY free, just intended to keep the game fresh, they announced doing it every week or something along those lines, but only did it for about 15 releases. If you're doing DLC, that's doing it right, give it to the customer, they paid for the damn game, just show some appreciation, and people will buy it. Now people are getting microtransactions out the ass from their game producers, and paying means getting everything you're somewhat entitled to in purchasing the software.

That goes without saying, World of Warcraft as an example, you do not own the game, in no way is it yours, nor do you own a copy of the software, the EULA on it states that you own nothing. It basically says you have purchased the ability to use the software under their terms for an account that you have "ownership" of, almost like a high school would give user accounts on the server. This is how video games are becoming, hence why LAN wasn't in Starcraft, because you don't own the game, you have rights to an account that you've paid money for. The software given and packaging are merely a means of obtaining the software for installation, not for ownership.

Now, game companies like Roxio, giving you Angry Birds content for free are doing it the right way. Buy our game, and we give you updates periodically to give you some more content. That's significantly more reasonable and conceptually more ethical. Now, this goes to say that expansion packs aren't in the same category as DLC, but they're being considered as such, hence the reason it's successful. I didn't mind paying for the Battlefield 2 expansions when they came out, because it was almost a game on its own, which was cool, like Episode 1 and 2 for Half Life 2, and Blue Shift, Opposing Force and the other one for Half Life 1...I forgot the name at the moment. Realistically, DLC should be small patches, and we pay what is considered a microtransaction for it, as in sub 10 bucks on average. This is disappointing. Mortal Kombat, another game I was stoked for on release, sold characters and skins...skins are morderately okay, but characters, what the hell, really? I don't mind being optioned to pay for some things, but DLC shouldn't give you online advantages or anything more than aesthetics or small things. Anything that can change general mechanics or balance is a bit ludicrous.

I find it seriously disheartening, and almost distaste games these days because of it. Anyone else agree?

#2 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8698 posts) -

DLC is horrifying, too expensive for the little amount you're geting from it.
 
I prefer good old expansion packs.

#3 Posted by CheapPoison (708 posts) -

this is getting the old stamp of approval.

#4 Posted by DarthOrange (3495 posts) -

I believe David Jaffe said it best.

That said @Creigz: would you prefer some games to cost more then others? No more DLC but the standard version of AAA games goes up to $100? That's how it was in the cartridge days.

#5 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@Creigz said:

Is DLC harming gaming?

@Creigz said:

Absolutely. 

"Can I hope to pick up the pieces and go on? Absolutely!" 
#6 Posted by Lunar_Aura (2780 posts) -

DLC isn't harming gaming, it's how publishers choose to use (or not use) the DLC channel. With the EULA examples you gave, digital distribution is just something publishers were striving for all along. Without a physical copy, gone is the illusion that you are buying a game to own it. You're buying the right to use it.

You're paying money to be somebody's bitch. Chew on that for a minute and tell me that's a good thing.

If you want a solid example of why DLC doesn't make a damn difference, look no further than Capcom's popular releases from the past year. DLC = people felt screwed over. No DLC = people felt screwed over. Maybe it's just gamers being fickle whiners, I dunno. I'm not gonna be so quick to blame DLC for "harming gaming".

#7 Edited by Creigz (180 posts) -

@Lunar_Aura: And I say harming in the sense that it's now becoming such common place, that almost EVERY game has some sort of DLC. My issue isn't entirely with DLC, but don't release a goddamn game with DLC already READY and on the market on day 1, if you have DLC ready, provide it later, just wait to release it so that you don't look like you're snipping the game apart and adding stuff on release to capitalize. I see this from both a consumer and provider aspect, and to be honest, the provider looks like an asshole, and the consumer gets irritated, but still a large quantity bite because they want what they've been shown. I have a feeling this will up piracy to a large degree, and thustly up DRM, which will in turn irritate people. More or less, voicing this, I'm just hoping I hit an off key and someone pushes this along to make a point that maybe they didn't think of when the dollar signs flashed. Then again, voicing this also is just a way to see if I can gain a different perspective that doesn't irritate me.

@DarthOrange: I was actually find with that in cartridge days...I didn't mind it as much because I didn't have to re-buy the damn game to get it. It's like MVC coming out with the new edition that has a few characters...yet I gotta buy a whole new game, the hell is that shit?

@AhmadMetallic: Very true, sir. Picking up them pieces will be harder. You don't buy a movie to have to pay to use subtitles, or watch deleted scenes though, do you? Or buy a CD only to have to pay for a code to hear the Hidden Track, that is if you bought CD's.

#8 Posted by Tylea002 (2291 posts) -

@DarthOrange: Slightly off topic, but hearing David Jaffe discover Doctor Who is beautiful.

#9 Posted by Skald (4366 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

@Creigz said:

Is DLC harming gaming?

@Creigz said:

Absolutely.

"Can I hope to pick up the pieces and go on? Absolutely!"

That's just perfect.

#10 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

DLC isn't a problem, people abusing DLC to push pre-orders is a problem.
 
Also why even bring up WoW and StarCraft? That's completely irrelevant to the topic. Guess what everything is going to be digital soon and everything you own is going to be licensed, not important to DLC.
 
Actually your point about DLC characters in MK, or any fighter, is also pretty irrelevant. They don't provide additional power or unbalance the game because they are balanced within the current roster and playing as them shouldn't give anyone a distinct advantage, just a different way to play.

#11 Posted by Vodun (2365 posts) -

@Creigz said:

just wait to release it so that you don't look like you're snipping the game apart and adding stuff on release to capitalize.

Pro tip: They don't make games to make the world a better place, they make 'em to make money.

#12 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6077 posts) -

Golems of Amgarrak, Witch Hunt, nuff said.

#13 Posted by penINC (136 posts) -

DLC is a perfectly fair proposition. It's up to you to judge the value of each individual case for yourself.

#14 Posted by Lunar_Aura (2780 posts) -

yeah preorder exclusives are a bigger market sin than DLC. If you want all the content, what, pre-order 5 copies of the game? Sure they might release it as DLC or a GOTY edition eventually but what if they don't? That's screwy.

#15 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4281 posts) -

@TheDudeOfGaming: I really liked Witch Hunt. Gave me closure.

That said, DLC can be used as a tool for good, or for great evil. But that's the thing, it's a tool. Taken by itself, it's not good or bad. How it's wielded determines if it's a shitty practice or not.

@Creigz: Using Fallout New Vegas as an example is stupid. The DLC packs for that game were not ready "on day one". They released New Vegas in October, and Dead Money came out in late December of that year. If you really think that the New Vegas DLC was done and ready by the time the game shipped, you really have no idea about all of the DLC pack delays over the past eight months then, do you? Every time a pack was to be released, it was delayed. Sometimes delayed twice, or even three times. Obsidian did not have their shit together, and that was from your so-called "preferred" method of waiting until a game had shipped to begin working on DLC.

Studios have a month to two month wait between submission for certification and release. I'd rather them get to work on extra goodies and cool things I might buy than sit on their thumbs and spin. I don't buy every piece of DLC there is, but when it's a good deal or a good piece of content, I buy it. I won't support Capcom's shitty practices, but if Bioware wants to give me a Lair of the Shadow Broker or a $30 expansion to Dragon Age, by all means. Take my money.

By the by, I resent your implications that you're somehow a superior being for essentially being a frugal bastard who whines about how everything related to a game should come on the disc free of charge. If DLC was developed post content-lock, so be it. If it's good, I'll buy it. If not, I'll move onto the next game on my list.

#16 Posted by Gamer_152 (13970 posts) -

There's a very wide range of different ways to do DLC and I think you're treating them like they're all the same thing. You also don't state at any point if by harming gaming you mean harming the games industry economically or hurting the quality of games in general, but if I had to guess I'd say you mean the latter. When done right I believe DLC can be a great thing, for long after the release of a game developers and publishers can put out content with makes them money and makes their fans happy. There's been a fair bit of DLC out there which I've been happy to own and there are certainly a fair number of developers out there doing it right, but there are problems in many areas of the games industry and DLC is no exception. There are a lot of people now who are selling very little DLC for quite a bit of money and have used it as a means to nickel and dime the customer repeatedly. There are some who believe this kind of behaviour is going to hurt the games industry in the long term but I just don't know one way or the other, it's certainly something I have a particular disdain for though.
 
As for DLC that launches alongside or early after a games release, how I feel about it really depends on the nature of it. If significant time and resources were diverting from the main development to work on it or it just comes across as a  chunk ripped out of the game that tends to make me very unhappy. However, it must be observed that there is usually a significant period in between when a dev cycle finishes and a game ships, and if developers and publishers want to use this time to work on DLC I think that's perfectly fine. I also think there are situations where developers can put out additional content for a game near a game's launch and it not feel tacked-on. As for you not owning games like World of Warcraft, unless I'm missing something major here surely that's just a legal technicality and I really don't see why that would have contributed to the lack of LAN play in Starcraft II. When it comes to free updates I think it's a great way for companies to keep an already successful game selling, but I think demanding that all developers and publishers out there make a bunch of additional content for their games and then give it to us for free is not realistic and would show a rather sad sense of entitlement.

Moderator
#17 Posted by Rawrnosaurous (768 posts) -

@Creigz: You have an avatar from Ctrl+Alt+Del, your argument is therefore invalid.

DLC isn't harming gaming in any way shape or form, all it is doing is making it easier for developers to continue working on games after they have shipped. If you played on the ps2, you didn't get anything else out of the game once it was shipped, if anything new was to come along it would be for the sequel to the game.

People who like to badmouth DLC are those who truly don't understand how game development actually works, they aren't stipping things out of the game. The finished product is done a month before it's released, when the product has gone gold. This means that until the game is released your whole entire team is doing nothing, unless you lay them off, put them on another project, or have them work on DLC. To pout about how developers are able to add additional content after the game has been finished is juvenile.

Do not whine about the fact that developers release costumes, characters, or environments after the fact because last gen it would have been unlockable. Last gen it wouldn't have been as high def, costly, or time consuming as it is to create additional outfits.

#18 Posted by KillyDarko (1888 posts) -
@TaliciaDragonsong said:
DLC is horrifying, too expensive for the little amount you're geting from it.  I prefer good old expansion packs.
Well, that first comment pretty much says it all right there, so I'll just quote her.
#19 Posted by Grumbel (910 posts) -

The core problem with launch-day/preorder/buy-new DLC is that it is fracturing the experience and making the purchase more complicated. I don't want to worry if this or that DLC is doing a major contribution to the story or not, I want to buy a game as a single complete item, not with a dozen optional bells and whistles which value is almost impossible to judge when not already familiar with the game as a whole. So if they do DLC, do it weeks or month after the games release, so that I don't have to worry about it when buying the original game. Also they should do it as one big thing, not five small ones, as again, it makes the purchase just more complicated. It's much easier to look up one review of a large DLC pack, then five for small DLC. At some point it's simply not worth the effort to bother informing oneself for two hours of DLC and it's easier to just skip it. Bigger DLC packs also allow more story and just a better experience. If it takes an hour to get familiar again with the game mechanics again, half the DLC might already be over before I am fully back into the game.
 
At this point I simply don't bother with DLC, if I get it in a game of the year edition months or years down the line, fine, it's hardly worth bothering with.

#20 Edited by Trylks (825 posts) -

As far as I can buy a GOTY/ultimate/extended/whatever version with everything for €20 I'm fine with it.

I'm not going to pay overpriced games.

I'm not going to buy separatedly what developers should have included in the game, or, buy a game by pieces or fascicles. That's madness in my book.

I don't mind waiting for developers to make things fair and offer their product at a price I consider fair.

For those developers who don't, I don't care, there are others who do, and there are more games out there than time I have to play them.

#21 Posted by Creigz (180 posts) -

@Rawrnosaurous said:

@Creigz: You have an avatar from Ctrl+Alt+Del, your argument is therefore invalid.

And you named yourself as a dinosaur? So what's the point? My picture has a bit of a joke with my friends attached to it.

Now, I will restate something that most people probably are skipping, I don't mean the LARGER DLC packs that have ACTUAL content in them. I mean the tiny ass ones that aren't even worth time and contribute about the same time a Demo contributes, for a third of the cost of the game. I have a Mass Effect 2 DLC in mind that was not really worth the 10 cheeseburgers (this being a rating system of "McDonalds sells cheeseburgers for a dollar, would those feel more valuable to me than what I've just purchased."

As for mentioning Starcraft and WoW, I was using those examples of when people I know complained about having to buy expansion packs on top of account fees. That's a contrasting argument to what I'm saying. I just feel that DLC needs to actually have substance to be a reasonable option. I've bought tons of DLC so far, only when I see that it has value. I'll pay 2 bucks for a map, sure, or 5 bucks for a couple new missions in Mass Effect, or a new chapter in an RPG, absolutely, but DLC for 15 bucks that gives me 20 minutes of content. Most people would be better off buying 3 games off a steam sale for that price, in fact, my friends and I have done just that, numerous times.

My gripe isn't DLC as a whole concept, it's decent, I love it conceptually, but I really would like to see some substance to my purchases, not 20 minutes of gameplay, 2 minutes of video, and a new background on the menu screen. Halo 2 didn't do bad at this concept really, I wasn't a fan of Halo 2, I had it because all my friends did, and it was something we could all agree to play most of the time. X amount of time passes, and they give us a huge update on a disk, with a few maps, and some mechanics tweaks, this was great for those who weren't on XBL, but it was nicer, I think the map pack was like 6 maps or something like that, cost 19 bucks, that was more worth it than some of the DLC I see these days at 5 bucks, or 400 Microsoft points. One of the DLC packs I refuse to buy is the Halo Reach one, and I wouldn't mind having the content because I have a couple friends from across the country that play that game, but 800 microsoft points for 2 multiplayer maps and one firefight map is SUCH a small hand down for the cost.

#22 Posted by sopranosfan (1935 posts) -

My actual biggest problem with DLC and also with paid subscriptions like COD doing is that to me it seems that it squeezes smaller developers out even more. I am assuming that everybody only has a certain amount to spend on gaming whether it is $100 a year or $100 a day there is only so much that most of us spend and it seems like the big boys want more and more of your money with less available to most to be spent on smaller games. I mean if you buy all the map packs and the COD Elite look at how much money is being spent on top of the $60 you originally spent.

#23 Posted by therightway (13 posts) -

@KillyDarko said:

@TaliciaDragonsong said:
DLC is horrifying, too expensive for the little amount you're geting from it. I prefer good old expansion packs.
Well, that first comment pretty much says it all right there, so I'll just quote her.

Third-ed. Call of Duty has got to be the worst at this. I can only imagine MW3.....map packs every other month.

#24 Posted by mosdl (3223 posts) -

BF3 did not have day 1 dlc, you got the first dlc pack for free if you preorder, which is coming out end of the year.

#25 Posted by Creigz (180 posts) -

@mosdl said:

BF3 did not have day 1 dlc, you got the first dlc pack for free if you preorder, which is coming out end of the year.

It's DLC that's made and ready to go, and you get it, that is content torn from the game to be chincy fucks. They can push back the release date a few more days, and polish off that remaining content and release the game, and nobody will care, in fact they'll be happier. The great thing is that most people don't realize about game development, most developers already have the first patch ready by the time the game is available for the consumer market. I have a friend who's an independent developer on the iPhone, and he had a patch ready before Apple even had the game available on the app store. He also had DLC ready within a week, he didn't bother releasing it, but he is releasing it for free.

The problem here, is that the Karkand map pack was probably mostly ready to go by EA's standards, since every game they release is broken as all hell for a month.

#26 Edited by drac96 (654 posts) -

@Creigz: The argument that it's stupid for Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3 to exist is really getting old. You're against DLC, so why is this such a terrible concept? If the added characters came out as DLC at 5 bucks a pop that would be $60 in DLC, which is just as much as a new game. The game costs $40 new, adds new game modes, 12 new characters, new HUD, and re-balances everything. Capcom has been doing this kind of thing since Street Fighter 2, except development costs of games have increased exponentially since then.

I can go either way on DLC, but in the case of UMVC3 I think they did the right thing.

#27 Edited by The_LMFAO_Guy (192 posts) -
@Lunar_Aura said:

If you want a solid example of why DLC doesn't make a damn difference, look no further than Capcom's popular releases from the past year. DLC = people felt screwed over. No DLC = people felt screwed over. Maybe it's just gamers being fickle whiners, I dunno. I'm not gonna be so quick to blame DLC for "harming gaming".

Aside from the people that want character DLC and Capcom apologist, who's actually saying they want DLC for Capcom's non-fighting games releases, even after all the shit that Capcom pulled off? I certainly don't want it; I sure as hell didn't want DLC for a re-release of a ten-year-old game like Street Fighter III Online Edition. I wanted that content to be in the final game, the DLC is unnecessary is just plain greedy. Especially for a game that was never a main stream success like Street Fighter III. 
 
And here's The Thing (I'm watching the The Thing right now as I'm typing this) if apologist tell you they will feel screwed over if they don't get shitty DLC, they're just saying that to defend Capcom. Think about it, why would they fight for stupid shit like shadow mode packs? Don't believe their bullshit.
 
As for locked characters on the disc, it should be a dead idea. Title updates happen because of bitchy character fanboys who can't accept the roster nor balance for what it is because it lacks one character. We suffer from that when Capcom locks some characters on the disc and insults us even further by doing a title update anyways.Even after all that, what do those people say? Where's [insert character's name]? Capcom does that crap for the tournament community. Believe it or not, Capcom and other fighting game makers still care about them. 
 
And what's weird about the DLC for Capcom's fighting games is that fighting game fans don't care about DLC, and yet, they have no problem defending that stuff so Capcom can keep doing that for future releases. 
 
I like my fighting games well balanced, and contain a good amount of content in them - valuable unlockables (Fan art are USELESS, don't anyone try to troll me with all that crap about how they're great unlockables), good amount of options, and gameplay modes,  and a solid netcode. Which is something that Capcom doesn't do.
#28 Posted by Rawrnosaurous (768 posts) -

@Creigz said:

And you named yourself as a dinosaur? So what's the point?

Yea, but it's a bitchin dinosaur!

@Creigz said:

Now, I will restate something that most people probably are skipping, I don't mean the LARGER DLC packs that have ACTUAL content in them. I mean the tiny ass ones that aren't even worth time and contribute about the same time a Demo contributes, for a third of the cost of the game. I have a Mass Effect 2 DLC in mind that was not really worth the 10 cheeseburgers (this being a rating system of "McDonalds sells cheeseburgers for a dollar, would those feel more valuable to me than what I've just purchased."

You mean the Arrival DLC? I'll give you that it was a terrible piece of DLC that should have never have been released or even conceptually thought of, that was however one release surrounded by a slew of others that were great, some might say even better than the core game.

The only problem comes down to what people want out of the content they get. I for one think it's fucking crazy that so many people willingly and gleefully give up 15 dollars for three maps for Call of Duty. I think that is insane and ruining the DLC area, but then again I don't play Call of Duty even randomly so to those who play it all the time it might be a god send and worth every cent to just get new areas. Hell, everyone bitched rightfully about the atrocity that is the Horse Armour DLC. However, I'm sure that thing sold like crazy because people just want everything they can for a game or from a certain developer.

Unfortunately, these larger developers don't have the luxury of small development costs or upkeep as your friendly neighborhood iphone indie developer. They can't just wait a year to release content that they have finished and ready to go, just because they don't want to seem money grabby. It's not their decision on when the DLC is released, it has to first go through the publisher and PR, then has to go through certification from Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, or all three. As much as I'm sure the developers would wish they didn't release the DLC that soon after release, they don't have much say when it's put out other than whether or not it's done by that date and if it's not that comes with a price to pay.

#29 Posted by MrKlorox (11185 posts) -

Not when it comes to Halloween. Gaming has become awesome around this date due to DLC.

#30 Posted by mandude (2667 posts) -

New Vegas is one of my favourite games, but I'll be damned if I'm paying $40.00 for a handful of DLC.

#31 Posted by tourgen (4228 posts) -

what annoys me is that after I add DLC to a game and then try to play it offline it won't work, or says I can't load any saves that were played while DLC content was installed. Total bullshit. Backdoored in some online checks to my game without letting me know up front that was going to happen. In a perfect world I wouldn't care I guess but my internet is far from perfect.

#32 Edited by Creigz (180 posts) -

@Rawrnosaurous: And now you're talking my way. This is the concept I was getting at, regardless of how bad I was at stating it. It's not all bad, in fact, I own a nice chunk of DLC and pre-order bonuses. I bought Reach Legendary Edition because I wanted to see the statue that you were given, more or less nostalgia from my middle school years, where we played Halo 1 a lot. I also bought the Dead Space 2 collectors edition, that was for the box though. More of a display thing. Needless to say, I'm guilty of buying it, but DLC that is so small it doesn't even take up as much space as my save file is pathetic, costing more than a quarter of the games cost. It's like those Xbox Avatar Items being 5 bucks a pop, and even the Batman suit tempted me. I resist the fuck out of all of this, but I do feel it pushes indies outta the way, and a lot of companies add game changing stuff to DLC. Dead Space 2 is one of them, you get totally different weapons, I don't have any of them, and only played multiplayer the day I beat the game. And in Forza 3, you get cars, lots of DLC packs, 100MSP per car essentially, at 400 a pack with an average of 4 cars. Some of them far better for their class than what most people had unless you can tune properly.

#33 Posted by BUCK3TM4N (549 posts) -

first day dlc is a joke

#34 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

Expansion Packs > Downloadable Content

Both in the value proposition and cost. If you think any other way, you must be 13, or a PR regurgitator.

#35 Posted by BionicRadd (617 posts) -

If only you had a choice to not buy DLC that you didn't want. If only you were never forced to buy additional content, ever. Imagine a world of free will where people could do whatever they wanted instead of bitching and moaning like a baby with a skinned knee.

DLC is optional, 100% of the time. For that matter, buying games is optional, 100% of the time. Evaluate the base game without taking any of the DLC and if you feel it's worth your money, then plop down the duckets. If it's not, play something else. I love that the OP bitches about UMVC3 and then says he preferred the cartridge days. Super Street Fighter II Turbo says hi. So does Ultimate MK3.

My opinion on DLC is when I find a game I love, I like it when developers continue making content for it and I do not mind giving them more of my money to reward them for making something that brings me joy and entertainment. If I didn't like the base game, I wouldn't have bought it in the first place. I do agree that most downloadable content on consoles (add-on content and full games) is entirely overpriced, but I've bought DLC for several IOS games that I love and I bought all the DLC for Borderlands on the PC.

The moral of the story is vote with your wallet, folks. It's perfectly fine to not like the price of something. To bitch about how much something costs because you want to get shit for free or cheap just makes you sound like a spoiled child. It might also be a good idea to sound like you know what you're talking about when do go on these silly rants.

#36 Posted by AlfredCapone (164 posts) -

@Creigz: I am all for DLC...a good example is R* with their GTA Episodes and even Red Dead Redemption. A bad example....anything Day 1, anything 'pre-order exclusives,etc. I think even those bad DLC wouldn't be so bad if they weren't over-priced. I mean I am literally waiting until all of the Batman DLC is out before I even think about getting it. Its basically going to turn into where you pay $20 for the 'first part of a game' and then later lets say 6 months you pay for the 'second part' and so forth and so on....

#37 Edited by Vinyl (50 posts) -

Well alright, but Starcraft 2 is a game in and of itself - you're just going to be connected to your free Battle.net account to play it after you buy. For WoW, I think you're on the complete wrong track, because the payment models for MMOs are so different from how games are otherwise paid for. Kinda unfair to compare payments for continued use of a persistent world vs. the finite packaging of console + DLC games as they don't remotely go for the same market.

#38 Posted by guiseppe (2833 posts) -

The only thing that upsets me about DLC is that it messes up S-ranks. I personally don't buy DLC very often, because I don't like to pay for a game that I've already bought. But that's just me.

#39 Posted by Dookysharpgun (586 posts) -

I've been against DLC for a while now. Not all of it, but most of it, because it lacks value for money.

I thought Mass Effect 1 had one decent DLC, ME2 had Kasumi, Overlord and Lair of the Shadow Broker, all of which were quality and very diverse for what I paid for them. Then Arrival came along...and holy shit, was that full of plot holes and a massive pain in the ass. At that point, I realised, there's a point where DLC cannot improve a game anymore, and where well enough has to be left alone. But with the same game came the weapon and armour packs, and I just spit venom at those. That is pure cut content, repackaged for the sack greed and only greed. And after playing that game 4 times through, I figured that you really need them for certain character builds, because otherwise you're stuck with crap weapons. Granted, Kasumi and Overlord were cut as well, but they were of good additions to the game. I will say that the Cerberus Network was a total rip-off, because any of the 'exclusive' content wasn't worth 1200 MS point anyway.

The latest fiasco with Arkham City is something that makes me hate DLC even more. The Catwoman addition was kind of pointless, because she was just...well pointless, having a short campaign and very little impact on even her own story. Same with that iceberg lounge level...it is, in fact, another pointless addition to the game with no benefit to the player. Same goes for Robin and Nightwing...they could have been in the game, but no, we got them in challenge rooms instead.

Speaking of the Fallout series, Fallout 3 had a pile of DLC, and the irritating thing about that was that you literally needed two separate packs to gain another 20 levels, which in turn was needed to take on another DLC pack which was tough as nails. The only issue, one of those level cap increasing DLCs sucked. The incentive was to gain the levels, but at the cost of about 7 quid. I still love fallout, but this pissed me off more than a little.

Now people will swing the 'self-entitlement' around while talking about this, but the truth is, this really isn't one of those situations. DLC has harmed gaming because nobody uses it properly. We could say that people who like a game enough for the DLC were always going to buy it anyway, but that isn't entirely true. Look at Halo Reach: very few multiplayer maps, very few game modes worth a damn, and an insultingly short, weak campaign. CoD is another example, with very few map variations and DLC map packs for 1200 MS points a pop. This isn't the case of people wanting more because they love it so much, but because they don't have full content and want more to get value out of their game. I would say that DLC has to be put through a quality control and value for money test before release. Basically, a core group of multiple people with different gaming preferences, who play these DLCs and rate them in terms of quality and value. Anything under an 8/10 goes back to the drawing board. I'd imagine this would force publishers to lay off of the devs, allowing them to do better work, instead of being crushed under corporates money-lit eyes, and increase the quality of DLC. It's tough, but fair. Otherwise, don't make crappy DLCs that you could have integrated into the game via patches.

And I'll still argue that DLC, unless it comes hard and fast, adding to a games SP as well as MP, isn't worth the money you pay because that game will inevitably be replaced in your disc drive by something new, and you may never go back to that title again. So you've just wasted a pile of money on a game you played, got bored of, and then shelved, forgetting it existed.

Expansion packs actually add to the games overall content for a reasonable price, which I always enjoyed, but those are few and far between nowadays. DLC does not. MK is something I have to disagree with though. I thought the DLC character idea was cool, alas, they copped out, ending it with Freddy, who I never play, because I hate him, and from what I've heard, are holding back until the next title to add new characters. But at least you can use the characters whenever you want. Most DLC, i.e. map packs, SP additions, are only useable when you're at a certain point in the game, for a defined period. However, DLC is being misused by a large number of devs, and instead of adding proper content to the game, they're simply cutting and repackaging the content for later use. Gaming has become more about turning over maximum profit at the expense of quality and value, playing on, at some points, mass ignorance of quality to sell this crap to the consumers. We see decent DLC every few months, and with Skyrim incoming, we're set to see some interesting expansions to the game, but other than that, DLC is a nightmarish labyrinth of more bad than good. It isn't evil because it doesn't contribute, it's evil because it contributes so little, asking for so much in return.

Long story short: DLC is ok when it's used right, bad when it's used wrong, which is most of the time.

#40 Posted by Hockeymask27 (3667 posts) -

DLC where everyone has the option to buy or not is fine in my opinion. However this retail specific dlc/pre order crap has to stop.I just want to play as a couple diffrent batman without buying seven copies.

#41 Posted by mosdl (3223 posts) -

@Creigz said:

@mosdl said:

BF3 did not have day 1 dlc, you got the first dlc pack for free if you preorder, which is coming out end of the year.

It's DLC that's made and ready to go, and you get it, that is content torn from the game to be chincy fucks. They can push back the release date a few more days, and polish off that remaining content and release the game, and nobody will care, in fact they'll be happier. The great thing is that most people don't realize about game development, most developers already have the first patch ready by the time the game is available for the consumer market. I have a friend who's an independent developer on the iPhone, and he had a patch ready before Apple even had the game available on the app store. He also had DLC ready within a week, he didn't bother releasing it, but he is releasing it for free.

The problem here, is that the Karkand map pack was probably mostly ready to go by EA's standards, since every game they release is broken as all hell for a month.

DICE announced a day 1 patch a few weeks before the release, just like your friend! Sounds a bit too EA ranty.

BF2 had 2 DLC packs, in fact the 15 bucks for Karkand is the same price as it was for the BF2 boosters. I remember people complaining back then about it, so hardly a new development, be it good or bad.

#42 Posted by Enigma777 (6047 posts) -

Nope. I like DLC for the most part. Sure there's outliers (as with all things in life), but I love that I am now enticed to go back to old game six months or even a year after it was released because there's new content out for it. Not to mention that most current games are already crammed with more content than I can shake a stick at, so it's not like I'm not getting my money's worth if I don't buy any of the DLC. 

#43 Posted by Skald (4366 posts) -

@Creigz said:

if you have DLC ready, provide it later, just wait to release it so that you don't look like you're snipping the game apart

@Creigz said:

@mosdl said:

BF3 did not have day 1 dlc, you got the first dlc pack for free if you preorder, which is coming out end of the year.

It's DLC that's made and ready to go, and you get it, that is content torn from the game to be chincy fucks.

There's just no pleasing some people.

#44 Posted by mariokart64fan (366 posts) -

i once thought t hey helped gaming but when i found out they were just things developers hold back on the disc you have to just pay for the actual content to unlock them thats when it hit me , that it actually was making me waste my money at the same time they make games shorter by keeping all of this back and why should i pay 10 -15 dollars for 5 maps when the next game is a yr off,

why should i even bother you know i bought pd 0 maps and when i found out they were just maps already in the game just for multiplayer use instead of sp , -like the rooftop map thats already in the code in fact theres only 1 map from that 800 ms points that was actually a new map , the rest were just -- well recycled sp maps to use in mp and the free maps were just maps in pd 64 already and ge etc

so yes in a way they do harm gaming if not the value of the game online without split screen is what really kills it ,

yes online is good but im talking about the future when all the servers are down or games online community is dead,

and you ve already beaten the short campiagnes offered , sure you can go play it again but most games today just dont have that power to make me feel to want to play the sp again ,

if there was split screen i think gaming would be better off justl ook at the wii , which is lol the only console that to my knowledge has loads of fun split screen games

which i bet we will still be able to enjoy when the next gen is here, such as mariokart ssbb super mario bros re etc , list goes on but 360 has a such shorter list

-for example -perfect dark xbla perfect dark zero the halo and cod games, gearso f war re5 , guitar hero rockband damnation and left for dead , thats a short short list , if i switch over to ps3 same thing ,

even multiplats on wii have splitscreen where as hd twins does not

007 games any one -im quite shocked ge is keeping its split screen , after seeing the crap known as quantum of solace007 -ps2 ps3 360 versions=no split screen ps2 also has no o nline what so ever, making the wii not pretty but better version in the long run , ,

#45 Posted by iam3green (14388 posts) -

i agree with that OP. 
 
i hate DLC. i don't think it's worth the price for it. i usually don't buy DLC. i hate it because one i think they release it too early in the game's life. they release things like 2 months after the release of the game. it's annoying sometimes to hear that. i also don't think it's worth the price because it's too short of time.
 
i had fable 2. i beat the game. i bought the two expansion dlc things that came out. i didn't like see the future because it was really short. i beat it in like 1.5. i was pissed about that. the other one expansion was good because of how much was in that one. i think i played like 3 hours of stuff in that. i thought was great.

#46 Posted by Mike76x (555 posts) -

Fable 3 DLC

The color black

When you first choose to be male or female, the long hair the female has isn't available until you buy the Understone DLC, which takes 5-10 minutes and includes access to a place you already went to, but became unavailable afterward.

3 weapon morph variants were ripped out to become lame store specific pre-order DLC.

The pre-order create-a-villager could be killed by the games own glitches, and other reasons. DLC gone.

#47 Posted by The_LMFAO_Guy (192 posts) -

How do you guys feel about paying for DLC (That's held back of course) that's really content that was created over ten years ago? And also used as a scam due to the game not having custom soundtrack support, even though a company like Capcom has used custom soundtrack for their previous fighters. And all of that is being done for a re-release of a game that's over ten-years-old. 
 
If people are willing to degrade themselves for shitty DLC, then they're no better than crackheads. I wonder if there's people out there that they're willing to suck dick to bring in their favorite character as a locked character on the disc. I kid you not, those people are willing to overpay money, so they must be willing to suck dick. 

#48 Posted by Amilmitt (237 posts) -

Most DLC these days isnt worth the money.

The Good DLC are the ones that follow in the line of expansion packs. DLC like borderlands armoury of general knoxx(A HUGE amount a content, practically another game for the same price as a cod map pack)

also burnout paradise: big surf island. it may have seemed small, but that island was packed with stuff to do, new cars to unlock. it had about over half as much content as the original game had.

i know developers have these big spaces of free time after the game goes gold and they wait for certification. so why don't they make up a huge expansion then release it a month after, they can be all like "so finished the main game, well here is another huge chunk of story and gameplay for you if you wanted more." alot of games end and you just want to play more, so this scheme would actually work better as alot of players would have finished and crave more from your game. plus because of a huge amount of value they put into the game spending the two months since certification would mean they would be toting this game to their friends, who would see it as a worthwhile investment.

don't nickel and dime your players, invest in them and they in return will invest in you.

#49 Posted by Still_I_Cry (2494 posts) -

I like having a physical copy of a game, day one DLC is somewhat of a cheap shot but DLC released to keep the game fresh down the road isn't going to harm gaming.

#50 Posted by CanuckEh (77 posts) -

Vote with your wallet, and let go of the mentality of needing to see and use every possible asset a game has to offer. If five dollars for Freddy Kruger seems like much, then pass on Freddy Kruger. Your life and your Mortal Kombat experience will function just the same without him.