I'm totally for the old fashioned "Expansion Packs" that could easily cost £10-20 or so, but added what was basically a whole new games worth of content. Take Age of Mythology, Starcraft, Battlefield 1942 and so on - where they added a load of content, and sure it cost a fair bit, but you generally got a whole new campaign or load of gear that felt like effort had been put into it.
DLC seems to constitute a single mission or maybe a few maps these days, for £5 or so. That's not too bad, though I honestly don't see the point of it.
What I am against is pre-release DLC - which is basically saying "you bought the game but we're not giving it all to you." Post release is ok, but pre-release is bullshit.
[QUOTE=Confuzzed Otto;32623185]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.[/QUOTE]
You would prefer to pay for purely cosmetic items than something like maps? I agree that they are completely over priced normally but given the choice I would rather have map packs. They only affect the gameplay for people who actually buy them and the game doesn't change at all for people who don't want them.
[editline]4th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Terminutter;32623247]I'm totally for the old fashioned "Expansion Packs" that could easily cost £10-20 or so, but added what was basically a whole new games worth of content. Take Age of Mythology, Starcraft, Battlefield 1942 and so on - where they added a load of content, and sure it cost a fair bit, but you generally got a whole new campaign or load of gear that felt like effort had been put into it.
DLC seems to constitute a single mission or maybe a few maps these days, for £5 or so. That's not too bad, though I honestly don't see the point of it.
What I am against is pre-release DLC - which is basically saying "you bought the game but we're not giving it all to you." Post release is ok, but pre-release is bullshit.[/QUOTE]
I think people tend to forget that good DLC is essentially the exact same thing as an expansion pack.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;32623344]I think people tend to forget that good DLC is essentially the exact same thing as an expansion pack.[/QUOTE]
Problem is that most DLC isn't good and contains little interesting content so it's really easy to spot a difference there.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;32623344]I think people tend to forget that good DLC is essentially the exact same thing as an expansion pack.[/QUOTE]
I posted in a hurry - good DLC is perfectly acceptable, as it is basically an expansion pack. Agreed 100% there.
It's just when they want you to pay for 3 or so poorly designed maps or a load of quickly designed and chucked in weapons. If I wanted those, I'd play an F2P game, or one designed to allow for people to buy guns.
Cosmetic packs are fine, as long as it doesn't go too far.
DLC would be useless if devs would just give us mod tools. But no, they've got to have MONEY!
Some DLC is okay, but CoD/BC2 DLC where they either throw in a few new badly designed maps, or some old ones with different game modes shouldn't cost us 15 bucks.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;32623433]I posted in a hurry - good DLC is perfectly acceptable, as it is basically an expansion pack. Agreed 100% there.
It's just when they want you to pay for 3 or so poorly designed maps or a load of quickly designed and chucked in weapons. If I wanted those, I'd play an F2P game, or one designed to allow for people to buy guns.
Cosmetic packs are fine, as long as it doesn't go too far.[/QUOTE]
You are right, I wouldn't mind small DLC aslong as they were cheap. It is a shame the industry is so money driven nowadays.
Fallout 3 and New Vegas' DLC is really well done. They almost all add extra hours of gameplay each, are reasonably priced and often don't feel like they belong in the vanilla game because they're often almost a separate campaign.
If it's real DLC that adds to the game at a reasonable price I'm fine. If it's CoD $15 mappacks or DX:HR already-in-the-game shit then no.
Great when it's free or has tons of content developed after release for a good price.
Bad when it's clearly just been stripped out of the original build of the game so they'd have something to bribe pre-orderers with or sell a week after release for extra cash.
I have no problem with buying extra content for my games. If I enjoy the game, want a little more, I'll support you! Same as I did back in the days of expansion packs.
I will NOT allow you, as a game company, to nickel-and-dime me with dress up outfits for my virtual characters. If you're gonna add content to a game, [I]add some fucking content.[/I] Don't lobotomize an otherwise great game by removing features before release and then marketing them, dont split up what could be a 15$ package into six 2$ items, and [I]don't fucking treat me like a statistic.[/I] Take the one to put some care into what you're making.
Most DLC is fine. I don't mind paying £5 or so, a few months after a game is released to keep it fresh. What I hate, is when maybe a week after launch, you get DLC. And when you go to download it, it's mere kilobytes. Meaning what you paid for is already on the disc and should have been made available in the game from the get go, and all you've paid for is an unlock. That pisses me off to no end.
I have no problem with DLC, as long as it doesn't cost the same price as another decent game. I understand selling a game for $30 or so: the company put a lot of time into it, there was a lot of programming, art design 'n to do. But then you just make an extra map and charge the same amount for it, then that's just bullshit.
DLC, when "done" correctly can be quite useful to stop the game from getting boring, and bringing people back to it. But instead, it's being used quite often by big companies just to make some extra bucks off some new maps.
I think any DLC is good when it increases the longevity or re-playability of a game. The pricing should be fair though; I've seen some DLC be half the price of a full game for very little added content. A good example of bad DLC are the map packs for Call of Duty; now I'm not jumping on that dumb bandwagon, but my dislike for their DLC is the fact that you look at a similar game like Counter-Strike Source and see that with an SDK the community can make interesting and fun DLC for FREE! (Which means fresh gameplay) With Call of Duty you're essentially paying to keep yourself occupied until the next DLC Map pack comes out if you want fresh environments to play in.
Only when used right. If a developer produces a game, then afterwards creates a few levels or add-ons that couldn't reach the deadline, I have no problem with that.
Developers who produce content then intentionally bar it from the final product just to earn a few extra bucks is pushing it.
Depends on the game, really.If its a 19$ map pack or 2 extra weapons, a big no-no.If its something that adds a maybe totally different story to the game, new places etc. then its good.Fallout 3 and New Vegas DLCs + the GTA IV Dlcs are a good example.
paid DLC like the dead rising extra suits (Soldier, sports, ninja, psycho) is really nice, and its cheap like it SHOULD be. [url]http://www.joystiq.com/2010/10/06/dead-rising-2-offering-psycho-ninja-sports-soldier-dlc-to-all/[/url]
I plan buying all 4 of those for DS2, its a really good deal!
but DLC for 15$ for 3 maps, or other... is pathetic, greedy, and unjustifiable. I would never pay 15 for some maps I'll use a few times.
Release day DLC makes me cry.
Bad... Always. Make expansions, not DLC's.
The GTA:IV ones are a good example of nice expansions, also shivering isles for oblivion, those were nice and not just some cheap attempt at quick money.
My opinion is:
If it isn't any of the following:
>Overpriced (CoD)
>Too early (CoD again.)
>Cut content (Guess)
Then I'm fine.
Preorder bonuses, however.
I'm fine with them, just so long as they won't give you an advantage(Deus ex:HR is a bit guilty of this, The grenade launcher is OP as hell. but it's a singleplayer game, so who cares), I'm fine.
Brink had excellent preorder bonuses in my opinion, They're just cosmetic stuff(Besides the greeneye, it's an ACOG with a better FOV) and they were released 2 months or so later to buy.
To copy a paragraph from [URL="www.moabg.com"]MoaBG[/URL]:
"[I]It takes something special for DLC to bring me back to a game that has long since made the epic transition from “disc with a manual in a box” to “trophy, yeah!” Burnout Paradise’s DLC (the mountains and mountains of it) succeeded, and Portal 2 will certainly pull off the same trick again.[/I]"
To expand on my own writing, Burnout Paradise was very much a game where the free DLC was obviously stuff Criterion couldn't fit into the game by EA's deadlines (day/night cycles, bikes), and the paid DLC was added later and made specifically to be bought.
The actual content, however, was all downloaded with the free stuff, so all you were buying was a <100KB code string that unlocked it. Even when that thing was a massive island that you could drive up to (but not enter - the game would face you the other way if you refused to buy it).
Again, to quote my own content, Call of Duty map packs are almost comically overpriced. The arguments I received in the comments from those in favour of their pricing consisted largely of "If about five of you share one PSN/Live account, it's value for money". Methinks someone is missing the point.
Particularly given that, without beating around the bush, if you buy all of Black Ops' DLC you're effectively paying for the game twice.
I have nothing against more content, but in the sense of old expansion packs. I strongly dislikes the cut and dime aproach that current is the norm. As opposed to one large pack for a set price, you get a bunch of smaller packs, which in size equates the one larger, but cost as much as the base game put together.
It's good for the publisher and developer but awful for us.
[quote]
The actual content, however, was all downloaded with the free stuff, so all you were buying was a <100KB code string that unlocked it. Even when that thing was a massive island that you could drive up to (but not enter - the game would face you the other way if you refused to buy it).
[/quote]
This I really hate. And I don't feel I'd be actually buying expansion content, but do an appeasment for the company.
DLCs that add just skins/weapons etc are crap, but the ones with new campaigns ohohoh
DLCs are disgusting. If I ever become an indie developer, it'll be buy my game: get everything I ever add to it after that point.
DLC's are fine. If people want to buy them and support the company, that's their choice.
What irks me though is when those dickheads decide to make the DLC a requirement by gimping your ability to play the game, EG Halo 3, WaW, etc.
There are too many ways to screw you over with DLC for it to be a good thing. Usually games don't feel fleshed out without DLC's which leads me to believe that they can almost always be included in the games at launch.
It's nonsense if the content is based on actual playable things, as in maps, campaigns etc.
Items giving advantage is just a no, you might as well make it a free to play game that way.
Things like hats are a different story. Games are expensive as they are, and unoriginal on the other hand.
DLC is fucking stupid. Extra maps and and shit should be added as updates.
Pre-order DLCs are kinda lame and unfair, unless they're just cosmetic stuff like reskins, then it doesn't matter too much and would be a decent compliment to the reduced price of most pre-ordered games.
However, selling skin-packs as post-release DLC doesn't really seem all that fair if it's overpriced, especially if the developers don't give two fucks about the modding scene. Personally I feel that the modding scene should be encouraged, and in many cases collaborated with.
Take a look at TF2 for example; many in-game items were designed by third-party modders, lots of hats made by the community. And with the Mann-Connomy, the modders even receive a cut of coin for their work (a certain percentage from each sale of a virtual item the modder made goes to the modder), something that's nearly unheard of in most other games. Sure there are some not so good third-party items in the game, but there's still gold in them thar hills. And let's not forget the maps either; some of the modder-made maps are pretty good, and the map stamp purchaseables give an opportunity for players to fund the map designers.
There should be more games that collaborate with modders; it's an opportunity for a mutually-beneficial business relationship. Sure not all of the modders in the world are exactly triple-A, hell some aren't even double-A, but some of them can still produce quality goods and assets, even make a fair few coins if they know how. And good art assets could look real nice on a games designer's portfolio increasing their chances of getting onto a uni course for games design, getting a job higher up in the games industry. With so few jobs and so many applicants for them, designers in the industry need a good portfolio if they want to get the job.
Developers Looting Customers
This what i think
I think what pisses me off most about DLC, more than day-one shit or even $15 mappacks, is DLC that is just a key that unlocks data that you had on launch day. The content's there, and they're making you wait and pay more for it. That's just a shit move.
Bethesda has the right idea for DLC, just look at the amount of shit any of the New Vegas DLC have.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.