Would You Buy More DLC, If More of It Was Stand-Alone?

I don't think so. The DLC I'm interested in is usually attached to a game I am also interested in enough to purchase. Since I don't sell my games, having that DLC sold as a seperate game would give me no benefit.

But hey, if it satisfies other people's needs, good.

Just depends on the game and the quality of the DLC. That said the best DLC released to date is the Dark Souls DLC and while that might work stand-alone it would be really weird and you'd kind of just want to play the rest of the excellent game. This is more of a much after the fact type of thing where you're sure the DLC is superior to the main game and you absolutely don't want to play the main game. The example here is Bioshock 2, but having played some of Bioshock 2 it seems to be of roughly the same caliber as every other Bioshock.

It all comes down to price for me. If the price is right then I am game. I would much rather download DLC though.

Not really? Maybe? I'd rather buy story or gameplay content than boxes of guns or costumes. It doesn't matter to me whether the former comes standalone or not.

Depends on the DLC obviously. I haven't and won't buy Deadrising 2, but I bought both Case Zero and Case West when they came out because even though they were related to Deadrising 2 (and Case Zero even let you port in your XP to Deadrising 2) they were short contained experiences. I didn't like the timing stuff of Deadrising and didn't like having to replay to get the full experience, but replaying Case Zero was fine with me because it wasn't very long at all.

Totally. Sometimes I'm into the idea of a game but not enough to want to invest for its full play time. Having the option to play a little bite-size bit to give it a go and see if my initial impression was wrong sounds great

Probably not, most DLC doesn't seem very compelling without the context of the main experience. Most of it is not Minerva's Den.

Absolutely. I usually pass up dlc that's tied to a game, either because I don't have the main game anymore or I have to go through some kind of rigamorol just to access it. I loved Blood Dragon just for it's stand alone accessible nature. An example of something I wish took advantage of this is the new Last of Us dlc. I bought the game digital and have since deleted it off my Ps3. I probably won't redownload it or re buy a physical copy, so sadly I'll probably never play it despite wanting to.

I don't generally go out of my way to get or play DLC because when I get to the end of a game's single player campaign, I usually feel "finished" with it. I might replay the game but I don't really feel a need for new content.

However, when it releases as a stand alone game like Blood Dragon, or this ACIV thing, it feels like the developers are making something new to me. I feel like I'm buying a game with similar ideas and mechanics that are being used for something new, especially in the case of Blood Dragon which I almost always view as a spin-off and not really as DLC.

If I was interested in the DLC, I'd probably be interested in the game it comes from first.

So, no, makes no difference to me.

If it's not tied directly into the game I'm not interested in it.

Being a PC Gamer by the time any DLC comes out the game would have most likely got to a price I'd be more whiling to take a gamble in. And if I didn't care enough to buy the game already (even after all the sales) it'd be unlikely the DLC would entice me.

Yes, I would. I would have totally bought Minerva's Den if it was a standalone thing, but I don't want to have to get the maligned Bioshock 2 to get it.

Yeah, I would buy more. Sometimes a bite-sized dlc is more appealing than the full package if you don't want a significant commitment, provided it's reasonably priced of course.

I'd rather there was less DLC honestly. More of it should be in the game already.

That being said I've liked standalone DLC more lately because it allows for more creativity. The creators don't need to keep the same tone or style which can lead to really interesting things. Also people can buy it separately.

No because I typically like when the DLC is integrated into the experience I already had or am currently having, why I haven't bought Blood Dragon or Burial at Sea DLC. I just look at how ME2 did DLC and that was the way to do it, DLC didn't take away from the core experience but added quite a lot if you played them in the context of your character. Same as Dragon Age Origins for the most part.

No. I mean, I buy DLC a lot, but it's for games I own. I haven't had a desire to play DLC for games that I don't own. Blood Dragon for Far Cry 3 is a good example. Sure, I think it looks cool, and I know it has nothing to do with the main game, but since I have no relationship with Far Cry 3, I just haven't had a desire to play it. I don't have a problem with standalone DLC, I just don't really care about it.

I don't think so, it does make sense for some things that are so different from the main experience (like Blood Dragon). But for most games I find they either fill the game with more content that you can use to make the singular experience bigger (like Mass Effect), or you can add in additional stories that doesn't necessarily have to be in the main experience (like Sleeping Dogs). And judging by my purchase history, I am more likely to fill a game I love with more content than I am to buy a stand alone thing.