How do you feel about DLC?

ancapailldorcha

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

We would be better off without it IMO.

I don't know about that. It can be an excellent way for developers to try out new concepts without creating a new game from scratch. Look at Blood Dragon. Ubisoft used the Far Cry 3 engine to take a chance with a reduced level of risk compared to that the gamble of spending years creating a new game.

Sonics2k

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

We would be better off without it IMO.

Why though?

A DLC is nothing more than an expansion pack, and they were commonly accepted by the gaming community.

Obviously quite a few were trash, but quite a lot were great too.

Pushtrak

Sonics2k wrote: »

Why though?

At a guess, a mistaken assumption that what they release as DLC would be included in the game.

Chris_Heilong

Well maybe free DLC is ok, but we got on well for many years without it.

Pushtrak

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Well maybe free DLC is ok, but we got on well for many years without it.

Developers/publishers don't work pro bono. They do a job, and they get paid. By us.

sarumite

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Well maybe free DLC is ok, but we got on well for many years without it.

We got on well for many years without online MP also. If you don't want DLC, don't buy it.

thegame983

Really looking forward to the XCOM DLC

nacho66

All depends on what DLC is. If it's a big expansion, with enough amount of new content and at least around 30% of the base game length, why not? If it's skins, guns etc... yeah, that's useless and waste of money.

I don't think the big problem is with the DLCs as a product released months after the game release, to extend the experience. The problem is with first day DLCs or season passes - anything that is a marketing move made to squeeze more money as close to the release date as possible (or even before, when considering pre-orders) rather than a genuine game expansion. I especially point at pre-ordering practices where people throw themselves at a new product, long before any press reviews or demos or even other gamers opinions, only because there's a DLC or some older game thrown into the package (which usually doesn't even make a great cash deal if you know other online digital key shops than Steam)

C14N

I'm not a fan of DLC, especially when you have something like Assassin's Creed that omits missions from the story that you can later fill in with DLC. I feel like it just messes up the overall package a little bit because either it takes away a portion of the original story from the game or you're adding in more story at the end that sort of exists in a weird state between canon and non-canon.

Someone mentioned that expansion packs have been around but I always felt like those really did a lot to upgrade the game. Really the only games I think I've played with expansions were the Sims and Civilization (neither of which are story-driven) and in both cases, the expansion packs added in whole new modes or changed how you play the game which I think most DLC doesn't do.

The absolute worst kind of DLC that I completely despise is the kind that I've been seeing a good bit lately where it's something like €1.00 for an in-game gun or character outfit or whatever and there are 200 different versions of this to choose from for the game. That just seems like ridiculous penny-pinching that looks bad for the game in general because it doesn't improve the game in any way.

Blood Dragon could have been done as its own game that could be made cheaply on the tail end of Far Cry 3.

I think it works best in non-story based things like extra maps for shooters or something like that. I just think they need to be sold at reasonable prices and kept limited to a reasonable number of additional content so that most people can easily be on the same page. Like the aforementioned Civ and Sims, sometimes people invest a lot of time an effort into their games and they don't want to jump to a new installment every year or two and lose everything they've done so an expansion pack (on disc or DLC) can help to keep the game interesting without sending them back to the start or forcing them to learn completely new rules and playstyles. There's no reason COD or FIFA couldn't do this for years to keep themselves going apart from the obvious financial incentive.

One thing that I never understood is the massive backlash over day one DLC though, doesn't bother me any more than any other kind of DLC.

But overall I prefer my single-player games to be a complete package when I buy it instead of having more disproportionately priced add-ons to lengthen the game.

Chris_Heilong

nacho66 wrote: »

All depends on what DLC is. If it's a big expansion, with enough amount of new content and at least around 30% of the base game length, why not? If it's skins, guns etc... yeah, that's useless and waste of money.

I don't think the big problem is with the DLCs as a product released months after the game release, to extend the experience. The problem is with first day DLCs or season passes - anything that is a marketing move made to squeeze more money as close to the release date as possible (or even before, when considering pre-orders) rather than a genuine game expansion. I especially point at pre-ordering practices where people throw themselves at a new product, long before any press reviews or demos or even other gamers opinions, only because there's a DLC or some older game thrown into the package (which usually doesn't even make a great cash deal if you know other online digital key shops than Steam)

I didnt want to get into any argument with those that disagree with my opinion but you have hit the nail on the head and said exactly my feelings on it. Half the time its not 'Extra' content that the designers slaved over so little johnny could get a bigger gun for 5 dollers, but instead is a part of a much bigger plan just to squeeze money from people. If its legitimate DLC that the design team where thinking up well after games release that extends that games life then I am all for that but lets face it, the art of making games is all about the money these days.

Tweej

Immediate DLC, eg, PVZ2, is annoying.

Added on things, eg, New Super Luigi Bros U, which is a new game, a-okay

nacho66

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I didnt want to get into any argument with those that disagree with my opinion but you have hit the nail on the head and said exactly my feelings on it. Half the time its not 'Extra' content that the designers slaved over so little johnny could get a bigger gun for 5 dollers, but instead is a part of a much bigger plan just to squeeze money from people. If its legitimate DLC that the design team where thinking up well after games release that extends that games life then I am all for that but lets face it, the art of making games is all about the money these days.

There are problems however with this 'extra' content occasionally. Best example I think is Mass Effect. All story based DLCs were great but it didn't feel ok that they asked for money for content that should have been an integral part of the base game. Lair of the shadow broker, ME2 DLC, told a story that actually affected the beginning of ME3! So if you didn't play that DLC (in other words, if you didn't spend more money on ME2) you lost part of the plot and could get quite confused watching first scenes in ME3. That's not right at all! Same goes for ME3 DLC Leviathan, which explains where Reapers came from. Should be in the base game.

What makes it worse is that DLC to Bioware games (DA, ME) can be only purchased on their website, using bioware points. If you add up all points required to get all story based DLCs, you pay more now than you did for the game itself on the release date. And they don't run any sales

Jim

nacho66 wrote: »

There are problems however with this 'extra' content occasionally. Best example I think is Mass Effect. All story based DLCs were great but it didn't feel ok that they asked for money for content that should have been an integral part of the base game. Lair of the shadow broker, ME2 DLC, told a story that actually affected the beginning of ME3! So if you didn't play that DLC (in other words, if you didn't spend more money on ME2) you lost part of the plot and could get quite confused watching first scenes in ME3. That's not right at all! Same goes for ME3 DLC Leviathan, which explains where Reapers came from. Should be in the base game.

What makes it worse is that DLC to Bioware games (DA, ME) can be only purchased on their website, using bioware points. If you add up all points required to get all story based DLCs, you pay more now than you did for the game itself on the release date. And they don't run any sales

See my post above.

Jim wrote: »

In general I think the hate for DLC (especially Day One) is a perception issue. Most people think the studio decided to make 100% of the game, then lobbed off 15% of it and sell it separately. That's not really how it works. A studio will organise the scope of the game, the development timeline, the amount of staff it will take and the budget. So 100% of the game will take X staff Y amount of time to make.

Then they propose they make extra 15% of the game and say we now need X amount of extra staff to make the 15% extra. So a separate team is hired to produce the DLC, the cost of this team is justified by the money made from the DLC. If that content isn't sold as DLC then it wouldn't exist as it didn't fit into the scope of the original game. I imagine in the case of ME3's day one DLC the team making it probably proposed "This DLC is actually going to be super awesome, as instead of making it a separate experience like most DLC we are actually putting it lots of effort by weaving into the main story!" At the time it probably seemed like an awesome idea and something which would make players happy, but obviously people didn't see it like that.

In most cases the content wasn't considered in the original scope or budget of the main game. A different team creates this content and they need to get paid as well.

thegame983

The Jimquizition on destructiod.com does a good video this week about DLC.

They basically try and sell 'cheat codes' as DLC now. What ever happened to Up, Down, Left, Right, A,B,C, start?

madness98

I am for DLC as a means of expanding gameplay during or even after the main story is complete. If developers are willing to put in the time and effort to craft an enjoyable extra couple of hours gaming then im more than happy to pay for that.

What I do have an issue with is as described by the poster quoted below:

thegame983 wrote: »

The Jimquizition on destructiod.com does a good video this week about DLC.

They basically try and sell 'cheat codes' as DLC now. What ever happened to Up, Down, Left, Right, A,B,C, start?

So much DLC now is re-skinned models or an extra wepaon or an extra character. Stuff like this used to be unlockable and would provide a nice little extra incentive to invest more time in the game. Now, you have to pay for them.

titan18

Some I'm fine with. You look at GTA 4's DLC, and imo, they were more fun than the actual game. The Walking Dead: 400 Days is another. I don't really think it was needed but as a stop gap to season 2, it was nice. Then you have some games that kind of need it as the game would take forever to be released without it, Paradox's game like Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis etc. The DLC (main ones, not all the character packs they do just to add graphic stuff) helps to put extra into the game, and imo is needed.

Then you have DLC that are basically just what used to be unlocked for doing things in a game, or worse DLC that is present in the game but you have to pay to play it. In Dragon Age: Origins, there was DLC that was present in the game, but were only told it was DLC after talking to the quest starter and going through a few minutes of dialogue only to be told you had to pay to do the quest.

C14N

titan18 wrote: »

Some I'm fine with. You look at GTA 4's DLC, and imo, they were more fun than the actual game. The Walking Dead: 400 Days is another. I don't really think it was needed but as a stop gap to season 2, it was nice. Then you have some games that kind of need it as the game would take forever to be released without it, Paradox's game like Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis etc. The DLC (main ones, not all the character packs they do just to add graphic stuff) helps to put extra into the game, and imo is needed.

GTA4 and The Walking Dead's added content could scarcely be called "DLC" imo. The Ballad of Gay Tony and The Lost and The Damned were completely separate games on a functional level, they didn't even require the original game. They sort of acted more as a smaller sequel to the main GTA4 story. The fact that they clearly tied in with the original plot (you meet Niko and other GTA4 characters at various points) also made it seem less like added content and more like a separate game that was planned well.

With the Walking Dead, the entire thing could sort of be considered DLC. Each episode is released one after the other and is only an hour or two long. 400 Days was just an extra episode to bridge the two seasons.

One specific example that occurred to me as being particularly annoying was in Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale. I liked at first how they gave you two additional characters (Kat and Isaac) for free which seemed like a good way to keep people playing that really didn't cost Sony very much money to make but then they went and took these character away. You have to cough up a few Euro to access content that you already thought you had and there was no indication given at all of "try these out for a month" or "x days left with these characters". The fact that they still show up on the character selection screen (along with a stage you have to pay for showing up on the stage selection screen) is really a dick move too imo.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Anyone remember "expansion packs"?

i remember paying 10 pounds in a bricks and mortar game shop for half assed extra levels for the likes of Command and conquer and quake.

ah, the good old days, I remember when all this was fields....

ScumLord

C14N wrote: »

GTA4 and The Walking Dead's added content could scarcely be called "DLC" imo. The Ballad of Gay Tony and The Lost and The Damned were completely separate games on a functional level, they didn't even require the original game. They sort of acted more as a smaller sequel to the main GTA4 story. The fact that they clearly tied in with the original plot (you meet Niko and other GTA4 characters at various points) also made it seem less like added content and more like a separate game that was planned well.

I really wish GTA would take more advantage of the cities they build by releasing more content like that but I guess GTA online has that covered this time around.

C14N

ScumLord wrote: »

I really wish GTA would take more advantage of the cities they build by releasing more content like that but I guess GTA online has that covered this time around.

It could actually be a good idea in the likes of open-world games where the devs have to create a massive environment anyway. You could easily have a few different games in the same space but with different characters or even types of gameplay.

Richard Dower

la noire had some decent dlc. added lots pf sxtra cases. assassins creed has alot of dlc too.

sniper elite had new single player missions, one where you put a bullet through hitler!