DLC: Like or Hate

[Perfect Bio 121]

Since this is a mixed topic around most gamers, I would like to talk about it.

 

What do you guys think of DLC. I know that most gamers don't like it, but I don't mind it. 

Although it can be because of greed sometimes *COUGHEACOUGH*, but I honestly think that

it is a way of improving a game after it has been released. 

 

Although In-Game purchases can be considered DLC, I think it is just a dev's way of making money of a free game. 

 

So, what do you think of it?

 

[Megas 27,725]

I like DLC, but I hate the way its been exectuted. Want to see DLC done right? Look at Rockstar, Bethesda, Valve, or even Nintendo(Year of Luigi). Want to see how not to do DLC? Activision, EA, Capcom. 

 

Unfortunately most companies do DLC the EA way

 

[Nerdy Luigi 2,065]

I believe it's quite great. In some cases, though, misexecuted as said. It adds content to the game that wasn't in it originally.

[Alex Kennedy 1,228]

Honestly, I don't see why there's anything wrong with DLC, at least in theory. The player gets more content, the developer gets more money. Everybody wins. Maybe it's not always done well, but I don't see why you just wouldn't like DLC in general.

[Scootalove 10,689]

I like DLC for the creativity when they add more storylines to one game, and giving us something that was worth the money. There are times where we waste our money on DLC and, in the end we are disappointed by what the developer gives us. Half done downloadable content, where we spent a lot of money on. Examples: Activision, Treyarch, EA, Microsoft, and Capcom. But there are other companies that give us good downloadable content that was worth it. Examples: Rockstar, Naughty Dog, Nintendo, Sony, and Valve.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Scootalove

[Ron Jeremy 2,032]

There's good DLC and there's bad DLC.

 

Good DLC is released some time after the game, and adds more meat to the game at a reasonable price. More characters, levels... any content that enriches the experience of the game and meshes well with it. Quality DLC extends the game's playability.

 

Bad DLC is the crap you see in most games churned out by big companies these days, much of it released on the first day and cut out of the main game. Map packs that cost a fortune, skins that should be free, content that should be in the game already. Like difficulty settings.

 

DLC should be used to enhance a game that already exists. Releasing quick cash-grab DLC on the day of release or soon after is sickening and proves the greed of the big companies responsible.

 

The matter of DLC really isn't black and white.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Chainsaw Bouffant

[Celtore 2,770]

I like the idea of DLC, but it needs to be done the right way.

 

Firstly, it needs to be planned AFTER the game is fully complete. No developing or even THINKING about DLC until the core game is fully featured and completed. This prevents companies from removing or not implimenting features that should be part of the core gameplay and selling those features instead to make some quick cash.

 

Secondly, it needs to be something that players want marketed at a fair price. In other words, DLC shouldn't be just about the money, it should be on improving an already developed game by providing extra content that gamers would feel willing to buy to enrich their experience.

 

In short, I like the idea of downloadable content that is executed well. As for day one DLC, I think that it's lazy and the companies behind that crap should be ashamed of themselves for such a blatant money grab!

Edited July 5, 2013 by Celtore

[Zygen 6,066]

It depends on the way its done. sometimes it feels like a cheap way to get extra money out of people, other times it feels like an expansion and update to the game that doesn't feel like it should've already been there.

 

Some companies do it right, some don't.

 

So it depends basically. 

[Toaster Bot 183]

DLC is a mixed bag. I quite like it if it expands the game, or otherwise improves upon it. However, I'm not too fond of DLC is it's greedy or something that should have been in the game from the very beginning.

[Senor Citizen 516]

Let us, for a moment, examine two extremes. Halo 4, and Left 4 Dead 2.

 

Left 4 Dead 2 DLC: The Sacrifice, which brought closure to the original survivor's story and had some of the best lines in the game. (Louis, if you don't stop being so positive, I'm gonna sink the boat just to make you sad!)

Cold Stream: A USER-MADE CAMPAIGN.

Halo 4 DLC: Maps. Considering how few maps the standalone game had, the money-munching is painfully obvious.

[Metemponychosis 1,262]

There are DLCs and DLCs...

 

Some of them are like sweets: it's just something to add a little flavor to the game, like skin packs.

 

Others are like the sauce in a salad: weapons, for example. They add very little, but it's more than just a skin for the characters. It has a real effect in the game.

 

And some of them are like a dish from the main course that was delivered late: the add missions for example

 

I tend to like all of them, but it depends on the price. And quality of the content.

[Edgeworth1001 648]

I'm mostly neutral with DLC. It really depends on how worthwhile it is and if it adds more meat to the game.

 

And how come Namco gets a 'get out of jail free' card while Capcom, of course, gets called out for it? Don't get me wrong, I'm dislike how Capcom executes their DLC too, but did we all forgotten the lackluster game known as Soul Calibur V?

Edited July 5, 2013 by Edgeworth1001

[Mand'alor Dash 2,224]

Relevant.

 

I am for all DLC, regardless of release date. As Extra Credits explained, companies release DLC early because if they wait too long, nobody will buy it. Really, do you honestly believe that release date, of all things, is what determines whether DLC is good or bad?

 

I can't stand people who think that their purchase of a game entitles them to every last thing the developers worked on during the development cycle, or that a game isn't "finished" unless it includes whatever horse armor was released alongside it. Look at Metro Last Light, and all the whining about Ranger mode being $5 DLC (even though the game itself launched $10 cheaper than most games these days). I can't believe people are so self-entitled that they will raise hell over an optional $5 charge.

 

Another example would be Mass Effect 3, look at all the people who said the Javik DLC was "essential" to the game, and that EA was "ripping them off" by charging money for it. Boo hoo. In reality, the actual story content of the pack was woefully short, and the companion easily missed. I didn't buy the pack, and my gaming experience was none the worse for it. It simply didn't matter.

 

But Mass Effect 2 literally had two very major plot points hidden behind pay walls (Lair of the Shadow Broker and Arrival), and nobody raises any fuss over this? Really? Are gamers really so anal about release dates that they think it's okay to nakedly hold the storyline hostage for a quick buck, but making one unnecessary companion paid DLC is somehow going too far?

 

Fallout 3: Broken Steel. Apparently it's okay to charge for the simple ability to play an open-world RPG after you finish the storyline, and ruin the game's deeply emotional ending in the process, as long as it comes out on a release date that we say is okay.

 

Bear in mind, I'm not knocking either of these games. In fact, I absolutely love both of them. All I'm saying is that if you're so pissed about release dates, why is it okay to get away with stuff like this?

 

I don't care if DLC comes out on day 1 or day 100, it should be judged based on its own merits, and not on some unfounded pseudo-rebellious notion that it's a "rip-off," or even dumber, "lazy." If companies want to cross-promote a game alongside its DLC, then who are they honestly hurting?

[LMW-YBC 102]

I quite like DLC. It keeps a game fresh and adds onto the experience. But I see that not many people are doing it right (like Activision with their overpriced map packs). Of course, there are those who do execute it right, and it's these that make DLC a positive thing in my mind.

[Forlong 1,726]

DLC is a practice for good that I enjoy most of the time.  Downloading an expansion pack to a game I love?  Yeah, that sounds good to me.  However, many companies use DLC to either make more money or hold part of the game hostage from anyone who has the audacity to buy the game used.

[Wispy Breeze 10]

I'm with the general reaction here. DLC is, in theory, an excellent idea. It's basically like modding, but you are guaranteed (hopefully) a quality product that pushes the game in directions that modders can't. (And while I haven't purchased any DLC that wasn't bundled yet, I loves me some modding). The problem is that a lot of companies see DLC as a way to make a quick buck, and pump out high-priced, low-effort DLCs in order to milk the consumer for as much money as possible (EA being easily the worst offender).

 

If we see DLC overall being done right, I'd be behind it in a heartbeat.

[Twi Rubix 726]

I myself enjoy DLC to an extent. What it's supposed to do it expand the playtime of the game, and maybe even the story. Plus it brings out more play time for the games you like. However, when it's something like costumes, or just new maps for something like FPS games, I wouldn't think to fast about buying it. The problem is sometimes the pricing. Sometimes, you want to save up money for a new game, or you're just trying to save money in general. DLC never exactly comes cheap as far as I've seen. Also, the problem is what you actually get out of it.

 

Example, The Walking Dead recently had a DLC called "400 Days." which was an extra episode added to Season 1, yet the price is 5 dollars on Steam, and the episode is only a couple hours long.

 

Borderlands 2 has lots of DLC, ranging from 99 cents, (Costumes, etc.) to 10 dollars. (Story expansions, or tons of items for a certain class.) I think that's just a little bit overpriced for a new story segment, let alone new items. 

 

So, in short, DLC can be good, but I will complain about the pricing and what you get from it.

[Lost 1,410]

I like DLC, it brings the spark back into games as they start ageing, it is also a nice opportunity for developers to put something into the game that they thought of after realise or that the players are asking for, if I enjoy playing a game, I always buy all its DLC.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Lost

[Horses and Horses 91]

I feel like DLC is, in all, a good thing. Yea some companies are just money munchers but what can ya do. One DLC that i know is a good example of GOOD DLC is: Tiny Tinas Assault on Dragons Keep for Borderlands 2. Yea it's 10 bucks, but its literally its own campaign! for just 10, we get a campaign, new guns, new weapons (Spells instead of grenade mods), and an overall awesome experience. This only for 10 bucks. Me and my cousin thought it was a BARGAIN seeing as something like Call of Duty charges you $15 for a few maps.

[Mr. White 71]

I want DLC that is done right, I don't want pointless things that they include just to make you pay extra money when it practically does nothing..

 

I'm looking at you Oblivion, with your horse armor.

[Flutter's lover <3 8,206]

I love DLC, when i'ts done right.

 

Games I"ve palyed that have done it right: Borderlands, Fallout: 3, GTA IV

 

Games I've played that do it wrong: COD

 

Borderlands DLC(both 1 and 2) were great because, there was a level cap increase, new guns, new enemies and new lovable characters. and they added a 3rd palythrough in Borderlands called Ultimate Vault Hunter Mode, as well as many more raid bosses.

 

Fallout 3: because the one Addon "Broken Steel" lets you continue the game in free roam, and doesn't just "end" like New Vegas does when you're done it. and it increased the level cap from 30 to 50 and allowed you to max your stats almost.

 

GTA: IV because you learned backstories of other characters and discovered that all the characters you paly as had somehow met one another during the campaign or side quests. and there's many "Oh shit" and "Well, damn" moments when you figure stuff out.

 

 

COD's DLC sucks, especially Black Ops 2 because you had to pay for a map that was free in Black Ops one, it was just a re-skin of "Firing Range" It should've been free. Nuketown 2025 was a pre-order thing, but it should've been included anyways for all players. Gun camos and titles should be free,especially the flag titles that were FREE in every other CoD game. and for hte price you pay, you should get more than just 5 maps.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Flutter Dash

[Lost Profile 644]

You say that most gamers don't like DLC... Where have you been hanging?

 

 

I don't know anyone who dosnt like DLC... DLC adds new shit to the game, and it's always awesome waiting for them to come out.