Thoughts on DLC?

[jayseven]

Arnieboy's comment in the discussion on current gen made me think it'd be a good thread.

 

What do you think of DLC?

 

Personally, the idea that games can be patched post-release is one thing that is both good and bad. Imagine if Spacestation Silicon Valley's [N64] trophy glitch was fixed after release? Fantastic. The downside is, of course, games can be released with known bugs to meet a deadline, with a fix issued later on.

 

With DLC game-content the main argument is surely this; if I pay £40 for a new game, I want that game to be complete. Why should I fork out another tenner a few months later for two hours of extra content for what was only a 6-hour game in the first place?

 

The counter-argument, then, would be that DLC offers games the chance to continue playing their favourite game but in new areas, and so on.

 

It has become fairly standard for the big games to offer DLC. New map packs, added missions, extra multiplayer modes. But if games are now made with DLC in mind, does it remove from the game itself?

 

I think what really annoys me the most is when a game that hasn't even been released yet already has confirmed DLC. But then, I think any blatant display of a company's eager nature to take my 'hard-earned' dosh from me just instantly rubs me the wrong way.

 

This isn't a well-worded post because generally I don't buy DLC, but still I'd like to hear your more eloquent thoughts.

[Grazza]

Generally, I'm against it. Games should be totally well-balanced when you buy them. If you add to it with DLC, by definition it either unbalances the game or it wasn't perfect in the first place.

 

Patches to fix bugs are more agreeable, but even then, console games shouldn't have them. I can't remember a pre-Wii Nintendo game that had a major bug, but now we've got Twilight Princess and Metroid: Other M, which both have them.

 

My only caveat is that I'd like to jump back into my favourite game worlds from the GameCube and PS2 - extra content in Wind Waker and Dragon Quest VIII - but even then I know it wouldn't be that good in reality.

[Dan_Dare]

DLC is often great. Halo, for example, was a bit of a market leader with map packs scheduled post release. It's arguable that maps that might have made the disc were held back for DLC but really the design team just keep working once the disc game is finalised (which is far earlier than most people seem to realise, hence the bitching)

 

Invariably, this kind of development = better games. Especially in multiplayer games where developers can see how the game evolves in the wild and make informed choices when designing maps.

 

so yeah as a big multiplayer man myself, I'm pretty pro DLC.

[The Mad Monkey]

It really depends on the type of DLC really, I'm not really interested in multiplayer based DLC like map packs, race tracks/cars etc, as that's the kind of DLC that people feel obliged to buy so that they can carry on playing their favourite online games fully. I'll fork out on good single player based DLC occasionally, stuff like GTA4, RDR, Borderlands and Alan Wake all have good packs for that that don't mean the original game is incomplete.

[Dan_Dare]

The Lost and Damned was excellent on GTA4. In fact, I thought it was a much better game than the original. Make of that what you will.

[Dog-amoto]

I'll buy DLC if it is worth it. The GTA and Red Dead ones spring to mind. You can't say that those two games didn't provide enough for what you paid for the disc, so I'm happy to pay for extra content

 

But very rarely do I buy multiplayer maps unless it's for a game that I'm really into it like Gears or Uncharted.

[Emerald Emblem]

I wish JRPG's had more proper content rather than Item packs of items you can get for free in the game anyway or level up boosting. I mean why do that? It takes away from the challenge of getting rare items on your own and levelling up, hate that.

 

However game extensions are a sweet thing to have, I mean sure some is held back from the retail release, but ones made after help get more fun and playtime.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Emerald Emblem

[Daft]

I think item packs and small things are shit. Substantial additions to game time, ace.

[Aimless]

I'm not a fan of map packs. Or rather I don't agree with paying for them.

 

Obviously that content isn't made for free, but I don't like the way paid-for content splits up the playerbase; if you aren't CoD or Halo it's either going to be disruptive for those without or ensures those with the DLC barely get to play it. I'd rather see multiplayer console games follow the lead of free-to-play PC titles, charging for ancillary services and aesthetic modifiers.

 

As for DLC in general, I don't really like how it's become a requirement. Months in advance of the release of a game companies are announcing extra, purchasable content, and whilst it might have its own budget and marketing spend it doesn't leave a good taste in your mouth when the game's still a way out from even going gold, especially when said content seems to fit in a bit too neatly.

 

On a similar note I dislike content that's cynically held back. To give a recent example, you have to purchase the black dye in Fable 3 separately. Black! It's hardly a fancy or non-standard shade, but they know people are going to want to use it so they bundled it up as an extra to squeeze a few more pennies out of people. Now, if this was playing into the free-to-play system I mentioned earlier then fair enough, but they aren't charging for access to those dyes so they can afford to bring you game extending content.

 

DLC has the potential to be great. I think Borderlands has a good selection and if you really want an extreme just look to Team Fortress 2: that's a different game these days due to the constant stream of free updates. Unfortunately for the most part it's just become a marketing tool in the worst sense, having given rise to this generation's most recent annoyance: the "pre-order bonus".

[Sméagol]

I think item packs and small things are shit. Substantial additions to game time, ace.

I agree.

 

To elaborate:

Let's take Cod6: MW2 for example.

The game felt complete. I had loads of fun with MP. Do I mind them making DLC you have to pay for? Not in principle no. But do you remember the time when FPS games released mappacks for free? Ok, the games are bigger. They cost more time, effort, and therefore money. I wouldn't mind pay something for a few extra maps, but for 2 or 3 new ones (the rest are old CoD4 maps)? 3 Euros at most. 2 even is more likely. 14 euros? No.

 

Another example:

Mass Effect 2.

The extra campaigns all were great in my opinion, granted, some greater than others, but I enjoyed all of them, and don't regret spending my money on those. However, a few extra weapons which aren't essential (because that would be a mistake) late game and make the beginning easier? No.

[Goafer]

Paid DLC is fine. I just see it like expansion packs on PC. Each one is different though, so some are worth it and some aren't.

 

Patches on the other hand have ruined gaming IMO. I hate that a lot of games are released with major bugs with the attitude of "oh well, we'll patch it later". That's not what people have payed £40 for. What about the people who don't have their consoles hooked up to the internet (I'm thinking young kids whose parents are strict on web usage etc)? They've paid £40 and are stuck with an unfinished game.

 

Not to mention I just plain hate waiting for patches to download.

 

 

Some games are great with their patches. I'm thinking mainly of MAG here. The way they support the game is heroic. Online games do need rebalancing once in a while due to the fact that they're rather hard to balance seeing as it's all based around people, and they are hard to predict.

[McPhee]

I picked up Gears 2 recently to give multiplayer another go. Imagine my annoyance when I found out that I can't play multiplayer because I don't have the map packs! Suddenly that cheap (4 for £20) game is either no longer cheap, or it's worthless.

 

I'm not against DLC, but stuff like that really annoys me. Had a similar problem with CoD:WaW, got booted back to the main menu every time a DLC map came up. I bought it about a month before MW2 came out so there was no way I was about to part with money for multiplayer DLC.

[Sméagol]

Did that happen often then? I had / have absolutely no trouble finding games in Modern Warfare 2, and I don't own any of the mappacks.

[jayseven]

He's talking about WaW - MW2 has had two map packs but the matchmaking system is much better at dealing with that sort of problem. After the first expansion I never encountered such a thing - presumably the lobby was taught to only offer maps all players had.

[Emasher]

I don't like the idea of having paid DLC of content that was ready for the release date, especially if they cut bits out of the single player mode (Assassin's Creed 2). Something like Fallout 3 or GTA 4's DLC is fine though as it adds a ton of extra content to the game, and was something that was developed after the game was finished. Multiplayer is a little bit different. Releasing content over time (Like the way DICE released the BF:BC2 map packs) is good and bad. In that case, it kept the game interesting for a long time, and it allowed players time to learn all the strategies for the maps that were available before throwing more maps into the picture. Plus a ton of the maps weren't ready for day 1 anyway. Selling extra guns or cars for $0.99 each (or more) is getting a bit greedy though. Selling a few maps for $15 is just as bad, if not worse.

 

I'm completely fine with patches though. Games, especially multiplayer games, are getting more complicated. Imagine not being able to patch a game after someone discovered an exploit to cheat in the multiplayer. When you consider the Bethesda games, which are notorious for having tons of bugs when released, you have to consider how complicated those games are. You simply cannot test every single possible way of playing those games like you can with linear games. While games being buggy on release is inconvenient, there needs to be a way of updating games when bugs are present.

[Goafer]

I just remembered Phantasy Star Universe had the worst "DLC" ever. Most of the data for future updates were already on the disc, but they released it over time. Since you have to pay monthly to play, it just seemed like a massive scam to get peoples monthly fee but without having to make updates. Admittedly they did fix bugs and stuff as they went along, but they didn't have to make new content.

[Dan_Dare]

That's fucking outrageous.

[Jon]

It's a great idea, why should a game stop when the disc is pressed? anything that can add to that can only be a good thing in my view.

[Daft]

I think Burnout Paradise had the best DLC. The game that keeps on giving.

 

Shame they didn't release that flying DLC as well. Just for the Hell of it.

[Ike]

I just remembered Phantasy Star Universe had the worst "DLC" ever. Most of the data for future updates were already on the disc, but they released it over time. Since you have to pay monthly to play, it just seemed like a massive scam to get peoples monthly fee but without having to make updates. Admittedly they did fix bugs and stuff as they went along, but they didn't have to make new content.

 

I don't remember SEGA saying that was DLC, they just rolled out the content slowly.

[LegoMan1031]

I think Burnout Paradise had the best DLC. The game that keeps on giving.

 

Shame they didn't release that flying DLC as well. Just for the Hell of it.

 

I gotta agree, fantastic dlc for that, and most of them were free!!!

 

My thoughts on DLC are mixed, some are great and add extra gameplay later on once the game has been released such as fallout 3. However some games take the piss... like when dlc is just a unlock code for something already pre-built in the disc!

[The Mad Monkey]

I was playing Rock Band 3 today and was reminded of this thread.

In theory the Rock Band games are great for DLC, although I think the tracks are a little pricey. But in reality they take the piss, why the hell should I have to buy certain songs to complete the game on the disk, that is just wrong.

[Shorty]

On a similar note I dislike content that's cynically held back. To give a recent example, you have to purchase the black dye in Fable 3 separately. Black! It's hardly a fancy or non-standard shade, but they know people are going to want to use it so they bundled it up as an extra to squeeze a few more pennies out of people.

Am I understanding right? I have to pay real life monies for "Black" dye in Fable III? What was easily both the coolest and yet easiest to find dye in Fable II?

 

That's probably the best example of daylight robbery in this thread.

[Cube]

Shame they didn't release that flying DLC as well. Just for the Hell of it.

 

It would have been awesome. However, the way that the game streams the map meant that there would have been colossal LoD problems. They didn't have time to create a new streaming method.

 

Still, the DLC they did give was awesome. The bikes is one of the better examples of DLC: experimentation. Developers can experiment with new things without risking a full game based on it.

 

DLC is great when it lets you do something different to the main game. The Borderlands DLC is great and each one feels different to the main game, same with Falllout 3.

 

I do not, however, like map packs and I won't buy any. A few extra maps aren't going to make me play an online game more - if I feel like Call of Duty, then I'll play Call of Duty. Simple as that.

 

The very worst is, as by someone else, content that was obviously already on the disk. I believe the Katamari game on 360 was pretty bad with that.

 

Oh, and I instantly dislike any DLC mentioned before a game's release.

[Arnieboy]

The main problem with DLC is that it makes developers lazy or IT can mean that they release a game that's not finished early and update it.

This is the main reason DLC is bad and why games such as Fallout: New Vegas and Gran Turismo 5 take the piss a bit by saying 'it'll get better with future updates.'

 

I expect updates when i'm playing a pc game, but a console game for me was

- buy the game, whack it in the console, play it - and everything is there for me to enjoy.

 

DLC obviously isn't all bad, as games like Rock Band make it so that if your favourite song isn't there, download it. Map packs for shooters really do take the biscuit with the 'high for the content' prices though.

 

I also hate DLC which means you skip hours of play, like that DLC for Bad Company 2 which means you unlock all of the guns...come on.

 

 

At least it is optional for the most part. I really just hope they leave RPGs (meaning mainly jrpgs) out of it though, i know extra missions and story can provide more hours of gameplay but for games of that scope and size it could potentially ruin the experience and the story which would be better suited to a whole new sequel.