Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I decided to make this thread so that there can be a more focused and generalized discussion on the issue of DLC.

DLC is pretty common these days. If its from one of the mega publishers (Ubisoft, EA, Activison, THQ) its almost certain that there's DLC for it. I am not a fan of DLC (but given how vocal I am people probably already figured that out). To get it out of the way I do not hate the idea of DLC per se, but what DLC is in the current environment I do have a problem with.

Problem 1: The idea (to an extent). I'm probably a little spoiled cause I remember playing games and getting stuff for free in content patches. Those were the good days. When you were rewarded for being a player. I get it those days are gone (in part because of the rise of profit hungry mega publishers). Companies know there's money to be made so they take their chance. Its also kind of silly in a way, and just plain greedy. Really, developing some DLC is a pretty cheap exercise. Once you've built a game's engine, built the models and made the textures, you can chuck out skins, items, and quests for nearly nothing.

Problem 2: Cost to Me. This is probably my biggest problem with current DLC. Let's take Witch Hunt for Dragon Age: Origins. Witch Hunt was a cool DLC to an extent. I like Morrigan's character and a suitable ending to her arc in the storyline pleased me. Here's the problem. I cleared witch hunt in about 40 minutes. And I paid $10 to get it. Why did it cost me $10? Technically the DLC was more like $7, but I have the PC version so I needed EA points and the $5 set didn't provide enough points for the DLC so I had to get the $10 set (which of course means I didn't have enough points left over for much of anything so I had $3 wasted). In the end, paying that money, even if I'd only paid $7 just wasn't worth 40 minutes of game time. The DLC was overpriced and I felt cheated with not enough bang for the buck.

Problem 3: The Death of the Expansion Pack as a result of DLC. Call of Duty: United Offensive is one of my favorite games ever. A wonderful case of what an expansion back is and what it can do. But the expansion pack is mostly dead now, in part because DLC is cheaper and arguably more profitable. Why make another 10 hours of content to sell in stores or as digital distribution for $20-$30 when you can make an hour (usually much less) of content and charge $10-$15?

Now a lot of these problems are easy to avoid and I don't feel anything about it. I don't feel like buying a new gun that plays exactly like one already in the game for $5. Easy. Map packs if I like the game are usually more than worth it (unless your Modern Warfare 2 and charge $15 for five maps, four of which are from CoD4). But then there's stuff like missions and quests and party members, which get released and occupy little of my time for a unbalanced cost and I get a little disappointed. Publishers realized a few years ago, that they can make something for nearly no money, that gives the player nearly nothing in terms of value, and make a pretty hefty profit and the cycle has been going for years until we get day 1 DLC content that doesn't come with the game and probably gives me almost nothing in terms of entertainment to start with. So far I can only think of two instances of this happening (DA2 and ME3) but I'm sure other publishers are soon to follow and the trend might just keep getting worse. Where my initial $60 gets me a half-assed product that requires another $60 to get all the launch content. In part I might not mind paying $10 for day one DLC if it was actually worth $10 but then, if it was worth $10 then <insert developer/publisher> is just finding some way to weasel more money out of me than just giving me the complete product. It makes me feel cheated, and its just greedy and that's the direction the trend has been going for years. It disappoints me, but then a lot of things in the games industry today disappoint me.

Rant over. Other opinions?

I really have no problem with DLC that is released later. It's not like you're going to get expansions on a console, and many times it's just content that was planned that had to get cut to hit a deadline. I'm ok with that. I'm also OK with the idea of DLC as a moneymaker. I'm not one to go about screaming that "Piracy is killing profit" and second hand sales (GameStop for example) is killing publishers, but it sure doesn't help. DLC is a good way for the publisher of the game to continue to make a profit on it after release in an environment where, in my opinion, after the first two months they really don't see any money any more (buying it used or downloading). The same is true for online passes that come free with the game, the publisher still needs to make some money off it if you're buying it second hand.

My main issue, is DLC that you have to pay for that comes out at the same time as the game, or within a week or two. This DLC is obviously content that was ready for the release and the publisher is just trying to make extra money on. I don't think that's right considering the cost of games.

As for expansions, yeah you're never going to see them again, but if you think about it, DLC just gives you the expansion anyway. If you think about it, Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction was about 75% of the cost of D2 when it first came out, and what did it add? 2 classes and another level, that's really it. If you consider the cost of modern games ($60) and the general cost of 2 classes and two expansion levels ($40), you're really getting about the same amount of content as you would with an expansion for about the same percentage of cost.

EDIT:
Also, the nice thing with DLC is you can pick and choose your purchases instead of shelling out money in an expansion that may have some things that you really don't care about. Going back to the D2 example, if you really wanted to be able to kill Baal, but you had no interest in playing the Assassin or Druid, you didn't have a choice, you still had to pay for the whole thing. With modern DLC, you could just get Act 5 and not worry about classes, or the other way around.

I personally am divided on the subject of DLC, mostly to the side that sees it as a good thing though. I have no complaints against it in terms of adding content, as this can actually be a massive bonus to the game in question. Some examples here are from Space Marine - the Exterminatus pack added a whole new gametype (It was supposed to be ready at release but it wasn't finished in time and so instead of half-assing it and putting it in unfinished, Relic took the time and did it right, and released it later as free DLC) - They also released a capture the flag game mode more recently IIRC. (Not 100% sure if that one was free or not, I think it might have been) This kind of thing, IMO is a good thing. (Especially when it's free ) As it allows the developer to add new things that they may not have had time to add into the final game.

I think Mass Effect and ME2 did DLC fairly well too, there were some packs for ME2 that I think were a bit iffy (alternate character costumes, whilst cool, don't really add much in terms of content) On the other hand; Kasumi and Zaeed both added extra characters, an extra mission and at least one new weapon. There were other mission packs that also added new things, new missions, a return to vehicular combat (Which was rather cool I think ) etc.

DLC that annoys me though, is stuff that doesn't add anything tangible. (The aforementioned costumes for one) and occasionally map-packs, the likes of which plague CoD and other games like them. (I have nothing against map-packs in general, but CoD I think tended to err on the side of "sod it, that'll do" rather than polishing and finishing the maps properly.) Although I would like to note I stopped playing CoD after the abomination that was Black Ops, so I don't know if they've changed their practices since.

In conclusion; I think DLC is usually a good thing, but occasionaly there will be something that I will just think "Why are they charging money for this again?"

(That question is answered immediately BTW )

Properly priced DLC for a properly priced game is a boon upon thei ndustry.

It allows them to keep the initial price of the game down while still producing more content for the game.

Games like MW3 or BF3 which cost sixty bucks are entirely overpriced, and all of their DLC are also overpriced as a result though.

It varies on the DLC itself. It's an easy way to update and add on to an existing game, however it is also an easy way to weigh a good game down with complete and utter crap.

I do miss free content but I think purchasable DLC has some positives.

It means for most game they arent lefted unsupported and can mean that developers can do more to keep the game updated with patches that fix bugs or tweak/fix things in game so that people still play and buy DLC for the game.

I agree I miss free DLC but if the Developers make the DLC good and worth paying for I see no problem in it.

It's a double-edged sword.

Used properly, it can improve and bolster a game's life span.

Down the darker path lies DLC that only exists to squeeze money out of the fans.

DLC is nothing new. It used to be called "add-ons", but DLC allows the devs to make them as small as they like.
And, like add-ons, some are pretty good value, some are a rip-off.

I like DLC when its free. Otherwise no. I mean sure, sometimes it is awesome, like 4 euros for a ton of extra stuff on AC: revelations multiplayer, but other times there's just too many problems for it to be worth it. The Crysis 2 multiplayer maps for example aren't worth it because the matchmaker is so bad that its impossible to find a game other than team deathmatch.

Plague, imo. Often takes away from content that would otherwise be in the original game.

I've only paid for one DLC thing in my life - the expansions for Batman: Arkham City that gave you Nightwing, Robin, a bunch of skins and some new challenge maps. The whole lot cost me like $12, and I got about $12 worth of entertainment out of it (compare that to Just Cause 2, which I got for $18, and sunk over 70 hours into...).

Overall I think that DLC, whether it's free or paid for, that adds to the game is always welcome. The developers make a new series of single-player levels, or multiplayer maps if you're into multiplayer (not all of us are), or add a significant new feature like new characters, equipment packs and so on. They're all fine.

Where I draw the line is when DLC becomes something taken out of the game before release. The Catwoman stuff in Arkham City is a good example of that - hyped endlessly during the development, then revealed to be not part of the game a couple of weeds before release. Yes, everyone who bought the game first hand got it for free, but it's annoying because this was - according to the developers - about 10% of the gam, 10% that Warner Brothers had removed just to continue their fight against used games. Way to punish those who bought it normally guys. I can't uninstall that game now, because if I do I can't use my one-use-only code to get the Catwoman stuff for free. What if my console breaks? I have to buy something I already bought again.

Street Fighter x Tekken is another one. There are 12 DLC characters that aren't actually DLC. They are right there on the disc (so much so that people have worked out ways to get them without the regular unlocks), but you have to pay more to get something that you already get when you buy the game. I can't think of anything that's even remotely like this in any other medium. It'd like buying a DVD, but the special features are locked out until you pay some more, or going to a movie and they pause it 15 mins before the end until everyone either leaves or pays a bit more to see the end. It's stupid.

Day One DLC... still not sure about that. I've seen compelling arguments on both sides.

HBMC:
If you uninstall the game, you should still be able to download the content. I'm fairly certain that PSN uses the same idea as XBL in that it "flags" your account for it.

Personally, I played the game without the Catwoman DLC for my first playthrough. My New Game+, I activated the Catwoman DLC.

You don't miss all that much.

I hate DLC and I am 100% against it. I am all for expansion packs (content that has EFFORT put into it) but when you have DLC like Deus Ex's latest which fill in gaps of the story, I think that is complete and utter tripe.

I guess I shouldn't say I am 100% against it... I think stuff that adds a bit of flavor to the game (like what HBMC said, costumes, skins, etc) isnt too bad... but when its content that is already there or already completed and they release it on a later date just to scrape in a few more bucks because they didnt want to include it on the full retail release, that is garbage.

Kanluwen wrote:You don't miss all that much.

That's your opinion and you're quite welcome to it. I, on the other hand, really enjoyed the Catwoman sections and they were a great way to mine EXP from goons across the city that you could spend on more of Batman's gadgets. Plus finding all the Catwoman trophies was fun.

I have no problem with expansions which is what, in my opinion, DLC's should be.
What I have a problem with is games that are deliberately incomplete. Reference Deus EX or Arkham City.
The missing days in Deus Ex should have been there to begin with.
The Catwoman package should just be a part of the game instead of something you need to download (god knows it came for free in the initial releases anyway).
I miss the days when you bought a game and got the whole freakin' thing.

Stuff like The Shivering Isles, DA:O Awakining, the Severed (Dead Space 2) is what DLC should be. This is a Boon.

Assassin's creed 2, where they deliberately left out the middle half of the game (no joke) is just terrible. This is a Plague.