@Bobby_The_Great said:

@kingzetta: I know how DLC is made. @BulletproofMonk said:

@kingzetta said:

There are exceptions to that, though. Assassin's Creed II for example. They just straight up took two missions of the main game and put them as DLC. They admitted it, even.

He summed it up perfectly. This is happening more and more.I just get tired of paying $60, when in reality to get a "full" game experience these days, I'm having to spend upwards to $100. With Dark Souls, I don't have to do that.

I think that's really your problem. Your so obsessed with getting the "full" experience, you've never stepped back and thought all DLC is not worth paying for. Literally all DLC is awful, I find it bizarre anyone buys any of it. Judging by the quicklooks I can see why those chapters were ripped out of AC2.

@SuperSambo said:

I like DLC... Sure sometimes it is silly, but a lot of the time it adds to a complete game. What is wrong with that?

There's a difference between adding stuff to a completed game and taking things out of a completed game in order for them to make more money. Yeah I think DLC in theory could be a great thing, but most of the time it's the gamer getting screwed over by the publishers/developers just because they wanted more money.

Dark Souls is not at all unfair. You just have to know how to approach it.

I bought Arkham City (though I can't get going because of Dark Souls : / ), and I was shocked at the amount of preorder bonuses: playable characters, challenge maps, costumes, etc. You can only get one of them to start and if you want all of them you need to pay $15 when its all released as DLC, or wait for the GOTY edition. Frankly its just obnoxious.

Could all of these things be included on the retail disc? Yep. SHOULD they be included on the retail disc? YEP.

Reminds me of an MST3K bit about an action figure that came sold separately in pieces: arm, leg, torso, etc. (kudos if you know what I'm talking about).

I mostly agree. I'm not in the camp of "all DLC is bad". I do agree that pre-order bonuses are a bad idea and most DLC should either not be included at all or already be in the game as an unlockable. The only aspect of DLC I do support is maps (not the money leeching subscriptions) for games with great enduring multiplayer. This is a great way to freshen up a game and give the gamers still enjoying it some more content that, hopefully, had been made after the game was finished for purely supplemental purposes. As long as these are not required, I feel they are still a good idea.

i find it funny how much attention dark souls has gotten where everyone is saying so many positive things about it, but acting like its the first game that have done it and its new and refreshing.

dont get me wong i have no problem with it its just odd that allmost no one said that or anything to be honest about demon souls.

You could just play handheld games and not have to worry about DLC :P

@kingzetta said:

@Bobby_The_Great: You have to learn how DLC is actually made.

They don't work on a game till the day they come out and then suddenly go, "Okay rip that, that annnd that out and make people pay extra for it." A game is normally done one or two months before it comes out. In that period bugs are tested and fix, while the rest of the team makes DLC.

Err no, DLC is planned and often produced way before a game is even finished. You're being highly naive.

@PepitoneConQueso said:

I bought Arkham City (though I can't get going because of Dark Souls : / ), and I was shocked at the amount of preorder bonuses: playable characters, challenge maps, costumes, etc. You can only get one of them to start and if you want all of them you need to pay $15 when its all released as DLC, or wait for the GOTY edition. Frankly its just obnoxious.

Exactly, the way they rub that stuff in your nose, the developers really make you feel like you're missing part of the game.

And I'm in the same boat with Dark Souls and Batman btw. I try to play AC but I always end up playing DS again despite having played it for 110 hours already.

@TaliciaDragonsong said:

Agree. The last real good and worth my money dlc was Borderland's General Knox.

So what's the problem then? If the DLC is crap you're not missing out on anything...

@Grillbar: I had no and still have no interest in demon's souls. There's something about the art style, and of course now having played it- I find Dark Souls much more appealing. Ya, gameplay mechanics and what not its the same, but something about the stuff I have seen of Demon's Soul I never felt compelled by.

Can't explain it. Maybe it's mind control haha

@TaliciaDragonsong said:

Agree. The last real good and worth my money dlc was Borderland's General Knox.

So what's the problem then? If the DLC is crap you're not missing out on anything...

Major games ($60) aren't about providing some sort of closure to a life affirming tale of heroism and vindication through a struggle for survival.

There about making money.

As much money as possible.

If they felt they could derive a significant profit out of consumers by putting a price tag on sections of the game to be unlocked as DLC they would.

@Vodun said:

@TaliciaDragonsong said:

Agree. The last real good and worth my money dlc was Borderland's General Knox.

So what's the problem then? If the DLC is crap you're not missing out on anything...

It's often shitty because of the value-for-money ratio. If that stuff was just an element in the game, that'd be okay.

To true, but I wish Dark Soul's had DLC... = (

If From Software, or rather Namco Bandai, was anything like EA or Activision, the Painted World part would've cost us 5 bucks.

DLCs are out of control, don't you think? Dragon Age 2 had two of them ready to go on launch date. Back-in-the-day that would have just been called one thing...content. Also, since DLC is so out of control one would assume that they're successful right? In turn, wouldn't that be giving game developers more revenue to polish games before release. If anything i think that the success of DLCs should be the solution to the problem and not the cause of a lot. Game developers don't have those long several year periods where they're not making much money in between the launch of their games. So, ideally DLCs should be creating a nice "buffer" period where developers can spend more time on games to polish them before release. Breathing room during "down time". Then why this trend of awfully buggy and unpolished titles launched? It is too bad they're only using DLC as a money grab and not bringing them to their true potential. DLC seem to be taking the place of, but are no substitute for, what developers used to make for the same reasons...Expansion packs. True expansions like; Shivering Isles, Awakening, General Knox, ect, i find actually to be welcome additions. All of that being said though, Dark Souls is one of the first games i would actually LOVE some expansions or even DLC for.

On a similar note, CD Projeckt Red is doing it right, plain and simple. Absolutely free additional game content and modes. With exception to true expansions all of the "Witcher 2's" additional content will be free to anyone who has paid for the game. Simply amazing when compared to the conformities (nearly) all other developers/publishers seem to be following.

@gosukiller: Let's be honest, it would be $15. But that's why I love Dark Souls! It's in the game with the PURCHASE OF THE GAME for free as part of the full experience. Perfect.

@TerraMantis: Totally agree EA and Dragon Age 1 and 2 are both notorious for having day one DLC which was utter bullshit.

I have to register my agreement here as well. I have too many memories of a time when it was the norm to get a complete experience without all these dubious carrot-on-a-stick business strategies. At the same time, I've learned to see these "bonuses" for what they really are: Crappy content that adds virtually nothing to the core experience.