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.

The discussion in this thread has prompted me to start a new thread to discuss this particular topic. It's something that has been hotly debated over the last couple of years and I wanted to share my point of view on paid DLC, Online Passes and Micro-Transactions in gaming.

The video gaming industry has transformed dramatically over the last 10 years. No longer are video games just for nerds and shut-ins...they are quickly becoming just another form of main-stream media like Movies and Music, which is leading to higher budgets for development of better games, with deeper stories and more engaging game-play. But as budgets grow, so does the necessity for a return on that investment, and traditional means of selling video games cannot keep up with the demand for higher quality, and the necessity for more publisher/developer commitment. Along those same lines, many people do not buy games first-hand any more. Retailers accept trade-ins on used games, then sell them again for less than half the cost for almost 100% profit. But not a single dime of that profit goes back to the developer or the publisher who originally produced the game. In this way, retailers are circumventing the publisher and making double-returns on games they have already sold.

This is a far cry from the movies/music industries, which require licensing and royalties for ANYONE to sell ANY copy of their product. A movie will make money from box office sales, then from a DVD release, then again from a special edition box set, and also from things like Netflix, pay-per-view, and advertising dollars during television runs. A video game on the other hand only makes money from first-run, new-in-box sales. The budget for many video games are $40-50 million these days, sometimes more. The investment is HUGE, and the return is pretty abysmal.

To combat this, publishers and developers are now including things like online passes, free to someone who buys the game new but a used purchaser must spend $10-$15 to unlock that content. They release paid DLC, or put micro-transactions into their games. All of this is designed to allow them to turn a profit on what has become a very in-demand product, yet most people seem utterly unwilling to pay, and call gaming companies cheats and thieves for including this sort of thing.

There was a very enlightening episode of Extra Credits a while back, but since they left The Escapist I cannot seem to find a link to the video. It covered much of what I've said here in this post in more detail, and I have to say, I agree with the gaming companies in this regard. They MUST turn a profit for games to continue to improve as a medium, and I am willing to give them my money as support. I purchase DLC, and I buy online passes for used games that I purchase because much of that money goes directly to the developer (not just the publisher). I would rather give my hard-earned cash to a company like Bioware than Game Stop. At least then I know it will be put to use finding talent and developing more of the games I love.

So what do you think? Do you believe DLC is the devil and video game companies are ripping us off, or do you agree that for the gaming industry to survive it needs to adapt to the market, and sometimes that means charging for extra material? I'm very interested to hear opinions on this matter.

Option 3 for me.

Though I have to add to it.

With some games, I do it because I also want to support to company. It's entirely dependent on the cost, what type of DLC, and most importantly, who's doing it.

EA DLC overall gets a big fething no from me.

For example, I got back to karkand for BF3 for free because I bought the "collectors" edition (if you could even call it that). I will not be buying any other DLC for it. I'm already bored with the game anyway.

Remember though, EA is usually just the publisher, NOT the developer. Much of the money from paid DLC goes directly to the DEVELOPER as pure profit, so don't necessarily avoid DLC for a game simply because it has the EA stamp on it. If it's a developer you like, consider buying it to support them.

Edit: In fact, if you want to minimize your contribution to EA directly, buy the game used, then purchase the DLC and online pass. This means EA only gets the portion of your money they take from the DLC, which is smaller than the portion they take from the original sale of the game.

I'll pay for DLCs as long as they're well done and add something new and interesting to a game. For example, all the DLCs for Fallout: New Vegas (With the exception of Dead Money) were all extremely fun and all added new weapons, equipment, story lines, and details about the backstory of the game.

Anyone who doesn't pick Option 3 is wrong.

I don't like paying for ANYTHING, but I still buy it because I want it.

DLC and Online Passes I like. Online Passes are just there to get the money they should have gotten if you bought the game New, and since I buy all my games new, I don't have to worry about them.

DLC I really don't have a problem with, as long as I'm not forced to buy it. The DLC for Dead Space is good, because it gives you an edge (In single player only) if you want it, but if you don't want it, your not forced to buy it. The Severed was also pretty good, because it gave you more bang for a little buck. They even gave us two free maps. You can also include The Shivering Isles, of which I would state is probably the best DLC made to this date.

Microtransactions just lead to greed, however. I'm looking at you, LoL and TF2.....

Karon wrote:Anyone who doesn't pick Option 3 is wrong.

I don't like paying for ANYTHING, but I still buy it because I want it.

I would argue that anyone that takes this stance doesn't truly understand capitalism. I enjoy spending money on things I think are worth while. I gladly spend money on toy soldiers to play a pointless strategy game with my friends, but it pleases me so I do it, and I have no problem with it. Similarly, I gladly spend money on video games that I think are worth the cost. It's perfectly acceptable to enjoy spending money on items that make you happy.

I normally don't buy DLC unless it's something I really want...and I'm still not very excited about paying for it

Slarg232 wrote:DLC and Online Passes I like. Online Passes are just there to get the money they should have gotten if you bought the game New, and since I buy all my games new, I don't have to worry about them.

DLC I really don't have a problem with, as long as I'm not forced to buy it. The DLC for Dead Space is good, because it gives you an edge (In single player only) if you want it, but if you don't want it, your not forced to buy it. The Severed was also pretty good, because it gave you more bang for a little buck. They even gave us two free maps. You can also include The Shivering Isles, of which I would state is probably the best DLC made to this date.

Microtransactions just lead to greed, however. I'm looking at you, LoL and TF2.....

I would argue that you are never FORCED to buy DLC. If you buy a game, you can play it with no DLC, and if you want to know what happened in a particular DLC pack, you can read a full walkthrough/synopsis online. Even used games that require a pass for online content don't force you to buy it. You just can't get access to some of the content that someone who bought it new will get. That's your choice. If you purchase it used, you spend less money and none of it goes to the developer/publisher, so they don't give you all of the content.

Aldarionn wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:DLC and Online Passes I like. Online Passes are just there to get the money they should have gotten if you bought the game New, and since I buy all my games new, I don't have to worry about them.

DLC I really don't have a problem with, as long as I'm not forced to buy it. The DLC for Dead Space is good, because it gives you an edge (In single player only) if you want it, but if you don't want it, your not forced to buy it. The Severed was also pretty good, because it gave you more bang for a little buck. They even gave us two free maps. You can also include The Shivering Isles, of which I would state is probably the best DLC made to this date.

Microtransactions just lead to greed, however. I'm looking at you, LoL and TF2.....

I would argue that you are never FORCED to buy DLC. If you buy a game, you can play it with no DLC, and if you want to know what happened in a particular DLC pack, you can read a full walkthrough/synopsis online. Even used games that require a pass for online content don't force you to buy it. You just can't get access to some of the content that someone who bought it new will get. That's your choice. If you purchase it used, you spend less money and none of it goes to the developer/publisher, so they don't give you all of the content.

Halo Reach Map Packs.

Can't* play Matchmaking without them, therefore you are indeed forced to buy them.

* A few playlists withstanding.

Ive never bought DLC for any game. I support the idea of expansion pacts that add a completely new story to a game but anything else I dont agree with. I just have an issue with paying for a small piece of content.

I mean if it was a REALLY GREAT DLC and very cheap I guess I COULD be convinced to buy it but so far I have yet to do it

I posted this awhile ago, but same topic gets the same response from me:

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.

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’m a bit split on DLCs and I don’t think the issue is strictly black and white as the OP’s poll suggests.

On one hand I like DLCs as they add additional content to a game. If the DLC is good value and adds a decent amount of content for its price, I will buy it. The Dynasty Warriors series had some really good DLCs for their games (both free and P2P). Their P2P DLCs were especially standout IMO as they were no more than a few dollars for each DLC.

Other the other hand, I dislike how some game companies exploit DLCs in order to generate additional profit. More often than not, you’ll find developers purposely leaving a game “barebones” or leaving out core features on order to bundle them separately as DLCs (CtrlAltDel recently did a really good webcomic on this topic). Keep in mind that the player is still has to pay $50-100 to buy the game in the first place not including the $10-20 it costs to buy each DLC to complete it. Players intending on buying the “full version” of the game would normally end up spending $100-200.

I think Bethesda is especially guilty of DLC exploitation. I remember playing Fallout3 and only taking a couple of days to beat the main storyline and reach the level 20 cap (which is ridiculous for an RPG). I remember feeling at the time that the game was very barebones and needed a lot of patches and DLCs to fix the content and bug issues. Bethesda sold the DLCs for Fallout 3 at $20-30 a piece, with each DLC adding a small quest chain and other stuff. To add more salt to the wound, the DLCs were Xbox/PC exclusives for several months due to a “back room deal” Bethesda did with Microsoft. I will admit that Bethesda isn’t worst example compared to some of the shooters out there.

Slarg232 wrote:
Halo Reach Map Packs.

Can't* play Matchmaking without them, therefore you are indeed forced to buy them.

* A few playlists withstanding.

No, the game has content that you can in fact play without purchasing that DLC in the form of a full single player and co-op campaign, as well as local multiplayer. You are only required to buy that DLC if you want to play the online content. My point is, you are never FORCED to buy DLC, you just don't get the full experience in some cases unless you do, especially if you bought the game used.

Aldarionn wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:
Halo Reach Map Packs.

Can't* play Matchmaking without them, therefore you are indeed forced to buy them.

* A few playlists withstanding.

No, the game has content that you can in fact play without purchasing that DLC in the form of a full single player and co-op campaign, as well as local multiplayer. You are only required to buy that DLC if you want to play the online content. My point is, you are never FORCED to buy DLC, you just don't get the full experience in some cases unless you do, especially if you bought the game used.

And several years ago, the entire game was available to you WITHOUT buying any content.

Gears of War 1, you chose the map you wanted to play for Multiplayer, and this didn't affect Campaign or Co-Op. Someone else had the DLC? You can't play with them, fair enough. Halo Reach? Don't have the map pack, can't play the multiplayer, Period*. GoW, didn't have the map, didn't get to play on that map. Halo Reach, don't have the map, can't play Online period.


If I pay $60 for a game, the entirity of what I pay for should be available to me until the servers/live shuts down. Something I have already payed for should NOT become unavailable to me just because I am unwilling to spend an additional $15 on the game. If I do not spend that extra money, they disallow me to play it, thereby FORCING me to purchase the additional content, even if I never want to play those maps.

Aldarionn wrote:better games, with deeper stories and more engaging game-play

Hmmm I dunno.

My fave games of all time -

Tekken 2
Goldeneye 64
Resident Evil code Veronica
Fallout 3
C&C Generals
Half Life 1
WoW had me for about 6 months (Ulduar)
Probably a few more that I can't think of right now - but they weren't recent. So I'd have to disagree with the quoted statement.

DLC - the most recent games I've bought are Skyrim (no DLC), Orcs must Die (I bought the DLC for this, first I ever paid for, possibly worth it), New Vegas (spent a £ or 2 on DLC, really not worth it at all, not a good game, not good value DLC either). I'm not sure if I'll buy any more, I'd have to make individual judgements.

I'm willing to pay for DLC if it adds a fair amount of content, at a reasonable price.The halo 3 map packs were great because they offered loads more game play at a nice low price. The Shivering Isles was overcosted IMO, and I wouldn't have had it if not for Goty edition. There is a fine balance between price and content, which is often not seen by devs.

"As for expansions, yeah you're never going to see them again, ..."

Eh I guess you have a point. I mean the last expansion I remember seeing was for Oblivion. *shrugs* I mean if the DLC came as a big size package (not one aditional lvl ) ya sure why not.

Anything less then that though and im not really interested in paying for it

That whole DLC/Online Pass/Microtransaction stuff is not really that easily divided in like/dislike.

Regarding DLC I´m perfectly fine with the basic concept of it. Expanding a game you like is a good thing as a whole. I am, however, not a fan of:
- Day 1 DLC (Expanding a game that is not even really released can feel like they deliberately left out content to use as DLC even if it´s not the case, especially the case if they reference the DLC ingame)
- Plot important DLC (if I buy a game I want the story to be told in that game or series without needing to buy anything else, DLC that changes stuff in the story in a major way or gives information about plot critical stuff that is not available otherwise in the game makes me feel like I bought an incomplete game as well)
- required multiplayer DLC (Want to play Multiplayer in any meaningful way? Better buy this DLC mode or mappack!)

Other DLC (even purely cosmetic stuff) is ok, even though I usually don´t buy it unless it´s a fun mission for a decent price.

I can´t really talk about online passes since I don´t play any games that have that option.

Microtransactions are fine as long as they avoid pay to win (i.e. offer paid only stuff that is not available in any other way and gives you a distinct advantage. Stuff like Exp booster are borderline, but still ok since the merely quicken the progress but don´t give you anything that you can´t gain by simply playing the game).
Convenience stuff (afore mentioned boosters, additional character slots, earlier and controled unlocks of stuff that you can also get by simply playing and so on) and cosmetic stuff (new costumes, additional customization options) are fine with me.
I view microtransactions as a way to tip the developers if I liked the game (as TotalBiscuit so nicely put it, and obviously coming from a background where tipping is not necessarily REQUIRED but encouraged nontheless if the service was good).

Like many others, I am all for DLC except Day 1 DLC.

There have been a lot of good points so far. I have to agree with the day 1 DLC thing. I've seen games doing this a lot recently and it seems like a cash grab. Then again, the ME3 day one DLC was free if you bought the Collectors Edition and it added a strong character and a reasonable amount of content to the game. I bought the Collectors Edition so I didn't have to buy it.

Probably the most worthwhile DLC I've seen yet was the General Knoxx DLC for Borderlands. It was almost an expansion pack in and of itself and added a huge amount of content to the game. The other DLC was questionable at best but that one pack was well worth the cost, and eventually bundled with the game in the form of the Game of the Year edition for only $20.

I agree that the DLC in question needs to be worth the cost and reasonably priced, and that not all companies take this seriously. I don't have a problem with DLC that continues or expands on the story, or micro-transactions that expedite game play (car tokens in Forza 4, Spectre Packs in ME3, Etc...). In my experience these kinds of things make game play better and more easily tailored to what a person wants. I wanted all of the Pagani cars as well as some of the Ferraris and Aston Martins in Forza 4 but I didn't feel like spending 200 hours to get enough credits to buy them the hard way. That said, I don't like the car packs in Forza, because as far as i can tell, they don't just add the cars to your garage, they add them to the market. So you spend real money to buy the ability to spend credits on cars......that seems a little stupid.

I support their right to make a profit, and I occasionally buy some DLC, but often the DLC just dosen't appeal to me so I ignore it.

The poll's options don't really match this...

Aldarionn wrote:There have been a lot of good points so far. I have to agree with the day 1 DLC thing. I've seen games doing this a lot recently and it seems like a cash grab. Then again, the ME3 day one DLC was free if you bought the Collectors Edition and it added a strong character and a reasonable amount of content to the game. I bought the Collectors Edition so I didn't have to buy it.
.

Been meaning to ask, was there an Online Pass to that, as well?

Because this kind of Day1 DLC is perfectly fine to me.

Well, it would be if it weren't solely the Collecters addition. Shale for DA: O was perfectly acceptable to me.

DLC is fine. Microtransactions not so much.

Slarg232 wrote:

Aldarionn wrote:There have been a lot of good points so far. I have to agree with the day 1 DLC thing. I've seen games doing this a lot recently and it seems like a cash grab. Then again, the ME3 day one DLC was free if you bought the Collectors Edition and it added a strong character and a reasonable amount of content to the game. I bought the Collectors Edition so I didn't have to buy it.
.

Been meaning to ask, was there an Online Pass to that, as well?

Because this kind of Day1 DLC is perfectly fine to me.

Well, it would be if it weren't solely the Collecters addition. Shale for DA: O was perfectly acceptable to me.

There is an online pass for ME3. You can play the full campaign without it but you can't do the co-op multiplayer.

Depends - properly fleshed out expansions yes. (Dawn of War stuff for example, some of the oblivion stuff)

EA - never as it only about makes the games worth while and is an obvious marketing scheme.

Do the Dawn of War expansions not count anymore? Because Retribution is an expansion to Dawn of War 2, and it came out a mere year ago...

I think that DLC I can get behind, microtransactions I can't. I really don't mind DLC, because it's generally a fairly small amount of money for an extra hour or two of gameplay, depending on the game of course. Some DLCs are really good, too - Old World Blues for Fallout: New Vegas was an absolute blast. It's mostly microtransactions that I dislike. The biggest reason I stopped playing (most) multiplayer games is because of microtransactions. I don't want to pay for extra equipment, mostly because it really doesn't affect my ability to play the game. What bugs me is the fact that some games (TF2 is the most notorious) allow players with more money or the willingness to spend money on microtransactions have at least a slight advantage over those who don't. It just doesn't seem fair to me.

That said, at least in a game like TF2 the weapons are fairly minor, and the biggest thing now is hats rather than guns. I've seen players with either basic gear or just the stuff you can unlock through achievements beating the everloving crud out of players with the better weapons. I've done it myself at times. It's just that in a flat-out, new player on new player comparison, one of them has an advantage simply because he/she has more money to spend on the game.

I don't think anyone likes Pay to Win micro-transactions. Other systems, like the one used in League of Legends, Star Trek Online (To an extent), or what Tribes Ascend has going I think are very good ones.

I still remember Shattered Galaxy. A fair decent game with a fun concept ruined by the fact that those who paid were the only ones who ever won and that translated to those who pay are the only ones who get to play the damn game. The battle leaders would refuse to allowed F2P players to enter any fields.

Expansion packs aren't really DLC except by sheer technicality.

Hell retribution especially-- it's standalone after all.

As far as tries ascend goes, that game has its problems. A lot of the unlockable weapons are a damned sight more powerful than the standard weapons. Bolt launchers for example, and thumpers for the technician. Mines as well. These take weeks to get each individual item (then the subsequent upgrading adds another fifteen percent to the price) using in-game experience, while soemone who pays money for gold or even an xp boost can get them in one day easily.

If they were just different and not outright more powerful, this would be fine. But they are. The bolt launcher is basically ap ure upgrade to the light spinfusor for the pathfinder for example, and mines are utterly indispensable for defense, especially EMP mines which utterly wreck infiltrators and give off a highly distinct sound when set off. And all of these cost often 75k-100k, while one has to play for hours and hours and hours to earn 10k a day without a boost.

For me it really depends on the DLC and the content in said DLC, if i feel it is worth it and the content is good then I will pay for it. If not I just leave it alone and make do.

On the subject of micro transactions I don't even touch them, I prefer to work for my items instead of just buying them