DLC is important

There’s a lot of hate on DLC whether it be more content or a day one patch, and I get that. In a lot of ways it feels like we’re being sold parts of the game that should have been in the original product, and this is true in some cases. But, I would like to present the other side of this. People like to paint the DLC picture as publishers having to make a predetermined marketing date under any circumstances. There’s a good deal more to it than that. I would actually argue that the DLC out there has greatly improved the quality of our experiences.

First, the concept of shipping a broken or incomplete game existed long before the inception of DLC. All console video games must go through certification on their respective platforms, mostly because the manufacturers don’t want to look bad with a potentially broken game. Any time a game gets rejected it goes back to the publisher for more coding and testing, this means delays. Not only delays for the publisher but for the platform as well. Microsoft and Sony both had a big incentive to get titles on the shelves, it meant a greater revenue stream for them as hardware providers and licensers. So with an especially popular release, like say San Andreas was, it was much more likely that Sony would look the other way when a bug pops up because it would mean a delay in their own money. This is especially true if one platform gets certified rather than the other, it’s a huge sales loss for the console version that gets delayed. A conflict of interest for sure, but one that makes a good deal of sense for all business parties. The end result would be the user ending up with quasi-broken game with plenty of content that development had thought of that couldn’t make it by the submission date.

Today gamers find themselves in a similar situation, just with greater visibility. But this difference is that developers actually have the capability of fixing issues and adding content. Most people seem to view this as a potential excuse for releasing buggy games or not putting in content. While that may be true, in my mind, that problem is vastly outweighed by the idea that problems get fixed and great games get more content (neither of which were even possible before).

There’s a lot of hate on DLC whether it be more content or a day one patch, and I get that. In a lot of ways it feels like we’re being sold parts of the game that should have been in the original product, and this is true in some cases. But, I would like to present the other side of this. People like to paint the DLC picture as publishers having to make a predetermined marketing date under any circumstances. There’s a good deal more to it than that. I would actually argue that the DLC out there has greatly improved the quality of our experiences.

First, the concept of shipping a broken or incomplete game existed long before the inception of DLC. All console video games must go through certification on their respective platforms, mostly because the manufacturers don’t want to look bad with a potentially broken game. Any time a game gets rejected it goes back to the publisher for more coding and testing, this means delays. Not only delays for the publisher but for the platform as well. Microsoft and Sony both had a big incentive to get titles on the shelves, it meant a greater revenue stream for them as hardware providers and licensers. So with an especially popular release, like say San Andreas was, it was much more likely that Sony would look the other way when a bug pops up because it would mean a delay in their own money. This is especially true if one platform gets certified rather than the other, it’s a huge sales loss for the console version that gets delayed. A conflict of interest for sure, but one that makes a good deal of sense for all business parties. The end result would be the user ending up with quasi-broken game with plenty of content that development had thought of that couldn’t make it by the submission date.

Today gamers find themselves in a similar situation, just with greater visibility. But this difference is that developers actually have the capability of fixing issues and adding content. Most people seem to view this as a potential excuse for releasing buggy games or not putting in content. While that may be true, in my mind, that problem is vastly outweighed by the idea that problems get fixed and great games get more content (neither of which were even possible before).

Patches are important, dlc should be optional and mostly add-on.

I only hate on-disc DLC cause its bullshit, why should I have to pay extra for something that is already in the game day one?

@Claude said:

Patches are important, dlc should be optional and mostly add-on.

@Unknown_Pleasures said:

I only hate on-disc DLC cause its bullshit, why should I have to pay extra for something that is already in the game day one?

Agreed, I'd like to pay for things that are made after launch and add to the story, rather than taking things away from me until I pay a premium.

DLC on disc is stupid of companies to do. it is pretty bad to do that. i don't get DLC a lot because i think that it's a rip off. i got fable 2, see the future. i was disappointed with that. it only lasted like an hour of gameplay.

@Swick: I agree, I completely love DLC. There are some cases, where the DLC is already on the disc, that simply isn't cool. But as someone who has seen DLC being made, I know that it isn't shit that is just being plucked out to be sold for more money. But something that gives me new stuff to experience in the games I love, without making me pay for a "directors cut" sort of thing, is pretty awesome. If I could pay 3 dollars to add the extended scenes to my lord of the rings stuff, I'd be pretty stoked. Course, I wanted all the other stuff and it's a bit different because the bonus content is amazing for those, but it's a good idea of how I feel about DLC. New stuff in the things I love are awesome, especially when their fairly cheap and support the people who made that awesome stuff. DLC I think also is abit of a response to used games, as you have to buy that stuff new, and they always get money from the DLC they make, and I consider that a good thing :) People should stop bitching about DLC in general and focus more on the actually shitty stuff.

@Unknown_Pleasures said:

I only hate on-disc DLC cause its bullshit, why should I have to pay extra for something that is already in the game day one?

Agreed, I'd like to pay for things that are made after launch and add to the story, rather than taking things away from me until I pay a premium.

Patches are very imporant. They fix a game which might normally have been left in a bad state.

DLC seems to exist purely to piss people off, a job which it is doing excellently.

Ok, in fairness, not all DLC is bad. Think expansion packs and the like. Stuff like what Rockstar put out, such as Episodes from Liberty City. I'm alright with that. When DLC can expand on a game and really add to it, it's great.

But DLC for stuff that was removed from the game? Or even worse, content that is still on the god damn disc that I have to buy to unlock? This I don't understand. I don't get half way through a movie and then see a sign pop up telling me to buy the next scene. Then there's the problem of over pricing which is fairly evident in a lot of DLC.

DLC could have been great, and have had many glimmers of brilliance, but have ultimately failed and have largely left me unimpressed

I hate the fact that more and more games seem to be designed with DLC pre-planned. I'm sure publishers really want to charge people $80 for today's videogames, but instead of coming clean and throwing themselves to the fires by being upfront, they charge you $60 and then nickel and dime the other $20 out of you. As long as they can use the "you don't NEED it!" argument they get away with it.

*Sigh* On the bright side, this just gives you an incentive to hold off on the title until the price comes down or the GOTY edition comes out.

*Sigh* On the bright side, this just gives you an incentive to hold off on the title until the price comes down or the GOTY edition comes out.

@Evikull said:

But DLC for stuff that was removed from the game? Or even worse, content that is still on the god damn disc that I have to buy to unlock? This I don't understand. I don't get half way through a movie and then see a sign pop up telling me to buy the next scene. Then there's the problem of over pricing which is fairly evident in a lot of DLC.

What a fantastic and perfectly appropriate analogy.

@Hunkulese said:

@Evikull said:

But DLC for stuff that was removed from the game? Or even worse, content that is still on the god damn disc that I have to buy to unlock? This I don't understand. I don't get half way through a movie and then see a sign pop up telling me to buy the next scene. Then there's the problem of over pricing which is fairly evident in a lot of DLC.

What a fantastic and perfectly appropriate analogy.

+1 to you both.

DLC is an opportunity for new gaming experiences and formats.

unfortunately so far it's mainly been used to as either a cheap upsell or a way to charge more the same product.

one of those nice in theory not so nice in action kind of things

@Unknown_Pleasures said:

I only hate on-disc DLC cause its bullshit, why should I have to pay extra for something that is already in the game day one?

Agreed, I'd like to pay for things that are made after launch and add to the story, rather than taking things away from me until I pay a premium.

My biggest issue with the Gears DLC was not that it was on the disc, or the price, but that regardless of what Epic claim it was very purposefully and clumsily cut from the final product. I played tens of hours of Gears 3 horde from day one right up until the DLC came out, and I can categorically say that the DLC did not feel like it added to the product, it felt like it completed the product. Everything from the way the UI had had a free space ready, to the fortification levelling system ending at different levels, to the strange pricing to some of the fortifications, basically the DLC shaped hole in the game was too convenient, and pretty obvious.

I'm not suggesting the Gears 3 on release wasn't value for money, but if you are going to cut stuff, put in a bit of effort and don't make it look so obvious.

@Evikull said:

Patches are very imporant. They fix a game which might normally have been left in a bad state.

DLC seems to exist purely to piss people off, a job which it is doing excellently.

Ok, in fairness, not all DLC is bad. Think expansion packs and the like. Stuff like what Rockstar put out, such as Episodes from Liberty City. I'm alright with that. When DLC can expand on a game and really add to it, it's great.

But DLC for stuff that was removed from the game? Or even worse, content that is still on the god damn disc that I have to buy to unlock? This I don't understand. I don't get half way through a movie and then see a sign pop up telling me to buy the next scene. Then there's the problem of over pricing which is fairly evident in a lot of DLC.

DLC could have been great, and have had many glimmers of brilliance, but have ultimately failed and have largely left me unimpressed

Totally agree with everything this man says.

I've only had a few legitimately good DLC experiences. GTA IV, Oblivion, Red Dead Redemption, and Mass Effect 2 are examples of how DLC should be done and how it should be released. DLC gets such a bad rep because you always have those shitbag developers that charge you like 15 bucks for three new maps in multiplayer (looking at you, CoD). That really rubs people the wrong way and makes all DLC look bad.

I think a dev should wait a little while. Maybe have an outline of the DLC they want to release before they release the game, and then if the game sells well and people are crying for more, work on that shit, finish it up and release it.

If done well then it is indeed important.

Except, as other posters have stated, if it is on-disk and such already.

People believing that on-disc DLC would have been in the core game if DLC didn't exist :D :D :D

Stand strong OP, DLC is awesome.

@StarvingGamer said:

People believing that on-disc DLC would have been in the core game if DLC didn't exist :D :D :D

Stand strong OP, DLC is awesome.

Good point.

It makes me feel as if I need to clarify..

When I refer to "on-disk" I don't mean it as an all inclusive statement, I meant I don't like the on-disk DLC if the game feels incomplete without it.

@Still_I_Cry: Could you give me an example of this? The only thing I can think of from recent memory is the Catwoman DLC for Arkham City but that was included with every new copy of the game so that's a separate issue.

@StarvingGamer said:

@Still_I_Cry: Could you give me an example of this? The only thing I can think of from recent memory is the Catwoman DLC for Arkham City but that was included with every new copy of the game so that's a separate issue.

There was mention of the Horde DLC on Gears of War 3 but I can't name any games off the top of my head.

@Still_I_Cry: I don't play Gears but from what I can understand, the Horde DLC was just additional maps, skins and fortifications? That doesn't sound like egregiously cut content to me.

@StarvingGamer said:

@Still_I_Cry: Could you give me an example of this? The only thing I can think of from recent memory is the Catwoman DLC for Arkham City but that was included with every new copy of the game so that's a separate issue.

I was going by what another poster said, I don't really play Horde mode.

Nor was I presenting an argument, it was more of a general statement.

Sorry, I am not very knowledgeable about specific games with on-disk DLC, so perhaps pursuing discussion with one of the posters who does would be more productive.

If you guys want a sterling example of on-disc $DLC, Sega started the trend back with Phantasy Star Universe where over 40% of the disc was content that was gated off and released slowly over time. PR spun it as "free content patches" since it was already a subscriber online service on top of the 50 bucks you shelled out for the game. That was the first real instance of internet backlash towards $DLC and about the same time the infamous "Horse Armor" $DLC was released for Oblivion which most console gamers will remember their first ugly encounter with studios abusing the $DLC model.

@Buzzkill said:

If you guys want a sterling example of on-disc $DLC, Sega started the trend back with Phantasy Star Universe where over 40% of the disc was content that was gated off and released slowly over time. PR spun it as "free content patches" since it was already a subscriber online service on top of the 50 bucks you shelled out for the game. That was the first real instance of internet backlash towards $DLC and about the same time the infamous "Horse Armor" $DLC was released for Oblivion which most console gamers will remember their first ugly encounter with studios abusing the $DLC model.

I don't even remember hearing about the Horse Armor DLC O_O.

@Claude said:

Patches are important, dlc should be optional and mostly add-on.

Yeah. I like that they now upload add-ons that we can buy from our homes. I wish they patched some games more often though.

@Slag said:

@Hunkulese said:

@Evikull said:

But DLC for stuff that was removed from the game? Or even worse, content that is still on the god damn disc that I have to buy to unlock? This I don't understand. I don't get half way through a movie and then see a sign pop up telling me to buy the next scene. Then there's the problem of over pricing which is fairly evident in a lot of DLC.

What a fantastic and perfectly appropriate analogy.

+1 to you both.

DLC is an opportunity for new gaming experiences and formats.

unfortunately so far it's mainly been used to as either a cheap upsell or a way to charge more the same product.

one of those nice in theory not so nice in action kind of things

I should have known better than using sarcasm in an idiotic thread such as this one and it clearly went way over your head.

The analogy is terrible and doesn't fit at all. I've never played a game where I had to pay to beat the last level. Maybe I've missed out on a who subclass of games in which this is a common practice where the last levels of games are locked unless you pay but I don't see anyone offering any examples. From my experience every piece of on disc DLC has been extra content such as skins or alternate costumes. I really feel like I'm missing the entire experience when I can't make my gun shiny and purple. Oops there we go again. I was trying to use sarcasm and it probably zoomed by you again. For multiplayer games it makes sense to have that kind of stuff on the disc so you don't have to force other people to download it to not run into problems. Look at the disaster MK went through. It doesn't matter if it was made before the game was released it was still created with intention of being extra content and if there was no such thing as DLC it would not have been created in the first place.

Maybe I'm completely out to lunch and have not been paying attention. Please help me out and list the large number of games that are shipped incomplete unless you pay to unlock the content. Now look at your list and there is a high probability that if the DLC just didn't exist you wouldn't label any of those games as incomplete.

People are just whiny babies and feel entitled to have everything for free because ... I actually have no idea where the sense of entitlement comes from.

I should have known better than using sarcasm in an idiotic thread such as this one and it clearly went way over your head.

This is obviously worth discussing if people have valid differing opinions on the topic. From what I've read so far, people same to have an issue with more of how DLC is perceived to be put into practice rather than the idea itself.

Hm, it seems GB didn't want to post my reply. Oh well. Hopefully this won't double post.

@Hunkulese said:

I should have known better than using sarcasm in an idiotic thread such as this one and it clearly went way over your head.

If it makes you feel any better, I had an inkling it was sarcasm.

Perhaps the analogy was over-exaggerated. I was never good at them anyway, so let's ignore my possible stupidity and move on.

Basically, the idea of DLC is great. Extra content for my favourite game at a good price which enhances my enjoyment of said game? Brilliant, just take my money now.

What I have a problem with, as mentioned, is the disc-locked "DLC". The term "DLC" is mostly misleading in this case, as really, you're not downloading content, just an unlock. Perhaps I'm being incredibly naive, but when I buy a game, I kind of expect to... well... y'know... own the game? I don't see why I need to further purchase features on the disc, something that I have already purchased. Surely, it doesn't matter if it's something as tiny as a skin, but if I bought and own the disc, am I not entitled to use what is on the thing I just paid for?

I don't expect DLC to be free, not by a long shot. Sometimes I feel annoyed by the, in my opinion, higher-than-expected prices for the content, but gaming is a business. They need to make money, of course, so complaining about prices is mostly a moot point. But it can be sometimes hard to ignore the prices of these contents.

What I'm trying to get at here, is that I don't mind DLC - Hell, as I've stated, I've loved various DLC's. What I object to is having to pay to unlock content on a game I've already bought.

@Buzzkill said:

If you guys want a sterling example of on-disc $DLC, Sega started the trend back with Phantasy Star Universe where over 40% of the disc was content that was gated off and released slowly over time. PR spun it as "free content patches" since it was already a subscriber online service on top of the 50 bucks you shelled out for the game. That was the first real instance of internet backlash towards $DLC and about the same time the infamous "Horse Armor" $DLC was released for Oblivion which most console gamers will remember their first ugly encounter with studios abusing the $DLC model.

I don't even remember hearing about the Horse Armor DLC O_O.

I never used to have to pay for cheats or costumes and now I have to.

Thats my only beef with DLC.

@jonnyboy said:

My biggest issue with the Gears DLC was not that it was on the disc, or the price, but that regardless of what Epic claim it was very purposefully and clumsily cut from the final product. I played tens of hours of Gears 3 horde from day one right up until the DLC came out, and I can categorically say that the DLC did not feel like it added to the product, it felt like it completed the product. Everything from the way the UI had had a free space ready, to the fortification levelling system ending at different levels, to the strange pricing to some of the fortifications, basically the DLC shaped hole in the game was too convenient, and pretty obvious.

I'm not suggesting the Gears 3 on release wasn't value for money, but if you are going to cut stuff, put in a bit of effort and don't make it look so obvious.

yeah, it soured me to Gears 3 when it became obvious the Horde stuff was just cut out of the release-day game. I'll just buy it used next time, thanks guys.

@Hunkulese

dang man, relax. I did miss that you were being sarcastic. Sorry that bothered you so much

I think @evikull basically said what I would have said to the rest of your comment.

The age of DLC as a revenue stream is a way for developers and publishers to tell me to wait about a year when they will rerelease the game at an even cheaper price with all of the add-ons included.

@QuistisTrepe said:

The age of DLC as a revenue stream is a way for developers and publishers to tell me to wait about a year when they will rerelease the game at an even cheaper price with all of the add-ons included.

Completely agree, vote with your dollars. If you don't want a new skin or a re-made map then don't buy. The reason this happens is because it's still worth it for publishers, people buy it. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

DLC is an up sell, but it is part of the natural progression until the infrastructure is in place and we go to download only Kind of like hybrid cars.

Quality, robust DLC released after the product is launched also rewards those that own the game while capitalizing on those that may have waited for a price drop.

It's good BIZ-NASS.