DLC

PaddyBomb

How come every game is coming out with DLC about 2 weeks after the game is released. It's starting to really worry me about how games are going. So we buy the "full" game, brand new for lets say 50 euro then a few days later we can buy a few extra maps/characters for a tenner. Why arent they just in the game from the start?

I know it's "additional" and it's your own choice if you want to purchase it or not but I just feel the developers are keeping some stuff back just so they can make an extra bit of money a few weeks later.

Look at CoD:WaW and KZ2. They've had 3 map packs each all for a tenner (Correct me if I'm wrong?). So if you baught the game and all DLC, you've spent 80euro on 1 game basically. :eek:

Does anyone else think this is getting out of hand?

Retr0gamer

It's just another way of abusing the customer. In some games entire levels are left out of the main game or developed in tandem with the game with the purposes of releasing it as DLC. I really don't mind paying extra for an expansion pack sized amount of content but stuff like extra characters and costumes is silly. There very worst of it is the DLC that unlocks code that is already on the disc such as the extra costumes in SFIV, which were also already in the arcade version. This kind of stuff used to be unlocked for free in older games.

Captain Chaos

Then you have Fallout 3, good thing I got for €40 on release day in Tescos. It has 5 expansion packs each at €10. They all cost more than the game, depending how much you got ripped off by not shopping around. But seeing as its Fallout and I really liked it, I don't mind paying for extra content.

The DLC for Res 5 was the worst, the thing is already on the disc and now way am I paying for an unlock code.

BUt some game developers are taking the piss with DLC, back in the day of the SNES, you got quality games and kept you going far longer than todays with their shiny graphics and physics that allows all games to become more shallow than those of the past generations. But then again, no one is forcing you to buy this stuff.

Penn

I think I read a few weeks ago that when the new Tiger Woods game was released, €20 worth of DLC was already available on the PS Store the day before it came out.

As someone already said, no one is forcing you to buy it though. Most DLC is nothing special, extra costumes or whatever. So just research the DLC first so you don't waste money on something which doesn't really change the original game

nedd

I dont mind how many DLC packs they have as long as they dont start scrimping on the original game. Like Fallout was a massive game on its own, with lots of replay value. The DLC just added to it.

Also COD WaW has the same number of levels as all the other COD games but the DLC just adds more.

In my opinion DLC adds to a game, but it is an expensive way to get addition gameplay.

Mossy Monk

The DLC for Wipeout HD is great. The DLC available for Little Big Planet on the other hand is mostly bollocks.

RangeR

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I think I read a few weeks ago that when the new Tiger Woods game was released, €20 worth of DLC was already available on the PS Store the day before it came out.

As someone already said, no one is forcing you to buy it though. Most DLC is nothing special, extra costumes or whatever. So just research the DLC first so you don't waste money on something which doesn't really change the original game

I think thew point is... This "DLC" should be part of the base game. You are purchasing these games at top dollar. DLC released days or weeks after the game is stuff I'd expect to be included with the game.

I don't think anyone could argue that the customer is getting fleeced. I know YOU can argue that people don't have to purchase the DLC but the fact of the matter is, a few years ago, before DLC, this stuff would have come with the game.

I won't purchase a game, on principal, that has "paid for DLC" within a month after launch. And no, I have VERY few games that I purchase on day one.

GT5 and MGS4 [don't get me started] being the exceptions.

Penn

RangeR wrote: »

I think thew point is... This "DLC" should be part of the base game. You are purchasing these games at top dollar. DLC released days or weeks after the game is stuff I'd expect to be included with the game.

I don't think anyone could argue that the customer is getting fleeced. I know YOU can argue that people don't have to purchase the DLC but the fact of the matter is, a few years ago, before DLC, this stuff would have come with the game.

Oh, I agree completely. It shows a lack of respect to the consumer to expect them to spend €20 on DLC when the original game is only out. But the point is, the companies are there to make money. And a lot of people do purchase DLC straight away. People will always want something to make them stand out above most. Its part of the culture of "Look, I have a new costume that you don't have n00b".

Little Big Planets DLC is awful. Every week you go onto the PS Store and see about 5 new costumes for Sackboy, probably about a euro each. With the amount of them thats been released, anyone who has bought more than 5 of them should let someone else handle their finances from now on.

In my opinion, the worst thing about so much DLC is that there's rarely anything to actually unlock in games anymore. Or even if there is something to unlock, its probably released as DLC anyway, so whats the point?

amacachi

Wasn't there some extra stuff released for PGR4 for free? New modes, few extra arcade chapters, more achievements etc. If a company did that once in a while I'd probably be more likely to download their pay-for DLC as well.

Some of the DLC is a joke, especially on lesser-played titles where ya download an extra mappack (or in the case of Forza 2 track) and there's no-one to use it with.

RangeR

Burnout Paradise sets the benchmark for DLC on PS3, in my opinion. For sooooooooooo long, they released update after update after update for free.

Paid for DLC, as far as I'm concerned, is to give extra functionality [extra maps, extra game modes, NOT extra costumes or even trophy support] to your game.

If you can pay extra for getting extra functionality at launch date, that's just robbery.

UNLESS, If you release €20 of DLC on launch day [as in Tiger Woods], then sell the game for €20 less than normal. Therefore, I feel, customers are NOT getting fleeced. Yeah, we know this isn't going to happen.

AnCapaillMor

TW10 has brought it to a new level in my opinion. There's unlocks(clubs\clothes\etc) that you can unlock via playing the game challenges or you screw the challenges and buy them off the PSN.

Snakeblood

RangeR wrote: »

I think thew point is... This "DLC" should be part of the base game. You are purchasing these games at top dollar. DLC released days or weeks after the game is stuff I'd expect to be included with the game.

I don't think anyone could argue that the customer is getting fleeced. I know YOU can argue that people don't have to purchase the DLC but the fact of the matter is, a few years ago, before DLC, this stuff would have come with the game.

I won't purchase a game, on principal, that has "paid for DLC" within a month after launch. And no, I have VERY few games that I purchase on day one.

GT5 and MGS4 [don't get me started] being the exceptions.

This sort of stuff, released months after on PC was free as well, to promote the long tail idea. DLC is a boning exercise.

noodler

I made a topic about this a few months ago and completely agree.

I have aonly purchased a few DLCs, MGO stuff I found to be a bit of a rip. You get new maps but It seems to be extremely difficult to get the 'new' maps to show up when you join a game or automatch (the two fastest methods of getting into a game quicksmart). Konami also lock you out of some tournaments etc if you aren't up to date.

The Valkyria Chronicles comes in 3 packs each costing 4e. Excellent value. Plus you can pretty much see how this material is extra and not something that was held back from the release.

I loved Fallout 3, my GOTY, but releasing 5 expansions at 10e (I wanna say 10e but I bet it'll be closer to 15e) each is taking the piss for me. All 5 expansions together can't possibly be bigger than the original game yet will end up costing more than it? How does that work? They were also already working from an existing engine as well.

I hope theres some sort of regulation on this soon but I doubt it.

Retr0gamer

I don't mind the Fallout 3 DLC because it is really well produced with high production values and really adds to the game. For the price of 2 pints you get 6-8 hours of extra content, and very good content at that. It's far better than some of the other stuff you see going for the same price.

noodler

I thought Anchorage was slated for having only 3 hours of gametime?

Its all relative of course but it is difficult not to look at the time it must have taken them to make versus what is being charged.

The other big problem is that we will never have any competition online and PSN prices rarely come down.

Snakeblood

noodler wrote: »

I made a topic about this a few months ago and completely agree.

I have aonly purchased a few DLCs, MGO stuff I found to be a bit of a rip. You get new maps but It seems to be extremely difficult to get the 'new' maps to show up when you join a game or automatch (the two fastest methods of getting into a game quicksmart). Konami also lock you out of some tournaments etc if you aren't up to date.

The Valkyria Chronicles comes in 3 packs each costing 4e. Excellent value. Plus you can pretty much see how this material is extra and not something that was held back from the release.

I loved Fallout 3, my GOTY, but releasing 5 expansions at 10e (I wanna say 10e but I bet it'll be closer to 15e) each is taking the piss for me. All 5 expansions together can't possibly be bigger than the original game yet will end up costing more than it? How does that work? They were also already working from an existing engine as well.

I hope theres some sort of regulation on this soon but I doubt it.

THey're individually cheaper than the game.

I suppose it depends. I was thinking of the Little Big Planet stuff, or the Horse armour, stuff that nickel and dimes you. I think Fallout 3 was 'enough game' to justify the price, and I think they put enough effort into the DLC to make it worth paying for.

resident Evil is another thing where I feel it's obvious they held back Versus so they could further monetize the game.

Edit: I think some DLC falls into a suitably grey area, where it's up to the individual to decide whether they want to pay for it. The thing that GRINDS my GEARS is when you pay a fiver for 104k of content that is OBVIOUSLY ON THE SODDING DISC IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT'S UNLOCKING SOMETHING THAT WAS ON THE DISK. CHRIST.

eddhorse

I agree, all the DLC should be free game updates !
Especially the Resident Evil Versus mode, that should have been a gimme !

The thing that GRINDS my GEARS is when you pay a fiver for 104k of content that is OBVIOUSLY ON THE SODDING DISC IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT'S UNLOCKING SOMETHING THAT WAS ON THE DISK. CHRIST.

Snakeblood , I probably wouldn't have even noticed that until you said it.
That is nasty and also gets my gears grinding !

Penn

Snakeblood wrote: »

The thing that GRINDS my GEARS is when you pay a fiver for 104k of content that is OBVIOUSLY ON THE SODDING DISC IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT'S UNLOCKING SOMETHING THAT WAS ON THE DISK. CHRIST.

Agreed. There should be the option of having to do something difficult in the game to unlock something, or you can pay to unlock it straight away.

Retr0gamer

Operation Anchorage took me 6 hours but then I kind of go slowly through F3. The big problem with Anchorage is that it's linear and more combat focused and just wasn't as much fun as the main game unlike point outlook, broken steel and the pitt which were way better. I still thought it was worth it because it was still fun and the weapons you got were great although the other DLC is way better.

noodler

Fair enough Retro. I haven't played the expansions yet.

Theres two ways of looking at it:

1 - On its own merits i.e. : surely 10-15e on something that lasts you 6 hours (++with the non-Anchorage expansions I believe).

2 - On the fact its basically the same game with a few different skins: This is probably very harsh but coming from the school of thought that the F3 engine is already done so adding a few new areas (maybe slightly less greyish-grey) and guns wasn't such a big deal. Also that the combined cost of 5 DLCs will be (far more in my case) expensive than the main game but with less play time?

Anyway, I can feel myself being overly-critical here. The F3 DLC is defo the type of content we want to see more of.

Penn

noodler wrote: »

Fair enough Retro. I haven't played the expansions yet.

Theres two ways of looking at it:

1 - On its own merits i.e. : surely 10-15e on something that lasts you 6 hours (++with the non-Anchorage expansions I believe).

2 - On the fact its basically the same game with a few different skins: This is probably very harsh but coming from the school of thought that the F3 engine is already done so adding a few new areas (maybe slightly less greyish-grey) and guns wasn't such a big deal. Also that the combined cost of 5 DLCs will be (far more in my case) expensive than the main game but with less play time?

Anyway, I can feel myself being overly-critical here. The F3 DLC is defo the type of content we want to see more of.

The thing is though, 6+ hours for €50-€60 is still more than you get for some whole games. At least with F3, the main game is substanial in itself, and doesn't require you to purchase DLC to make the game worthwhile. In this case, the DLC is like a bonus. With some other games, it feels like a requirement