Hero-of-Time Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Myself and Hellfire have hit on this topic in the De Blob thread and I thought it would be interesting to see what others think. So I ask the question... Would you buy DLC for a game? I personally think DLC can be seen as a bad thing and a good thing. Good because it gives developers a chance to add things into the game that werent ready when the game shipped. It can also give a game a boost in sales and also add some replay value to the game. A great example of this is the Rock Band and Guitar Hero games. Bad would be say when a game is finished and sent to retail but the DLC is already waiting to be released so it might aswell have been in the final game anyway. I will say though im a sucker if im hyped for the game. An example of this would be Megaman 9 as they could have quite simply added most if not all of the DLC in the game if given a little more time but as I said im a sucker and I will be buying it regardless I know I would quite happily pay for a few extra characters for Smash Bros or some new tracks for Mario Kart Wii. Even when Wii Music arrives I think it would be great to be able to download some Christmas songs to get into the festive season, providing they arent on the disc already. Thoughts people?
Hellfire Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 I'm not against DLC per se, but against the way it's implemented. Like what you said, in MM9 they're just being assholes (although, it's still not a lot of money), FF:CC WiiWare, S-E were just taking advantage of people, etc... Before LIVE and DLC came, you could get new things for PC games for free, now you have to pay for every damn thing. Samba de Amigo will come with DLC at launch, meaning the songs are already ready so they should be with the game, instead you'll have to pay extra for something that was already good to go on the disc. Most times they just hold off on things so that we could pay them, making the games on the disc terribly incomplete. And would it be so hard to have some free things? We did fork out all that cash for the game in the first place. Of course that one can't expect everything to be free, if a developer keeps working on added content and it's significant, it's only normal that we should pay for it, but things are taken waay out of line. I look at all the shit on the marketplace, icons, themes and whatnot. Why the hell aren't these things free? Who pays for them? Given that it's a dog eat dog world and that obviously, companies want money, DLC is doing more harm than good.
darksnowman Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 I think it depends on the game and the situation. I didn't even know there was going to be DLC in Megaman 9 til this week, and I'm not sure what I think about it. To me Megaman doesn't seem an obvious game to include DLC with, but I'll see what the game feels like and maybe end up indulging in some downloadable extras if I feel the need. On the flip side, I would pay for new tracks and stuff in Mario Kart if it was possible and not that I play them, but I think its acceptable for music games to offer new tunes through DLC. So I'm somewhere in the middle for now. I suppose DLC to impact more games I'm buying before I can form a better and more experienced opinion on it!
Tellyn Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 I'm for it if the developers include it as an option for them to create new content for games after their release. Most companies just have all the content ready to go (it's probably already been cut out of the main game so they can get more money) and charge over the odds for it. For stuff like Guitar Hero and Rock Band (and if Nintendo did it, extra characters and tracks/levels in Mario Kart and Smash Bros.) I would pay since we get plenty of content in the first place, but Square-Enix and Capcom are just charging way too much for meagre extras.
Gaijin von Snikbah Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Its all about the price. I would buy a costume for a game figure if the price was right.
Gizmo Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 What you said in the first post is about right. Burnout:Paradise, Rock Band, and Mass Effect do it right; extra content they couldn't get done before the game was released, added on to extend the lifespan of the game. Soul Calibur, Beutiful Katamari, etc are DLC done wrong. It's simply game content they thought they could get away with not including as standard, stuff that wouldn't decide someones sale or no sale, which would get them a few extra pennies down the line. Alot of the SCIV DLC was on the disc, and downloading the extra's was simply downloading an unlock for the files, which is simply rediculous.
ShadowV7 Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 Pretty much the same as most folk here. It's a right pain how 3rd parties think they can get away with things that should already be in the game/ is in the game/ was made before the game went gold etc. Like My Life as a King, that's a huge no when it comes to DLC. Things like Guitar Hero that they release that will benefit folk well after the release is good. And offcourse, aslong as the price is right and it's not overpriced. Again, like MLaaK.
Cube Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 IMO, Some games suit DLC, others don't. The best example I've seen is Burnout Paradise: Extra content for free. And it's content that wouldn't have been in the game anyway. It's allowing them to experiment with some new stuff (the bikes and planes) and let the community impact some of the stuff (like timed challenges with leaderboards). I don't mind extra multiplayer map packs that cost money as long as they never force you to buy them (I'll never buy a multiplayer map pack...I don't really think it'll increase how much fun I play an online game or how much I'd enjoy it). Free ones would be preffered. I'm not a fan of short extra parts for single player games (like the Mass Effect DLC). I'd rather they go all out (Half-Life 2) or just wait for the next game. Paying for small extra stuff (Soul Calibur, Beutiful Katamari, Mega Man 9) however, seems totally wrong. So essentially I only like free or large DLC. Edit: Although small stuff is perfectly fine for games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero.
Shorty Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 I hate the idea of DLC being given out of the sake of earning more money for something which is already readily available at launch. If it has been made, it should be including in the package you've paid for already. But DLC significantly after release, made as an option for people who want more than the original complete experience, is a great idea
Emasher Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 I think the AC team have the right idea, free downloadable content. I can understand having to pay for a new song in RB or GH, or if it was like lets say a bunch of new characters or tracks. But it makes no sense to charge the user 50 cents for lets say a new couch in animal crossing. It just builds up barriers. Kids will have trouble convincing their parents that its worth it, and kids don't have credit cards, so they're out. Anyone who's paranoid of giving out their personal information is also out. Free DLC for just small things could work very well though. DLC made by other players like in GH:WT could also work quite well.
Deathjam Posted September 25, 2008 Posted September 25, 2008 I would like to see it from a developer's point of view, if they can be in a position to have one. For example, they could get started on anothe projeect, or even a sequel but the people who pull the strings know a cash cow when they see one and force them to shoehorn in extra content. Or a team could want to add what could not be fitted in with the given time constraints, but they have to move onto other things. This means that either no extra support is given, or that a lesser team fills in for them. And then, making DLC on particular hardware could prove to be more costly, requiring payments for said extra to factor for the costs. With games like burnout, they have the backing of EA and then, the game has adverts inside it anyways. Either way, I would like to see what they have [hoesntly] tp say.
Emasher Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 I think large publishers will probably have the main teams that make the games and when they're working on the next game, they have another group working on DLC.
Cube Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 With games like burnout, they have the backing of EA and then, the game has adverts inside it anyways. Either way, I would like to see what they have [hoesntly] tp say. Yea, I think EA pretty much took a gamble with Paradise and letting Criterion support it this much, but it's definitely paying off for them. Most people seemed fine with paying for the Bikes, and then a month before the bikes were released Criterion suddenly changed their mind and said that the bikes were free.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 If it adds to the game then yeah why not? For example, if for a FF game there was a new aeon/summon for download, I'll do it. But if its something dumb like a new skin for an airship then no... But nonetheless people have the choice to buy what they like so its fair game.
Hellfire Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 If it adds to the game then yeah why not? For example, if for a FF game there was a new aeon/summon for download, I'll do it. But if its something dumb like a new skin for an airship then no... But nonetheless people have the choice to buy what they like so its fair game. That's exactly the problem, it's not fair game, because lots of things are purposely left out of the 50/70 € game so we can fork out more to download them.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 That's exactly the problem, it's not fair game, because lots of things are purposely left out of the 50/70 € game so we can fork out more to download them. For me, a game like Final fantasy 10 was perfect as a stand alone game. But if Square-Enix decided to create new Aeons to play as in the game or added an online feature to its Bliztball game, then I see those as an added bonus. I think its pretty obvious when companies decide to leave chunks out of games only to be put on the download market - just stay away from them.
mcj metroid Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 For me, a game like Final fantasy 10 was perfect as a stand alone game. But if Square-Enix decided to create new Aeons to play as in the game or added an online feature to its Bliztball game, then I see those as an added bonus. I think its pretty obvious when companies decide to leave chunks out of games only to be put on the download market - just stay away from them. this is true but I think the point is.. there is a large chance that devs could leave stuff out impurpose so we must pay for them later... I mean there would be no need to delay games to ensure perfection then would there.. just make the consumers pay for it and released an unfinished game now.
Hellfire Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 For me, a game like Final fantasy 10 was perfect as a stand alone game. But if Square-Enix decided to create new Aeons to play as in the game or added an online feature to its Bliztball game, then I see those as an added bonus. I think its pretty obvious when companies decide to leave chunks out of games only to be put on the download market - just stay away from them. Which is what I do. It doesn't make it less annoying or bad. (Also, online feature to Blitzball? Why the hell would anyone want to play that turd online? God I hate blitzball)
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 You lot probably just didn't "get it". For what it was (a mini game), it was highly addictive and a far cry from those crappy card games.
Fierce_LiNk Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 I think, for the most part, DLC is pretty good. I've seen some very good uses of DLC, probably mostly for the PC. I remember buying Alien Vs Predator 2, and going online with that, which was pretty fun. However, there is a great community out there who create new mods, skins and maps for the games. Also, some have even taken it further and created campaign modes, with cutscenes and what not. Its all available online for fans to download and play to their hearts desire. There's nothing like downloading someone's realisation of Hadley's Hope (the complex from Aliens) and seeing all your favourite areas from the film. Or changing some skins or abilities for certain characters, to make the game more balanced, or even unbalanced. So, I'm all for DLC. But, mainly this kind. Fans are happy because they're creating something which other games will love. Gamers are happy because they get to play these, for free, and because a lot of hard work and dedication has been put into it.
-gonzo- Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 Im all for DLC as long as it is extra content and your not just paying for a code to unlock stuff thats already on the disc.
Recommended Posts