gaming Full games vs DLC Content

[Tom Snyder 4,112]

This video shows how devs screw up most DLC content, and make us pay for useless crap that should be in the game period. To me this whole DLC problem isn't worth the risk of having bad games and the content included. So you spend $100 for all the content and you end of with skins that are useless, characters who need to be in the game instead of DLC(which is bs and a prick move). 

 

_________________________________________________

 

Now i see nothing wrong with this picture, sure the graphics aren't great(which don't matter anymore), gameplay and story do. I wish it would go back to when they actually cared for what we wanted, not for greed. The games back then were the best then ones today, before you call me nostalgia blind. look at amnesia(not reliant on graphics), but is beautiful. Now look at the games such as CoD and other big franchises; what do you see? I pile of crap and greedy executives who don't give two bucks about you or what you want.

[BastementSparkle 20,329]

DLC isn't bad necessarily, it just depends. If the DLC was content that was already in the game but was locked away, or if it's a super cheap little thing that adds nothing to the game it's pretty annoying, but if they make something legitimately to expand the game and don't charge too much for it, it's fine.

 

 My favorite game ever "The Binding of Isaac" had a DLC that basically doubled the game's size, I suppose calling it an expansion would be more accurate in that case though.

[Tom Snyder 4,112]

DLC isn't bad necessarily, it just depends. If the DLC was content that was already in the game but was locked away, or if it's a super cheap little thing that adds nothing to the game it's pretty annoying, but if they make something legitimately to expand the game and don't charge too much for it, it's fine.

 

 My favorite game ever "The Binding of Isaac" had a DLC that basically doubled the game's size, I suppose calling it an expansion would be more accurate in that case though.

I liked it better when we didn't have to spend so much on some random garbage, sure some dlc's are good, but not all of them are. 

[BastementSparkle 20,329]

I liked it better when we didn't have to spend so much on some random garbage, sure some dlc's are good, but not all of them are. 

 

Said DLC was 3$. But you could say the same for games themselves, some games are good, but not all of them are. DLC's give lazy developers a new way to try and leech money from people, but that doesn't mean DLC's themselves are bad. If there's effort put into them they can be awesome at times.

[Tom Snyder 4,112]

Said DLC was 3$. But you could say the same for games themselves, some games are good, but not all of them are. DLC's give lazy developers a new way to try and leech money from people, but that doesn't mean DLC's themselves are bad. If there's effort put into them they can be awesome at times.

True, But it goes both ways. 

They can leave the characters in the game, but only add items that are actually sellable as dlc. ME 1 & 2 were the best, but any attempt at redeeming ME3 is no longer possible.I don't buy them as they are not really needed; i've enjoyed myself without them(its a big FU to us when they sell these) "buy this so you can play our game" *facehoof* 

Or how about this: "Want to access all content, well empty your pockets, cause we want to exploit you." Its all they're about, greed, and only care for themselves.

[Suukorak 354]

There's another side to some of this.

I have to say I never saw the point of DLCs for skins, or hats, or what-have-you. But real game content makes some sense to me. As long as the base game is reasonably complete, think of DLCs not as locked portions of the game, but expansion packs. Opportunities for people with a bit more money and a love of the game to get a bit more of it. I have nothing against that, and in fact appreciate that it's more practical now than ever before.

I do admit, some DLC is just bad. It can be done right, though, and I hope it will.

[Tom Snyder 4,112]

There's another side to some of this.

I have to say I never saw the point of DLCs for skins, or hats, or what-have-you. But real game content makes some sense to me. As long as the base game is reasonably complete, think of DLCs not as locked portions of the game, but expansion packs. Opportunities for people with a bit more money and a love of the game to get a bit more of it. I have nothing against that, and in fact appreciate that it's more practical now than ever before.

I do admit, some DLC is just bad. It can be done right, though, and I hope it will.

I get it, but just wish they'd have the brains to do it right. Most of the dlc's felt like they only worked a day on them, they need to be careful and take their time about it.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Candy Star

[Suukorak 354]

I get it, but just wish they'd have the brains to do it right.

Yeah, me too. They'll figure it out eventually; we just have to make sure not to buy badly done DLC.

[Tom Snyder 4,112]

Yeah, me too. They'll figure it out eventually; we just have to make sure not to buy badly done DLC.

Just beware the hype and you'll be fine. 

I won't buy any dlc content unless i see it first on youtube, if its worth the money; then hell yes i'll do it.

[Envy 6,220]

There is DLC done horribly wrong (I always think of The Sims) and then there is DLC which is neat, and is actually being both thought out and made entirely post-development of the game.

 

Just look Super Smash Bros.'s DLC. Sure, I think that the developers really could have easily prioritized Mewtwo and Lucas over Dark Pit and Doctor Mario, but now they've made a poll to see which character(s) are wanted the most. And I find that neat - it really is post-development in both and thought and development! I mean so is The Sims in many ways, BUT holding back features like Seasons and Pets that they KNOW they are going to add is obviously bad.

[Celtore 2,770]

The videogame industry is in a bit of a sad state with DLC. It's a shame because I like the idea of having more content for a game I like; I'd never say no to more story for a great game or new characters they couldn't fit in the development cycle. That being said, that is not how the corporate executives see it, they see it as a way to penny and dime players for content which should have already been in the game or for content which is already, unbeknownst to the player, already on the disk.

 

Note that not all companies are this corrupt, some are using the idea right. MMO expansions can be thought of as a form of DLC and they usually provide a lot of content. Mario Kart on the Wii U has DLC for all new content, 6 characters, a number of new karts and 16 stages to race on. It can be done right to benefit both the player and the game company, turning a profit and providing quality content doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

[That One Techpriest You Used To Know 2,286]

It depends. I prefer full games in some situations, and DLC in others. For example, I would rather have my RPG have all the everything I want in it from the get go, and not make me pay extra for more stuff. However, I would also prefer games like fighting games to have DLC because it proves that the devs are still caring about the game.

 

So, really, it depends on the title in question...

[Megas 27,821]

I don't really have a problem with DLC, it's just that there are a lot of devs using it the wrong way. Evolve is a good recent example. I'm also not a fan of map-packs($15-20 for 3-4 maps just sounds too much for me, especially when it limits people who haven't bought these maps), and the worst offender is On-Disc DLC, like with Street Fighter X Tekken($20 bucks characters that are already on the disc? Fuck that shit). And lets not forget the infamous Horse Armor from Oblivion

 

But at the same time there are plenty of good examples of DLC as true post-release content as well, Ballad of Gay Tony, Undead Nightmare, Burial At Sea, Mario Kart 8, etc. Hell, I recently bought some of the FE Awakening DLC, and still haven't put down the game. And as Envy already stated, the Smash Bros DLC is already sounding really promising. 

Edited April 14, 2015 by Megas75

[Luna the Great of all the Russias 3,015]

I miss days when expansion packs were norm.

[Throwaway19573639385 764]

I'm 50/50 on DLC and Full games. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely hate it when companies make an empty and ugly world that you can only make bearable through day 1 DLC, especially when they dare to say they couldn't "fit it in" on time before release. Games should be made to provide you the full experience they intend you to have. Like Fallout New Vegas for example, the game's full of content, there's a ton of ways to experience the game and to play it. Then there's its DLC, it's unf to the core. Old World Blues anyone? Dark Souls II DLC added exactly what it was missing and Far Cry 3's Blood Dragon was just perfect because it was so over the top. DLC can be a great thing, but it feels like these days its only usage is to squeeze out money from the fools that bought into a lie. It makes me shake my head.

[A Black Circle 1,586]

Dear Game Companies: Just make a full damn game!

The Elder Scrolls series has done DLC Expansions really well, and if they mess up this on ES6 I might give up on the franchise.

Also, if there's a DLC-crazy console game that the servers go down for in 5-10 years, no DLC, no complete game.

[Steve Piranha 29,447]

I don't have a problem with DLC as long as the main game feels complete and are well priced

[Discordian 6,015]

Most DLC isn't worth the money but there are very few games that are incomplete without it. I think maybe Prince of Persia 2008 had the ending locked in DLC for whatever reason but most games don't need the extra content no matter how important it might seem.

[Shadow Beam 1,179]

Rome II Total War pre-orderer right here.

 

 

The pain... The pain never leaves...

[JanisJopleyBird 22]

I'm not a huge fan of the DLC model. I see the appeal, getting more content to something you loved and all. I just have a deeply ingrained mistrust of things that try to nickel and dime consumers.

[Lastochka 29]

I don't think all DLC is bad. For example, I like and have bought DLC for Killing Floor, and I don't think it ruins the game at all to have it. It doesn't really effect gameplay. On the other hand, you have a game like The Mighty Quest for Epic Loot, which is a really great concept, but is completely ruined by being F2P and has too much DLC which makes the game almost unplayable without it.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Lastochka

[Discordian 6,015]

Story DLC is the only kind that I care about and even then only on certain games.

[Tom Snyder 4,112]

I don't think all DLC is bad. For example, I like and have bought DLC for Killing Floor, and I don't think it ruins the game at all to have it. It doesn't really effect gameplay. On the other hand, you have a game like The Mighty Quest for Epic Loot, which is a really great concept, but is completely ruined by being F2P and has too much DLC which makes the game almost unplayable without it.

Yes, but it takes up space, and only the story DLC are important as Discordian said. Characters, guns, etc, are not really DLC worthy to begin with. They can add more by updates, Defiance does this very thing, and doesn't really need DLC to accomplish their goals. Sure the game isn't great, but just makes my point.

[Lastochka 29]

Yes, but it takes up space, and only the story DLC are important as Discordian said. Characters, guns, etc, are not really DLC worthy to begin with. They can add more by updates, Defiance does this very thing, and doesn't really need DLC to accomplish their goals. Sure the game isn't great, but just makes my point.

 

Well, that's your opinion. In my opinion, some DLC is worth it. Maybe not to everyone and it depends on the game and DLC even for me, but at least in the examples I gave in my other post, it'd be worth it.

[Tom Snyder 4,112]

Well, that's your opinion. In my opinion, some DLC is worth it. Maybe not to everyone and it depends on the game and DLC even for me, but at least in the examples I gave in my other post, it'd be worth it.

Never implied you were wrong, sorry if i gave that impression. Its just that it drives me crazy when they can't even think before they "try" to make something for DLC content, its like they were drunk when they made half the stuff last year. Its usually  not even a full year before we see the DLC available; that just says they never even tried. If they even had one bit of sense left, they would take more time to come up with better ideas and release it the next year. 

 

YOu can't make something just like that and expect it to succeed, it doesn't work that way.