I hate paying for DLC, and you should too
- Posted July 24th, 2012 at 13:45 EDT by PSU Community
- 19 Comments
[Editor's note: The opinions expressed in this article reflect that of the author, not PSU.com as a whole]
Each new generation of videogame hardware invariably brings with it numerous changes in the way we consume content. This latest cycle is no exception, with the most noticeable change being downloadable content. Extra maps, episodes, and even online components take the shape and form of DLC for many games this generation, and chances are many of you have already jumped on the bandwagon.
For example, numerous RPG fans purchased Final Fantasy XIII-2 this year and those who liked the Square Enix title probably finished it. Did they REALLY complete the game though? Not quite, as there’s more to it, thanks to the addition of DLC. Even after the credits roll, there are episodes the player can acquire online featuring the characters Sazh and Lightning. Yes, there’s more Final Fantasy XIII-2 to play! Yay! However, the bad news is you have to dish out more dough to get it. It’s situations like this that make me absolutely loathe this gen’s concept of DLC and YOU should hate it too. Let me tell you why.
What’s the problem with putting EVERYTHING in the game from day one? All of it, costumes, episodes, and secret bosses should be there. Final Fantasy VII for example had all the weapons, materia, and bosses on those 3 discs. Yes it was three discs, but the PS1 classic was fully there. Final Fantasy X on the PS2 also featured everything out of the box, including extra aeons and side quests. The PS1 and PS2 generations did fine without the addition of DLC, so what’s so special about this cycle? Yes, developers do typically release update versions of their games featuring all DLC (Game of the Year Edition, etc.) but why not put it all on there in the first release? Why do gamers who want it all have to shell out another $60 or wait on the re-release?
To add DLC, you have to pay for it. That’s right, you just spent $60 on a new game and now you must give up more of that precious green paper if you’re to squeeze more out your purchase. Yes, DLC is optional, but why should you have to buy it? DLC, if there is really a need for it, should be 100% free! It’s part of the game you purchased for crying out loud! I actually believe DLC should be done away with, and that when Mr. Joe Average walks out of Walmart he doesn’t have to go online and buy more parts to Final Fantasy XIII-2. Instead, Joe will have all he wants and even the optional content in hand, even if it means more than one disc in the case.
I firmly believe DLC is bad for gamers; it feels as though the gaming industry is milking the customers of their cash. Milking is bad enough, but what’s worse is they are continuing to pursue this practice in the current economic climate.
I hate DLC. Do you?
Article by Shawnee Lee
Email
Related Content
Comments
-
GunTeng
- 1:52pm EDT - July 24th, 2012
- 1
DLC is great, IF it was regulated in a fair minded manner.
The problem is, its the publishers/developers that regulate their own DLC. Its all about how trustworthy they are, whether or not you are actually paying for new content, or whether you are being turned upsaide-down & shaken for the last penny for content that should have been there from day1.
Its all about who you trust to provide a real finished game, and add to it with new episodes after the fact.
-
Beasley2K
- 2:28pm EDT - July 24th, 2012
- 2
A great article, a little shorter than I'd have liked, as I expected it to put up both sides of the DLC argument; there are as many pros as there are cons! However, I do agree with his cons, and likewise, I agree with @1 - it needs to be regulated, and provided in moderation.
Batman Arkham City and Enslaved: Odyssey the West are good examples of this, providing extra episodes several months down the line that are completely separate to the main story of the game and are perfectly understandable to not be included on the disc (namely Harley Quinn's Revenge and Pigsy's Perfect 10 respectively).
Assassin's Creed II and Resident Evil 5, however, are examples of DLC being done badly, with Sequences 12 & 13 being omitted from the main game of the former, under the explanation of being 'corrupt', and expecting consumers to pay for it later on, when they could have quite easily included it on the disc as something you unlock after completion of the main story, or even as a reward from certain collectibles. Likewise, the latter, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't played it myself), actually left out the multiplayer component of the game, adding it on afterwards - which, from what I've heard, requires such a short download time that it was evidently present on the disc in the first place, and consumers were simply paying for this content to be 'unlocked'.
Yes, DLC can provide extra content, adding to the replayability and longevity of a game, but it can also scam consumers out of their money for something that should have been available on the disc day one. I agree, it's all about moderation, and DLC should be regulated in some way!
-
MacBandit
- 3:02pm EDT - July 24th, 2012
- 3
There is a time and place for everything and as such there is good DLC and bad DLC. The one rule I have is do not buy a game that ships incomplete and charges a full price. If the story requires DLC to be complete then it's just extortion. All other DLC is optional so there really is no complaint there. I don't need special costumes to enjoy a game. On the other hand I'm all for DLC like Arkham Asylum had. Add-on secondary stories are a great feature of this generation of games.
-
AdamMosh
- 3:11pm EDT - July 24th, 2012
- 4
another example of bad DLC is Lords Of Shadow, Konami sold us an incomplete game the real ending or the reason why LOS ended the way it did comes in the DLC even Konami accepts this was a mistake so why doesn't Konami give the DLC away? just see Uncharted 2 Naugthy Dog has given all DLC for free you see this is the difference between a bad publisher and a good one.
-
JackC |
jack1982cp- 4:30pm EDT - July 24th, 2012
- 5
I just buy what I like (which is extremely little) and ignore the rest. Very little of it is worth the money. But some of it is good and I'm happy I made the purchase. The Broken Steel DLC for Fallout 3 was excellent - I really wish I would have gotten the rest of the DLC packs instead of that crummy New Vegas game. And with the Shift games I felt as if the cars and tracks in the DLC, and the amount of time I spent with them, made it an excellent purchase. That's about it though. Games like Dragon Age Origins really give the stuff a bad name, that's for sure. And these season passes where you pay $50 for DLC that hasn't even been made yet, so obviously you've got no idea if it will be any good or not...lol. Whatever.
-
D3seeker
- 5:57pm EDT - July 24th, 2012
- 6
I'll pay. I just wisht they would handel DLC better. We should go as far as 'regulation' per se. And no more plande DLC before the dam title launces.Unless it physically wont fit on the disc/discs (within practicle meanes). And the practice of puting things on the disc you have to buy to unlock being considered DLC, absolute garbage.
-
plymyphil
- 7:05pm EDT - July 24th, 2012
- 7
Remember the days of Quake and even Doom on the PC? The tools for creating maps were included and free so the community made many excellent levels. Then came the PS3 and some shockingly priced DLC. I like DLC when I feel like I'm buying some game addition that gives the game a little more longevity. Call of Duty with your overpriced map packs...sit right down 'cos I ain't looking at you. LA Noir...not bad...worth the money and made a great game last a little longer. Red Dead Redemption...just perfect...some freebies and some paid but all extending an already great game.
-
AaronSOLDIER |
AaronSOLDIER- 9:01pm EDT - July 24th, 2012
- 8
I don't buy DLC so I'm not part of the problem.
-
-
-
-
-
hood
- 3:09am EDT - July 25th, 2012
- 13
Theres nothing wrong with DLC if its timed right obviously you cant continuously delay a game just to squeeze out every possible ounce of content possible. DLC is nothing new its always been on PC in forms of expansion packs and its pretty much standard in free to play games. If you dont like it dont buy it im sure people would like to see Dlc released for everyone free of charge but come on would you work for free?
-
plymyphil
- 3:26am EDT - July 25th, 2012
- 14
"If you dont like it dont buy it im sure people would like to see Dlc released for everyone free of charge but come on would you work for free?"
The point is that sometimes it looks as though the DLC existed when you bought the game but they hid it from view ready to allow you access when you pay a chunk more money. This feels out of order when you've just shelled out fifty quid for the game. Agree with the poster celebrating the Undead Nightmare DLC. Clearly not something deleted from the game at birth.
-
hood
- 3:58am EDT - July 25th, 2012
- 15
ok but this whole dlc business is the result of one thing the sheer lack of competition between two powerhouses in gaming microsoft and sony. What role do they play in this mess you may ask?
Sony releases a new gaming medium blu-ray which can hold 50gbs of data and can have several layers added to it to increase the capacity of the disk. Microsoft brings on HD-DVD the format war begins MS loses. So what does MS do in return demand that all multiplat games released on its console are on par or equal to its rival. This puts devs in a game of playing favorites do we say screw MS lets throw everything into Sony or do we kill two birds with one stone by releasing dlc on both consoles and charge so we can make money from both parties.
In the beginning of the console war many ps3 fanboys were laughing it up hahahahahhaha MS fanboys will be playing games on multiple discs while we will have everything on one. Well that hasnt been really happening at all once in a blue moon. This really jabbed a knife in the back of all who purchased a console with thoughts that one would clearly exceed the other. Bluray stored more but read slower and vice versa. So they try to mend that by allowing partial installs on ps3 people complained about that so they abandoned the idea of making large games and decided DLC was the way to go. Sony won the battle lost the war.
With internet speeds picking up as we go futher into technological advancements the idea of downloaded become more mainstream. Now we have 6-7 gb games on a 50 gb discs and tons of DLC. If competition between the big two were allowed to be competitive realistically the next generation 360 would be here already but this is not the case. Instead we are here with no real benefits of having a 360 over a PS3 or a PS3 over a 360. Ps3 exclusives thrump the 360 time and time again but multiplat wise things get pretty blurry. Was the ps3 worth shelling out more money for better exclusives or was paying for internet that you already have on the 360 the better buy.
So long as no company is allowed to compeletly out due the other DLC will be here. How will they continue to fuel this DLC BS. By providing the only thing fanboys can now gloat about exclusivity in DLC be it timed or permenant. Id advise most people to let your pockets do the talking dont buy exclusive dlc or timed dlc quite frankly dont buy dlc at all.
-
buffalothc
- 7:25am EDT - July 25th, 2012
- 16
DLC is great. I love being able to download additional stuff afterwards. However, microtransactions for DLC suck. Personally I don't mind waiting a year to grab a re-release with all the DLC included if it only costs $60. Otherwise screw it. I'm not paying the price of the full game for some extra maps as Activision expects you to do every year.
-
-
Petra_Kalbrain1
- 8:09am EDT - July 25th, 2012
- 18
For me, it's all about the nature of the DLC. If the game is a fully self-sustained experience with only what is on the disc, then they can add whatever they want as DLC for expanding the experience (free or charged). In that case I really don't give a hoot. If the DLC is required in some way to complete or fully understand the game which is included on the disc as is, that DLC had better be free. If not, then that tactic is morally corrupt on the part of the developer.
Fortunately, I haven't encountered any DLC with my gaming choices which meets the negative criteria I mentioned above. So, I'm all for DLC it at this stage. So far, it has allowed me to get much longer legs out of my games for a fraction of the cost of buying a sequel to the title.
-
This will permanently ban this user and delete all associated comments. This action is irreversible, are you SURE you want to do this?!
