Thoughts on DLC?

[Aimless]

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.

You're understanding perfectly.

 

Now the dye pack only costs 80MSP — around 70p in real money — but its relative cost isn't really the point.

[Eddage]

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.

 

What songs do you have to buy to complete the game on the disk though?

[Charlie]

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 think that is also outrageous. If it requires you to get DLC to play online, that is fine, but the DLC needs to be free. Halo had it right, you could pay to get the DLC and you can play it in certain playlists and after a while it spread into more playlists where you get matched with other people who have it.

 

When Bungie required everyone to have it to play online it became free.

[Ganepark32]

What songs do you have to buy to complete the game on the disk though?

 

Exactly the point I was going to pick up on. From what I remember, you don't have to have any DLC to complete the game in the story/career mode. Any random setlists simply choose soongs already in the game and ones where you get to choose the setlist allow you to use DLC but don't force you to download anything specific to complete.

 

Anyway, I think others have already said how I feel about DLC. Under the right circumstances, it's great as it can be used to add substantial additions to a game (see the Fallout 3 stuff or the major Mass Effect 2 DLC packs like Overlord, Lair of the Shadow Broker). However, what I don't feel developers should do is simply use it to charge people for things such as weapons or items which should be, and in many cases are, already in the game (Fable III, I'm looking at you although there are many games which have done this).

 

I'm more than happy to pay for DLC like the big stuff for Fallout 3 or ME2 or any other game where it adds some longevity to the game but weapon or item packs are a no. Map packs, well I downloaded all of the Halo 3 one and I didn't mind as they were reasonably priced (unlike the CoD ones which are a damn disgrace price wise) and I put A LOT of time into the online in that game. If I see myself continuing to play the game for months ahead (or years in the case of Halo 3 and Mass Effect as I'll play the online a lot and play through them multiple times respectively), then I'll invest in the DLC for it so long as it's reasonably priced. I've already paid £40 for the game and in some cases, I shouldn't have to pay another £12 or so on top of that for map packs. EA got it right with Battlefield: Bad Company 2 with the free map packs so long as you bought the game new.

[nightwolf]

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.

 

This is exactly the example I was going to use against why DLC shouldn't really exist, for me I found it gives companies an excuse to be lazy and rip you off.

 

On the other hand, some DLC for example red dead, left 4 dead are very good DLC's and worth the pennies.

 

So I guess - it entirely depends on the content, I'm all for extra game time, cool gifts you wouldn't find otherwise, but things like dye packs? No lionhead, no!

[The Mad Monkey]

What songs do you have to buy to complete the game on the disk though?

 

Don't know, but I am positive on Rock Band 3 at least that parts require you to download some tracks, I didn't bother checking which as I have no intention of buying them.

 

And speaking of DLC the RDR Undead Nightmare pack is only 600 MS points today as part of some 12 days of savings thing they're doing. Bargain at that price.

[Eddage]

Don't know, but I am positive on Rock Band 3 at least that parts require you to download some tracks, I didn't bother checking which as I have no intention of buying them.

 

And speaking of DLC the RDR Undead Nightmare pack is only 600 MS points today as part of some 12 days of savings thing they're doing. Bargain at that price.

 

I think what you're referring to there is the extra 250 points that can be earned by completing certain download challenges (e.g. play 4 songs by a band Dave Grohl has been a part of). If that's the case then it's just like every other piece of DLC that has achievements and isn't included in the normal 1000GS. Rock Band 3 comes with 1250GS, the extra 250 are the DLC ones.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I used to download maps and mods for AvP2 on the PC years back, and that was brilliant. It was free, fan-made, and it was clear that it was just an "extra." You didn't need to download this stuff to play the regular game online.

 

I think the idea of downloading patches to fix things that shouldn't even be present in a finished and polished game is ridiculous. If we begin to accept this as the norm, then it'll just lead to games being released half finished with the mindset that "It's ok, we can patch it later." Where will this end?

 

I do think that it can prolong the lifespan of games, though. It certainly prolonged the lifespan for Avp2, as fans were creating mods and maps and character re-skins for that for years after its release. I like that. That kind of DLC should be encouraged.

[Aimless]

On the other hand, a quick Google reveals that AvP2 had three post-release patches. Would you prefer they hadn't made them?

 

Updates are something of a requirement these days. Not necessarily because publishers are putting out games that aren't ready — although there's certainly been some cases of that — more because games are far more complex these days, especially if they involve some sort of online element. Even the mighty Nintendo have released several Wii games with game breaking bugs and I don't think it's down to a reduction in thoroughness.

 

Updates are a double edged sword for sure, but ultimately I think they do far more good than harm. As consumers it's our job to let companies know when they're erring towards the latter.

[Goafer]

 

That is all.

[The Mad Monkey]

I think what you're referring to there is the extra 250 points that can be earned by completing certain download challenges (e.g. play 4 songs by a band Dave Grohl has been a part of). If that's the case then it's just like every other piece of DLC that has achievements and isn't included in the normal 1000GS. Rock Band 3 comes with 1250GS, the extra 250 are the DLC ones.

 

I'm sure it's not just achievements, I'm positive I've selected a challenge and then been told I need DLC to do it.

[Eddage]

I'm sure it's not just achievements, I'm positive I've selected a challenge and then been told I need DLC to do it.

 

Are you sure it wasn't one of those "suggested" play list things. Rock Band 3 suggests songs that you may like based on (I presume) previous songs you've downloaded. I think it then creates challenges based on these suggestions.

 

It's like in Rock Band 2 if you downloaded a song pack it would then usually have a challenge based on it, I think 3 is just suggesting them to you before you actually download the song.

[The Mad Monkey]

Are you sure it wasn't one of those "suggested" play list things. Rock Band 3 suggests songs that you may like based on (I presume) previous songs you've downloaded. I think it then creates challenges based on these suggestions.

 

It's like in Rock Band 2 if you downloaded a song pack it would then usually have a challenge based on it, I think 3 is just suggesting them to you before you actually download the song.

 

I'd have to go and check, I'll have a look tomorrow.

[Shorty]

I'm sure it's not just achievements, I'm positive I've selected a challenge and then been told I need DLC to do it.

Have you changed Xbox? It might be that you have tried to start a challenge which selected some of your previously owned DLC, but you haven't transferred all your licenses.

[James McGeachie]

It's fine whenever it doesn't feel like it should've been in the original game in the first place, as in when it's worth the extra money and doesn't feel like something you should have already paid for basically.

[Dog-amoto]

I know technically it's not DLC, but one of the best ones I've seen is Dead Rising Case Zero. A glorified demo which costs 400 points, offering about 3 hours of gameplay and achievements, and allows you to get a feel of what the game is like should be done more often.

 

Obviously it wouldn't work for all games, but a sequel in a popular series would work fine. I'd pay to play a small prequel to Gears 3 or Portal 2 for example

[Jimbob]

DLC to me should be worth the points it is priced at. Fable III is a game where some of the DLC is not worth it, because i believe some of it was ripped from the game and sold to us at extra cost. Dye pack anyone, 80 points. Yes it is cheap, but they should have been in-game. 260 points for 1 costume is a rip as well.

 

But on the flip side, i have downloaded some excellent DLC. GTA IV expansion packs (Lost and Damned and Ballard of Gay Tony) were well worth the points, gave me 15 hours of extra gaming per-pack and had their own multi-player modes. Red Dead Redemption had some great DLC as well, especially the free-roam add-on pack. Oblivion has good stuff as well

[Fierce_LiNk]

On the other hand, a quick Google reveals that AvP2 had three post-release patches. Would you prefer they hadn't made them?

 

Updates are something of a requirement these days. Not necessarily because publishers are putting out games that aren't ready — although there's certainly been some cases of that — more because games are far more complex these days, especially if they involve some sort of online element. Even the mighty Nintendo have released several Wii games with game breaking bugs and I don't think it's down to a reduction in thoroughness.

 

Updates are a double edged sword for sure, but ultimately I think they do far more good than harm. As consumers it's our job to let companies know when they're erring towards the latter.

 

I don't know. I received a later version of AvP2, years after it was released. From what I remember, I didn't have to download any patches to play the main game, but I can't honestly remember about the online component.

 

I understand that there may be some instances where a patch will be needed for something. Maybe because something was overlooked. But, there is a difference between that and...taking the piss. I want to be able to buy a game, take it home, and play through the thing without a hitch, enjoying every second. That should be the ultimate goal. If there are flaws and errors and bugs that require patches, then should such a thing be released in the first place? I understand that there's deadlines and schedules to comply with, but...there has to be a line somewhere.

 

Saying that, I can safely say that I haven't got too much of a problem with the games that I've played. What I will say however is that I am a fan of this fan-made content, such as the creation of maps and mods for games. That is definitely something that should be encouraged. I think this is a lot harder to achieve on home consoles, though?

[Shorty]

I understand that there may be some instances where a patch will be needed for something. Maybe because something was overlooked. But, there is a difference between that and...taking the piss. I want to be able to buy a game, take it home, and play through the thing without a hitch, enjoying every second. That should be the ultimate goal. If there are flaws and errors and bugs that require patches, then should such a thing be released in the first place? I understand that there's deadlines and schedules to comply with, but...there has to be a line somewhere.

 

They shouldn't be released, but it happens. And not just because they know they can fix it later (see: Fallout New Vegas) but even when the console is not equipped to handle the repairs required (see: Metroid Other M).

 

DLC is big business. People will keep buying it, so you'd be making poor business choices not to jump on that bandwagon. On the other hand there has to be a line drawn between what should've been in the game, and what has been held back for extra money, like Fable III's dye packs.

 

But either way, I think all consoles should be equipped with the ability to update games, and that's a big part of where the Wii fell behind this generation. My favourite DLCs have been those on Borderlands, which was built way after the release of an entirely complete game and added many reasons to return to a great title. Similar can be said of Mass Effect 2, GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption.

 

Not sure I have a solid point here, but I think DLC is good, if created with a little moral integrity.

[The Mad Monkey]

What I will say however is that I am a fan of this fan-made content, such as the creation of maps and mods for games. That is definitely something that should be encouraged. I think this is a lot harder to achieve on home consoles, though?

 

Timesplitters3 and the console Farcry did it well enough.