[Opinion] DLC, Oh how I wish I could go back a generation

Sir_Scud

Super Elite
Dec 30, 2007
2,185
41
0
#1
DLC...It isn't all horrible, but it's a practice that hurts the games we love more than benefit them. On paper, the idea of getting extra missions or items for a game you adore sounds great. The downside? How the process is more about cutting content, and then charging for it on the consumer. Fooling you to believe what you just purchased was, "in the works" for months after the game released. When really, it was content that the publisher deemed worthy of double dipping. "Hey, I know a great way to earn some extra $$$. Cut that content from the main game, and in a few weeks or so we'll charge a few bucks for it (Capcom, anyone?)" That, or they cut content as pre-order bonuses and if you missed out, well you can purchase it in a few months.

But you have bought DLC, a lot of it. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

Well, I really like Elder Scrolls, so there's a high chance I'll buy anything it throws at me. Generally I pass on map packs. I just don't see the value. In popular multiplayer games, map packs might last awhile until the next game comes out.

Sometimes it's just a year and the population migrates to that next game. At $10-15 a pop for some maps, yeah it's not super expensive, but content that relies on other players doesn't hold up for long. With DLC content for Skyrim or Oblivion, those were games I played over and over for years. So for $20 I can play something for many years where it might be hard to join a map pack lobby in an older shooter.

Meanwhile, on the PC side of things, I can boot up numerous titles that get free content updates that add a whole slew of new weapons, items, modes, maps, etc. Not every title, but these usually are things that would've been priced at $5-10.

DLC doesn't enrich the experience, simply adds more content to games

If the DLC is more of an expansion, like Dragon Age: Awakening, then yes, you get significant content for your money. But using the same game, there were ton of extra quests or bits of DLC you could buy. New items or weapons doesn't really change the game, nor does it make a better experience. Simply paying for content that heavily reuses assets or cosmetic items with stat differences don't really add to a game's experience.

What if for $4.99, you could buy an 'Ultimate Pack' for Final Fantasy VII? It included a new sword for Cloud that was the best in the game, a Zack alternate costume, and a new summon to use. Or what if there was a new dungeon DLC that was about 1-2 hrs reusing some monsters from other caves and the cave looked eerily similar to other places with a whole new tough boss? Do those things really make VII better? Really these things just prolong the experience. The new dungeon might make you play the game again, but once you beat it, it's back on the shelf. It didn't really alter the game or change it in a way to make the experience different.

Season Passes are a joke

DLC went from being a thing developers might add to a game down the road to publishers demanding an exact number of DLC offerings a developer will make for a game. All the content is laid out ahead of time, which means everything is set in stone. In essence, lay down $20-30 extra after the game releases so you get all the DLC packs at a usual small savings. As a gamer, the idea of a season pass kills the mystic feeling of what extra content a game might get down the road. Instead, "there will be 5 packs, each at $5.99 at release.

But instead you can buy the season pass to get all the content when it releases at $27.99! Season pass owner will get all pre-order bonuses as well!" Since games are my hobby, it irks me to watch companies dangle this carrot in front of me, condescending enough to think a piece of armor or extra weapon will make me spend extra money.

But you can't go back

A generation ago, we didn't have these issues. You bought a game and either loved it or hated it. There were no pre-order bonus BS, no cut content releasing on the store a week later, no set DLC schedule, etc. And if a game did have an expansion? Well, since they had to repackage and sell a whole new game with it, the game sure as hell had to have a lot of content before they would ship that to stores.

Publishers see DLC as a way to get us to spend more $$$. So instead of significant worthy content, we get some tiny additions to the game that really doesn't make much of a difference, because your common person might be more willing to spend $5 on a costume pack than $30 for a true expansion.

In the end I feel like the whole process of DLC is more how companies are trying to deceive me out of my money than playing new content worthy of the title. Or, I wouldn't wonder if they purposely held back in certain areas so they could charge for it later.

Just a little rant about DLC from me, but I'm curious what you think towards the practice. All thoughts are greatly appreciated!
 
Likes: Admartian

Vyse

Extreme Poster
Mar 27, 2006
26,804
362
83
#2
I think the downside is when DLC offers you different clothes or weapons to purchase. Little things like that should be part of the base game. I do think it's a cool method in that you get to experience different game scenarios though.

As an example, I really enjoyed Sleeping Dogs (picked it up when it was 75 percent off) and it came with a free high-resolution texture pack but the DLC game scenarios were underwhelming. Probably the only good thing that came out of it was that I was able to attain all 59 achievements but essentially paid for.

Season passes are ridiculous. You don't have any guarantee that the DLC you'll be paying for will be quality material or if you'll still be interested. None of it is all that surprising though. Companies will find ways to make more money. That's how they operate. All you can do is vote with your wallet.
 
Last edited:

DarkVincent07

Trying not to break stuff...
Mar 4, 2008
17,313
89
0
29
Sydney
#3
Excellent points and I agree 100%

This hit me home
What if for $4.99, you could buy an 'Ultimate Pack' for Final Fantasy VII? It included a new sword for Cloud that was the best in the game, a Zack alternate costume, and a new summon to use. Or what if there was a new dungeon DLC that was about 1-2 hrs reusing some monsters from other caves and the cave looked eerily similar to other places with a whole new tough boss? Do those things really make VII better? Really these things just prolong the experience.
So soooooo true
 
Jul 10, 2012
9,206
71
0
Orlando FL
#4
I've haven't bought much DLC. However in regards to the pre order content I do like that idea from a business stand point since your not paying extra for that but it gives you incentive to order the game.

Season passes are a damn joke agreed there
 

Admartian

Wibbly Wobbly
Nov 28, 2006
13,613
105
63
New Zealand
#5
Totally agree.

There are many games which showcase your points particularly Dead Space 3, as a recent example. Weapons shouldn't be something you have to pay real money for.

To me, the only DLC I'll agree with are (Single player) cheat DLC (for example, if they were to add a super Jet fighter and uber gun to a game like Just Cause 2) IF YOU WANT to pay for it and/or once you're finished the game and want to screw around with it. But I don't agree with items that are maybe ore or less/required to beat the game.

And don't get em started on Season passes - you're basically paying the whole amount of the game and you're not guaranteed that the DLCs will be anything meaningful or frequent.
 
May 5, 2011
4,773
77
48
USA
#6
I really hope developers will do away with DLC all together in the PS4 gen. I have Final Fantasy XIII-2 and I see there are costumes and extra bosses on the DLC. That sucks and I refuse to pay extra. Stuff like that should have been put in the game, especially the extra bosses.
 

Vyse

Extreme Poster
Mar 27, 2006
26,804
362
83
#7
[QUOTE="The Black Wolf, post: 6053489]I really hope developers will do away with DLC all together in the PS4 gen. I have Final Fantasy XIII-2 and I see there are costumes and extra bosses on the DLC. That sucks and I refuse to pay extra. Stuff like that should have been put in the game, especially the extra bosses.[/QUOTE]
Would you pay for expansion packs? Basically, 10-12 extra hours of story missions. An example would be The Ballad of Gay Tony for GTA IV.
 
May 5, 2011
4,773
77
48
USA
#8
[QUOTE="Blacksite, post: 6053497]Would you pay for expansion packs? Basically, 10-12 extra hours of story missions. An example would be The Ballad of Gay Tony for GTA IV.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I would pay for that. That probably makes me a hypocrite, however I do prefer they put EVERYTHING into the game. They did it in the PS1 and PS2 eras, so why not this gen?
 

Vyse

Extreme Poster
Mar 27, 2006
26,804
362
83
#9
I think the biggest reason is simply because we have online distributors that allow it. We didn't have the PlayStation Store or Xbox Live growing up.
 

Sir_Scud

Super Elite
Dec 30, 2007
2,185
41
0
#10
[QUOTE="DeviousOne, post: 6053451]I've haven't bought much DLC. However in regards to the pre order content I do like that idea from a business stand point since your not paying extra for that but it gives you incentive to order the game.

Season passes are a damn joke agreed there[/QUOTE]

I guess I didn't state it clearly, but I don't mind pre-order bonuses in general. I just sigh when I see ads for pre-ordering to get the super awesome items, and realize what is offered doesn't really impact whether or not I want the game. Just means I'll be limited on whatever element has been removed.

[QUOTE="The Black Wolf, post: 6053489]I really hope developers will do away with DLC all together in the PS4 gen. I have Final Fantasy XIII-2 and I see there are costumes and extra bosses on the DLC. That sucks and I refuse to pay extra. Stuff like that should have been put in the game, especially the extra bosses.[/QUOTE]

For me it's something I've come to realize after buying a decent amount of DLC for different games. I realized that I'm paying extra for stuff that really doesn't add much. It might only be a few dollars, but it didn't really change my opinion on the game. I did buy both The Ballad of Gay Tony and The Lost and Damned. Both expansions were fun, but even those two expansions didn't really offer a lot of new content outside of a different story and some different cars and guns.

[QUOTE="Blacksite, post: 6053509]I think the biggest reason is simply because we have online distributors that allow it. We didn't have the PlayStation Store or Xbox Live growing up.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much. We are in a different standard now. Whole games are put up on the store along with all other sorts of content. Very easy transition, and it's probably only going to intensify in the future.
 

Fon

Master Guru
Oct 5, 2009
6,141
159
0
33
@Home
#11
Some solid points there. The majority of DLC's are just cash grab for developers while others are stupidly cut out from the game to make a quick buck(I'm looking at you, EA). There are some up's and down's to this but unfortunately the goods are trampled by bad business models.

Now on to the next episode: Micro-transactions!
 

DarkVincent07

Trying not to break stuff...
Mar 4, 2008
17,313
89
0
29
Sydney
#13
[QUOTE="The Black Wolf, post: 6053501]Yes, I would pay for that. That probably makes me a hypocrite, however I do prefer they put EVERYTHING into the game. They did it in the PS1 and PS2 eras, so why not this gen?[/QUOTE]

Because they can change for it and retards buy it
 

Sir_Scud

Super Elite
Dec 30, 2007
2,185
41
0
#14
[QUOTE="Naxi, post: 6056771]I have no problem with DLC that are like expansions - GTA 4, Skyrim, Red Dead DLC etc. Those are DLC's done right.[/QUOTE]

Definitely some worthy content in those games. As long as it isn't like the Horse Armour debacle. And I agree DV. They have learned they can charge for stuff that should've already been in the game. Or easily add a costume pack and people will buy it. Not saying people shouldn't spend their money the way they want, it just encourages more and more companies to do this.

After what Fon said it got me thinking, let's say micro-transactions become huge. Would there be a breaking point for consumers? Would it be too much if every game released has some kind of DLC cycle or micro-transactions to boost experience or currency gains?
 

keefy

Supreme Veteran
Nov 18, 2007
19,031
261
83
The Sock Gap
#15
Speaking from a multiplayer FPS shooter perspective.

DLC map packs do split the community up and the default maps are always going to get played the most because everybody can play them.
But season passes or premium status (whatever they want to call it) make it so there is many, many more players with all the maps so we get to play any and all maps we want at any time of the day we want.

The way DLC was done previously we bought them individually at the time of release so as time went on less and less players bought th followin map pack meaning it was harder and harder to find games for those DLC packs. I experienced this problem in COD4 for PS3. It was hard to find decent games for the DLC maps I bought so I always ended up playign the default maps.

Whilst the situation of DLC map packs is better than it used to be I still firmly believe all maps should be free so everyoen cn play with everyone else it will make the game last longer but in realiy the publishers do not care about longevity they want to milk us again next year or the year after at the latest.


I bought the Premium for BF3 because if I didnt I couldn't play with my friends that had it, I did however wait until it was almost half price.
 
Last edited:

claud3

Power Member
Feb 11, 2009
17,077
137
0
Agartha
www.facebook.com
#16
The old days were the simple understanding if what gaming was, gaming meant you had the full game and you would just wait for the sequel

But NINTENDO were nearly the inventor of the DLC, when the 64DD was announced as an add-on for the N64 for ZELDA OOCRAINA OF TIME, It fell flat because it might have costed a lot to release disks for the add-on
 

Sir_Scud

Super Elite
Dec 30, 2007
2,185
41
0
#17
[QUOTE="keefy, post: 6057621]Speaking from a multiplayer FPS shooter perspective.

DLC map packs do split the community up and the default maps are always going to get played the most because everybody can play them.
But season passes or premium status (whatever they want to call it) make it so there is many, many more players with all the maps so we get to play any and all maps we want at any time of the day we want.

The way DLC was done previously we bought them individually at the time of release so as time went on less and less players bought th followin map pack meaning it was harder and harder to find games for those DLC packs. I experienced this problem in COD4 for PS3. It was hard to find decent games for the DLC maps I bought so I always ended up playign the default maps.

Whilst the situation of DLC map packs is better than it used to be I still firmly believe all maps should be free so everyoen cn play with everyone else it will make the game last longer but in realiy the publishers do not care about longevity they want to milk us again next year or the year after at the latest.
[/QUOTE]

(Strictly speaking about FPS shooters here) The one gripe I always had with map packs, it splits the community and down the road less and less players have DLC making it hard to find a room. But do season passes really translate into more and more players using the DLC maps? Ignore the latest COD or Battlefield 3, what if Resistance 3 or Killzone 3 released with a season pass?
Do you think more people would have the DLC?

I'm not so sure that season passes really generate more player counts, outside of games like COD or BF3 that people would've bought DLC regardless of the 'packaging'. It does make it convient, instead of people who only buy the first and second pack only, will instead get all of 'em at a deal, and are more likely to keep playing through all the game updates.

For games like Borderlands 2, which uses its season pass more for the content like extra missions, characters, weapons, etc. Do people opt for that instead of handpicking this or that?

@claud3, there was going to be an add-on for Ocarina of Time? That sounds crazy.
 
May 29, 2005
4,869
6
38
#18
I knew DLC would be a screw job for customers long before it started, and it appears to be in swing. I think its bad and shouldn't cost anything like it used to be for PC games. Those were fan based add-ons but still probably similar in quality. I wasn't even aware of Season Passes or paying to get optional bosses in Final Fantasy games, that is truly low of companies. Sounds incredibly stupid to me. Yes vote with your wallets everyone so we can all help slow or even stop this disease spreading across the gaming world.

[QUOTE="Sir_Scud, post: 6057118]After what Fon said it got me thinking, let's say micro-transactions become huge. Would there be a breaking point for consumers?[/QUOTE]
Yes, the breaking point would be the next video game crash which I believe will happen someday again. I think DLC will be a contributing factor to this but other large issues will add to it like major stagnation of creativity which seems to be right now, a problem. There are less amazing games out now for the current generation then there was for the last one IMO. I don't want to derail this thread though.
 

TGO

Ancient
Feb 26, 2006
10,293
31
48
39
purgatory
#19
What annoys me about DLC is that most of it is content that would have been included last gen as a unlockable
You achieved something and got a reward, and it doesn't stop their
There use to be loads of addition content tucked away under the main campaign
Resident Evil had characters, costumes, modes weapons etc, Fighters had characters and costumes and modes
And we hear DLC and think yes, those unlockables plus the option to add more game, levels, additional campaign or characters
But what we get is no unlockables, no costumes and £9.99 for a costume pack thats for online only
I don't think costumes should be DLC
and characters should include their own campaign mode not just a online playable character. I personally hate the way DLC is at the moment
Online games are worse because most of them offer a few maps each pack at a high price and they then decide to release a new game that basically a map pack because the campaign is a shitty 4 hour whammy
Theres no thought and no effort but quadruple the profit, it needs to change

Sent via Codec
 

Sir_Scud

Super Elite
Dec 30, 2007
2,185
41
0
#22
[QUOTE="TGO, post: 6059402]What annoys me about DLC is that most of it is content that would have been included last gen as a unlockable
But what we get is no unlockables, no costumes and £9.99 for a costume pack thats for online only
I don't think costumes should be DLC
and characters should include their own campaign mode not just a online playable character. I personally hate the way DLC is at the moment [/QUOTE]

So agree, TGO. I know times are changing in all, but being a gamer for a long times jades me a bit. As you already mentioned, unlockables were just little extra things already created for the game. Be it a costume or mode. It felt so good beating a fighting game and then unlocking a cool new character. Those days are over, now it's, "how much money can this make?"

Online games are worse because most of them offer a few maps each pack at a high price and they then decide to release a new game that basically a map pack because the campaign is a shitty 4 hour whammy
Theres no thought and no effort but quadruple the profit, it needs to change
Not specifically mentioned, but I wonder if people noticed MP shooters are releasing with less and less maps in the actual game. I think it will get worse if season passes take off for FPS games. Without getting specific, 6-9 maps seems to be the standard for MP shooters this gen, on disk, full price. Generally map packs are between 2-4 maps, rinse, repeat. A practice that will intensify since people will pay.
 

TGO

Ancient
Feb 26, 2006
10,293
31
48
39
purgatory
#23
Yes, hence the "new game might aswell be a map pack comment"
And whats insulting is most of the DLC maps are from the SP campaign! like the data ain't already there

Sent via Codec
 
May 29, 2005
4,869
6
38
#24
[QUOTE="TGO, post: 6060715]Yes, hence the "new game might aswell be a map pack comment"
And whats insulting is most of the DLC maps are from the SP campaign! like the data ain't already there

Sent via Codec[/QUOTE]
Wow, now that is really low! I would never put up with that kind of garbage. That reminds me of the concept of re-paying for something you already own (IE music off a video game you go and buy the soundtrack to).
 

Sir_Scud

Super Elite
Dec 30, 2007
2,185
41
0
#25
Yeah hover, it is kinda low. Personally, I don't mind if the original game includes a map or two from the campaign, but with DLC it feels really cheap. Reuse a bunch of assets and slap it on with the rest of the pack. It stifles any kind of creativity from the developers, just a quick +1 for map count. After all, shouldn't map packs at least be cool new maps?
 
Last edited:

kflashin

Dedicated Member
Apr 29, 2007
1,135
2
0
40
Alaska
#27
DLC is gonna get worse in the coming generations and will eventually take all of the fun out of games. The idea of buying half a game at full price and then having to buy more content to get a full game experience is a F'IN joke.
 

Sir_Scud

Super Elite
Dec 30, 2007
2,185
41
0
#28
Thanks for the vid, claud3. Never knew about that at all lol.

@kflashin, that's the problem, the future is grim. Consumers have shown to be willing to pay for the current models, what's not to say they wouldn't put up with something even worse? I hope it never reaches the point of "half a game at full price, buy the rest down the road", but it's something that could likely happen.