• Downloadable Content - Good or bad?
    80 replies, posted
Many games have been announced this year along with plenty of pre-order downloadable content and post-release downloadable content. Some of this content has been as small as adding a few weapons while other content has been big like adding gamemodes or new campaigns. I see quite a few people complaining while I also see many people requesting more DLC. My personal opinion on this is that DLC can be good at times but also bad at times. Let me elaborate: I believe that pre-order DLCs are just depriving players of content that should have been in game in the first place. If you already have the content ready, why not just include it in with the game? On the other hand, we have post-release DLC. I believe post-release DLC is great as long as it's extending on a part of a story that was poorly explained or is adding new gameplay features. However, there is also post-release DLC that might just be five maps and the developers are charging fifteen dollars for it. I don't think that should be done for these reasons: they're charging you a quarter of what you paid for the game for very little content and the little content you get might be of poor quality(adding no new gameplay at all) My opinion in a nut shell: I like post-release DLC but I strongly dislike pre-order DLC because it deprives users of what should have been in the game. So my question is this: What are your views on downloadable content?
I fear that many companies, have DLC just for the sake a having DLC and then make it cost a fair amount of money. I have to use both Bioshock 2 and COD as an example. Bioshock 2 had its first DLC on the disc, and COD's map packs out price the game at this point. Games that mix both free downloadable content in with good value DLC, such as BFBC2, are much nicer to the consumer.
The GTA IV DLC is how it's done.
I don't mind DLC depending on the price, although I do feel that Halo 2 had the best DLC model. You can pay to have all of the maps in the pack now, or wait several months for it to eventually go free. Even then, I think the map packs were only like $5, and not the ridiculous $15 Activision has been charging for COD maps.
As long as its not within a month or two of the games release. CoD is an exception. I don't like ANY of its map packs.
Pre-order DLC is bullshit. This is a general consensus, so not much to debate on that topic. Post-release DLC is a bit more sticky. Personally, I believe multiplayer games just don't mix well with DLC. Selling new maps and gamemodes splits up the playerbase -- anyone who doesn't buy the DLC will be constantly kicked from servers for not having the requisite DLC. The release of new content should never, ever disrupt players that don't want to buy it; this is exactly what multiplayer DLC does. Single-player games are a bit more flexible. My only expectation with single-player DLC is that it ought to be substantial, regardless of price. Releasing a bunch of little weapons (a la Just Cause 2), while not expressly [i]awful[/i], is really just bothersome and silly. SP DLC ought to add new areas and other such meaningful additions. The best example of DLC done right is Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare: completely new campaign, completely new gameplay, etc -- all for a very reasonable price.
DLC is good if they are big expansions to the game, like fallout, borderlands, bc2 vietnam, etc. Better if they are free but thats not the case most of the time. Pre order dlcs and small map packs(cod) that cost 15 dollars are stupid, and should be included free in patches or come with the game.
It should either be free, or add a ton of content. Battlefield Bad Company 2 Vietnam is a good example, along with GTA4. Call of Duty is terrible compared to these in terms of DLC.
If it adds a good amount of content to the game and is reasonably priced, then it's a good thing. The shit that's in Call of Duty is not a good thing.
I love the way valve does dlc. You buy this game and we will update it for a few years for free.
Even though I don't like most dlc, it keeps a game alive and it's less time consuming and profitable for developers.
GTAIV, Red Dead Redemption, LA Noire to an extent, and the first four F:NV DLCs are how it's done. Big things, tons of new stuff, something to make it worth the money.
Most DLC is shit that's either already in the game's files, or should've been included from the start. For instance, most of the FONV DLC had months of planning that needed to be done before release, and at a price of only $10, it was reasonable. But, games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 have a major problem, Activision is charging $15 for rereleases of maps that came out on previous games, and throwing in a SINGLE Nazi Zombies map so loads of people will buy it for that map alone. Honestly, i would've been happy if you just released all zombies maps together, then i'd pay $15 just for those since multiplayer is shitty.
Harmonix is the king of post-release DLC. That is a completely acceptable way to do it. Pre-order DLC I'm a little iffy on, but if they release it later on like F:NV, the I really don't care as much.
I hate it. [B]ESPECIALLY[/B] when EA do there bullshit Day 1 DLC. Its just stuff they could have put into the game that you have to pay for if you dont get the game in the first week or two. Fucking stingy EA cunts. Sometimes its alright if there is enough in the DLC for a decent price but most of the time its not worth the money. Also Microsoft, dont get me fucking started on Microsoft. They are so fucking cheap! DLC that is free on PC for Left 4 Dead costs money on Xbox because Microsoft want to earn something out of it. I hate them so much.
[QUOTE=Izumo199;32616615]I hate it. [B]ESPECIALLY[/B] when EA do there bullshit Day 1 DLC. Its just stuff they could have put into the game that you have to pay for if you dont get the game in the first week or two. Fucking stingy EA cunts. Sometimes its alright if there is enough in the DLC for a decent price but most of the time its not worth the money. Also Microsoft, dont get me fucking started on Microsoft. They are so fucking cheap! DLC that is free on PC for Left 4 Dead costs money on Xbox because Microsoft want to earn something out of it. I hate them so much.[/QUOTE] angst
DLC is fine and understandable from a business perspective, as long as the content (read: not the price) is justified. I'd much rather receive DLCs that offer new maps and new experiences rather than DLC which gives you a new gun. I'd much rather a game where you can only buy $15 map packs than a game which offers only $2 weapons, because the DLC of the first game gives you new experiences that can entertain you for a while. A simple gun unlock may only be for aesthetic purposes, but even if it is a whole new gun it only lets you enjoy the current experiences in a slightly different way. I found Bungie's approach to the map packs with Halo 3 to be good. Each map can be played online of course, but with the forge feature it allows users to make their own layouts for the maps, giving far more potential experience. The map "Foundry" alone I reckon would be worth ten dollars, its forge possibilities were near endless. However anyways the price should be suitable of course, but my point to make is that I prefer larger DLCs, and I don't mind throwing more money into the game if I like the game. It's why lots of people buy Call of Duty map packs although many more people whine about the price. Rarely do I hear whining about small content packs (like Just Cause 2 DLC) because the price is much lower, but I find such DLC to be worthless. Such small amounts of content should of been included in the game, or if the developer was nice then it should of been free content. What would you rather, buying a new weapon for $2, or a new map for $3? I know what one I'd choose. So in summary, I reckon DLC is good but only when it adds a decent amount of content to a game.
Good when free, or at least worth the price. 3 multiplayer map DLCs for 15$ are not worth the price.
It has to be worth it. I will never buy a skin back for 5 dollars. Ever. It also has to be after release like the OP said. Essentially that's depriving the buyer and mostly leaving them unsatisfied. There are a few companies that do DLC's right, Bethesda does good most of the time. (See Oblivion Horse Armor Skin Fiasco) I also think that no matter what, someone somewhere will buy it. (Also see the Oblivion Horse Armor Skin Fiasco)
Depends. I've got no problem paying for Fallout's DLC (4-5 hours of new gameplay, new weapons, armor, enemies, quests, ect.) but I'd never pay for extra maps. [editline]4th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Izumo199;32616615]I hate it. [B]ESPECIALLY[/B] when EA do there bullshit Day 1 DLC. Its just stuff they could have put into the game that you have to pay for if you dont get the game in the first week or two. Fucking stingy EA cunts. Sometimes its alright if there is enough in the DLC for a decent price but most of the time its not worth the money. Also Microsoft, dont get me fucking started on Microsoft. They are so fucking cheap! DLC that is free on PC for Left 4 Dead costs money on Xbox because Microsoft want to earn something out of it. I hate them so much.[/QUOTE] There is no excuse for Day 1 DLC. If you've already made it, then it should be part of the base game.
I'm ok with most DLC. What i am not OK with is having DLC planned BEFORE the game is released (E.g Battlefield 3) or exclusive content (E.g Deus ex)
[QUOTE=Izumo199;32616615]Also Microsoft, dont get me fucking started on Microsoft. They are so fucking cheap! DLC that is free on PC for Left 4 Dead costs money on Xbox because Microsoft want to earn something out of it. I hate them so much.[/QUOTE] There's 2 things about this statement that need be said: 1. Of course Microsoft wants to make something out of it. They're not a charity, they're a business. Businesses exist to make money. 2. Calm the hell down, use your brain. Why do you think they charge Valve to use XBL and it's free if they use Steam?
Doesn't matter if it's good or bad, as a business they can do whatever the hell they want with it in my mind. I don't particularly like it (as much as I don't like paying any 'extras' once I've already bought a base item) but then I can understand the motive and will buy it for games with additions I feel are worth it.
I like DLC when it adds more to the game and isn't just some new player character skins. And I like it aslong as it's free
Pre-Order: If it is available after a while, but not liking it. However, it is a way to convince people to buy from their store in order to fight against Omega in xiii-2(amazon), or getting the squid gun/people shooter for Saints Row the Third. Day 1 DLC: They pretty much took out parts of it on purpose and released it so that people have to buy the DLC to use it. I won't name some of these games, but you might know a few. *cough*fable 3*cough* Post-Release: Well, how long has it been, and did they half-ass it. The $15 map packs are not worth it in my opinion, however, a DLC like GTAIV Episodes of LC, or F3/NV DLC would be worth it, unless it was half-assed. A better example would be Lair of the Shadow Broker(Mass Effect 2).
I think most people have the same opinion of it. Day 1/preorder DLC should be abolished and any of DLC should have good content and a reasonable price based on the amount and quality of the content.
I think Bethesda does DLC right. They always add massive new levels, characters, weapons, character traits, and enemies. F:NV, F3 and Oblivion all have awesome DLC.
DLC is good IF: It's free It's a fiver but contains lots of new content It's not advantageous in multiplayer and is fairly balanced. Valve meets most of this criteria but they've suffered from schedule slipping quite a bit since L4D1 was released and as such they're slowly falling out of practice.
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;32622720]DLC is good IF: It's free It's a fiver but contains lots of new content It's not advantageous in multiplayer and is fairly balanced. Valve meets most of this criteria but they've suffered from schedule slipping quite a bit since L4D1 was released and as such they're slowly falling out of practice.[/QUOTE] I don't think pricing should come into it unless they are charging too much for too little. The GTA IV DLCs for example are worth way more than a fiver.
DLC's in my opinion are stupid, or well most of them. CoD, as famous for their "map packs", and being generally overpriced, just keep pumping money from their users. First, they want you to pay 60€ for their game, then they want you to pay another 20€ for a map pack, for gods sake Activision they should be patched for free! Have DLC weapons instead, but they don't give the paying people any advantage. Bad Company 2 did this quite well, since the SPECACT update only gave some cool skin, and they have some other packages featuring speed leveling.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.