Is DLC Harming Gaming?
By Creigz 63 Comments
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?
63 Comments