Doesn't bother me in the slightest. If I want what they are selling then I buy it... if I don't then I ignore it...

I buy DLC for games that are good enough for me to want to play more.
 
DLC should build onto a game, that's why Day 1 DLC is stupid. Developers aren't building off of fan reaction to create an improved experience, they are just doing it for a quick buck.

If it's a good game, and the DLC is worthy of it price, whatever that might be, then I couldn't care less what it costs or when it is released.

If I simply need to edit a clear text .ini file ever so slightly, then it's a good cause for outrage.
 
I buy DLC worthy of the "Content" part of the name.

I buy DLC if it's actual DLC and actually good.

I can't really stand for it if it's on the disc, because that's just fucking bullshit. It's not even DLC then.

I don't buy DLC, but do I care if others do? no.

DLC does not bother me. I don't even care when its built in to the game at lauch, like everyone else is raging about. I rarely buy any though, except for the saints row 3 DLC which were a complete waist of money.

I think having it on the disc is fine if there is a need for everyone to have it like alternate costumes and, additional characters for fighting games. Javik in ME3 is also fine because there are hooks in there that are needed for his DLC to work properly.

I'm neither not bothered, nor outraged. For my, it's just a business proposition. If they sell the disced game for sixty and the on-disc DLC for ten, I just consider whether the entire package is worth seventy.

If I would have willingly paid sixty for the base game without the DLC, then the fact that the DLC was ready at certification and pressing isn't factored in.

I'd feel differently if console games didn't have a set price. Then developers wouldn't have to develop to a sixty-dollar price point, and games like Shadows of the Damned and Alpha Protocol wouldn't have the "is it worth sixty?" question nipping at their proverbial heels.

Unlock codes are better than multiple gig downloads. Most games give you more than enough at $60. Putting the dlc on disc saves time and bandwidth for getting right into the content.

DLC could be really cool but almost no one tries to build anything worth the money. Despite what they say about this being extra content that couldn't be put into the game at launch I think it's all just smoke and mirrors to hack up the traditional development track and release in stages so everyone will buy an incomplete version at launch and then you can add to the game to make it complete for additional dollars. Not sure what the averages work out to but I'm guessing the result is a higher return per unit sold on release. ($65 per unit instead of $60)

The capcom thing is a perfect example of this. They built the game, A-Z, then went in and locked T-Z behind a pay wall so they could easily charge you extra money. These used to be unlocks in the past. Beat the game, unlock a new character or costume. They saw how much people liked doing that so they figured why let them have that for free? They're going to buy the game without it anyway, (you don't have that content when you take the game home) so it's a win win. People are willing to buy games with lots of locked content that unlocks as you play. So lets just make it unlock if you pay.

A company that valued their consumers might offer the choice. Unlock if you play or pay to unlock immediately. Mass Effect 3 MP does this with those little crates. You can earn money from playing the game and go buy those crates. It takes a while to earn enough to buy the top level crate but the rewards and unlocks are fun to earn. You can spend points to buy those crates as well, 80 for mid level, 160 for spectre (tier 3). I think I've purchased 2 spectre crates (in game credits) so far and I really enjoy the game so I'm just buying them when I can and working with the players I have. I like having the option to spend $2 and get another crate. ME3 would be wise to do this with "From Ashes" as well. Unlock by paying for first playthrough. Or after you beat the game play through again on hardcore and the prothean unlocks in new game+. (or whatever)

Good DLC ends up being cosmetic changes that some will want and some won't. Like cars in Forza, or a special helmet or suit of armor in ME3. The whole microtransaction model is the way to go with DLC but so far all we've seen is shameless attempts to charge us more money for content that was in the game before release."We got this really cool game, what can we take out so people will pay us extra for it?" They should be asking "What can we add to the game that customers will like?" That quote recently about making good DLC is hard is telling the truth. That is why so many companies don't even try, they just look for ways to use existing content as DLC.

@LordXavierBritish: DLC is still developed on a separate budget even if its day one. And even if its day one keep in mind that game has to go through certification and have the discs pressed before its released that is WEEKS of time after its out of the developers hands. It makes complete sense that they would start DLC development in the late cycle of the game so they can have it released on the first day.

Maybe my perspective's a little different, but I've read enough EULAs to understand that when I buy software, the vast majority of the time I don't actually own that software. I technically own a license to run that software. And if it comes on physical media, I now also happen to have the medium that the software was distributed on.

This is how it's been for enterprise software for a while. Only recently has it started hitting consoles, because only relatively recently have those devices had Internet connectivity. And while a lot of people with consoles have Internet access, not quite enough people do to make it worth making content downloadable for each separate license you buy. So the solution for now is to put everything on physical media, and then sell it with a license for some of the content on it.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong (and I have no idea how legal used game sales actually are, because for software in general, licenses are non-transferable), but it's just how games are distributed right now. You don't see these problems on Steam because it would be stupid on Valve's part to make you download all the content for a game, and then limit you based on which license you buy. Instead, they "save" on bandwidth by allowing you to download only the content you have a license to run.

And back to the OP, no, it doesn't bother me. If DLC is good, I'll buy it. If it's crap, I won't.

I dont care if its on the disc i care how good it is.

@Ubersmake said:

I've read enough EULAs to understand that when I buy software, the vast majority of the time I don't actually own that software. I technically own a license to run that software. And if it comes on physical media, I now also happen to have the medium that the software was distributed on.

This is what people need to understand more than anything about stuff thats on the disc because it invalidates the main argument most people use (They are locking content that is on MY disc.).

Somewhere between the entirely polar 'outraged' and 'not bothered' options. And I buy some.

@LordXavierBritish: Well duh? Everything in the industry is motivated by money and I don't see the issue with it. They aren't being deceptive with what your money buys. Besides that, I want companies that make games I like to make money... that way they make MORE of the thing I like.

Surely there is a medium between not bothered and outraged. That is where I sit. In theory it is a good thing. I have only bought a bit of DLC, none of it worth the price. Only a few companies seem to offer good DLC. Many of them are selling things that would have been in the game already five years ago. i think that if I want DLC for a game then the game itself must be lacking. In past generations I never thought "Super Mario 64 is awesome and all but I would love to pay for a new tacked on world".

Everyone that is bringing up business and shareholders as an argument for Day-1 DLC, is the reason why gaming is crap right now.

I buy DLC if I feel it's worth it, but would never pay for day one stuff. I already feel bad enough if, by the end of a year, I've spent over $100 on a game thanks to DLC, like with Borderlands where I bought the game on launch for $60 and then every bit of additional content. I would never want the feeling of spending $60 and then another $15 the very same day on a bit of extra stuff.

@JacDG said:

If it's a good game, and the DLC is worthy of it price, whatever that might be, then I couldn't care less what it costs or when it is released.

This, again, on another forum about DLC. Is the internet still up in arms over the From Ashes day 1 DLC for ME3? I knew everyone was still upset over the ending, but come on guys and gals. If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT. Tell your friends that if they don't like it either, then THEY SHOULDN'T BUY IT. If enough people stop buying horrible DLC ( or even DLC in general), companies will look at the data and see that the market wants good, solid DLC. Then again, this concept can seem too "strange" and "difficult" for some people to comprehend, so what ever. I'll keep buying DLC that I want to buy, whether its Day 1 DLC or Day 265. Makes no difference to me.

DLC is one of the worst things in games these days. At first it was a bright eyed child that you thought was going to grow up as doctor or scientist, but with time DLC turned out to be cynical corporate bastard who wants all of your money and does not offer that much in return. And you know if it keeps at it, someday DLC will rape you.

I'm not indifferent, but I'm not outraged. It's a practice I wish I would see less of, though. I guess I don't mind the concept, but I think publishers are abusing our good will towards it. Hell, even Ken Rolston said Horse Armour was a terrible idea.

I like DLC, and am okay with it being an anti-used game sales thing, but when it's on the disk and locked behind a pay-wall for everyone, them I am bothered at that anti-consumerist practice.

Depends on what it is, almost always. If the content is good, ah la Shadow Broker, and Lost and the Dammed, or songs I like for Rock Band then yeah I'll buy it.

Weapon skins and characters for fighting games I usually pass up on.

If I like the game and want more content, yes I will buy it.

@Ubersmake said:

Maybe my perspective's a little different, but I've read enough EULAs to understand that when I buy software, the vast majority of the time I don't actually own that software. I technically own a license to run that software. And if it comes on physical media, I now also happen to have the medium that the software was distributed on.

This is how it's been for enterprise software for a while. Only recently has it started hitting consoles, because only relatively recently have those devices had Internet connectivity. And while a lot of people with consoles have Internet access, not quite enough people do to make it worth making content downloadable for each separate license you buy. So the solution for now is to put everything on physical media, and then sell it with a license for some of the content on it.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong (and I have no idea how legal used game sales actually are, because for software in general, licenses are non-transferable), but it's just how games are distributed right now. You don't see these problems on Steam because it would be stupid on Valve's part to make you download all the content for a game, and then limit you based on which license you buy. Instead, they "save" on bandwidth by allowing you to download only the content you have a license to run.

And back to the OP, no, it doesn't bother me. If DLC is good, I'll buy it. If it's crap, I won't.

Thank you for this comment. I'm searching online for legal information educating consummers about their rights and entitlements, etc. The argument that "if its on a disc then I am entitled to its access" didn't really seem right to me, but I didn't have any real knowledge on the topic to form an opinion beyond bitching at the level of an average youtube commentor. So the EULA pretty much contains everything one needs to know legally about dlc purchases? If you would point out some other stuff to read or whatever on this topic, then I'm all ears.

I absolutely would not buy on-disc DLC. Please don't encourage them.

Im neither outraged, nor not bothered by it. Im just slightly bothered by it. I understand it, and some times it is a necessary evil. I think its fine as long as long as it isn't an part of the story you are currently being told, or a trick, such as false endings. I think that characters, and skins are fine. But its very crappy to sell someone a game as a complete experience, and then try and sell them an ending or a story mission ( that fills in holes of the plot, or ties into the plot. If they want to sell a mission that is stand alone so be it ) .

A ton. I have a billion Rock Band Songs and add-ons for most of the games I really enjoy.(Alan Wake, Borderlands, Batman, Asura's Wrath etc) I don't just buy any old thing though, I don't tend to buy map packs unless I am really into a game online and even then I have usually lost interest by the time that stuff comes around.

I don't think I have bought a single bit of DLC for any PS3 game though... unless you count Festival of Blood.

The apologists who are saying that 'day 1 dlc is made after the games been pressed' or 'its logistical reasons so everyone has the same characters' are missing the point. It is encouraging them to block access to content that could and would have been in the full game - just think about that really.

On-disc DLC is bullshit.

DLC is kind of weird. I like it when the content is meaningful, but usually it's bigger and more of the vein of expansion packs of old (Dragon Age, the Skyrim DLC). Other than Bethesda games, I'll buy map packs for games that are really popular, I enjoy and, if not popular, have some sort of bots so I can always enjoy the maps.