10 replies to this topic

[NeoBatWare]

Let me begin by just stating the obvious--I hate DLC. I don't like the idea of it, I don't like that companies use it, and I definitely don't like how it has become so common. Let me also state that the kind of DLC that I am talking about is the kind that is released within 2-3 months of the game's initial release. Now with those two things out of the way, let me begin...

What is DLC? DLC (or downloadable content) is content that is release for download over the internet for a certain game that seeks to expand upon the game past what the original game included. Before console games were norm and players had access to things like the XBOX Live Marketplace, DLC was known as Expansion Packs. These were separate discs one would purchase and install on their computer to expand the game. Essentially DLC is Expansion Packs, just without the disc. Typically DLC does not seek to further the main story if it is for RPG games or things like that, they merely add more quests and new areas to explore. In shooters, they often add maps, but nothing else. In theory this all sounds really nice, but it is more about how it is executed then what DLC is. So what is wrong with DLC you might ask? I mean it only costs $10 for 4 new halo maps, or $11 for the new nazi zombies area. But that's just the thing--it still costs money!

You may be calling me frugal at this point because I am complaining about spending money for added gameplay, plus these days anything under $20 can be considered a great deal. But the thing I don't get and is my biggest complaint about DLC is that you are essentially paying for added content that the game developers intentionally left out so they could make more money. I mean, why should I have to pay more for having the game do what it is supposed to do and provide me with a fun experience? It's the same issue I have with Wii MotionPlus. Developers promise that the game will deliver something great, but they may intentionally leave a few things out so they can come back later and sell what they already had developed and could have been ready for the game's release. One thing I think is incredibly stupid is when developers say that they already have DLC in development before the original game is even released! I mean that is basically them saying "Hey we have these extra maps/missions ready, but we're gonna leave them out of the original game so you can buy it all later." And it all works!

The second a new Call of Duty map comes out, people buy that stuff up in an instant! They don't see that they are paying way more than it is actually worth. I mean $15 for 2 multiplayer maps? That is absurd. I'm already paying $60 for the original game, is that not enough?

Now I am not saying all DLC is bad. When done correctly it can really help out a company's image. But in order to handle DLC correctly, here is what they need to do...

1. Release original game.
2. Wait a bit to see how well the game does and if there is a demand for more.
3. If DLC is wanted by many and the game is doing well, then begin looking into how to improve the game.
4. Spend time developing new content for the game.
5. Release DLC for a price that is $10 or less, depending on how much content it is/time spent on it.

This entire process can and should take a few months! Development of the DLC should not be started any sooner than a few weeks after game's release depending on the demand and success of the game. No more releasing it 1 week after the game is out!

I just don't understand why I have to pay more for the game to do something that it is supposed to do on top of the already over-priced game. But if developers take their time, put love into it, and provide the player with new and fresh content in DLC that is released with a substantial gap in time after the initial game, then I am okay with it.

Anyone else feel the same?

[Dark Slipstream]

Last time I checked the most expensive DLC was 1200 Microsoft points. I can buy 1400 points for 19.99 straight from a retail store.

Even still, 1200 is for xbox originals, the next highest is (approx) 800, which is the (most common) cost for DLC and arcade games.

[iBotPeaches]

I god dang hate playing for DLC. I got the 2 mappacks from a phished account, so its all good

[Quinn]

This is why piracy has such an appeal, amirite?

[amcboi95]

I agree with you on everything except Rock Band/GH DLC. <br>In iTunes, a song is $.99. (Who really buys music?)<br>But that's besides the point. In Rock Band/Guitar Hero a downloadable song is 160 MP or 80 MP.<br>So that's like what $1.00 US? Amirite?<br>The artists also get payed. But, you're right, mappacks and campaign addonsb that cost are stupid.<br><br>

[NeoBatWare]

Alright so I understand that you can just get everything you need illegally for free, but what this is all really about is that it's a barking mental that all these companies are developing DLC while still developing the actual game! Many companies are saying that they've already got their DLC planned out and developed before the game is even out and it's costing the average consumer more money when they're already paying $60 for the game in the first place.

But yeah, that's pretty me on a soap box.

[lostmodz26]

Last time I checked the most expensive DLC was 1200 Microsoft points. I can buy 1400 points for 19.99 straight from a retail store.

Even still, 1200 is for xbox originals, the next highest is (approx) 800, which is the (most common) cost for DLC and arcade games.

What about the GTA DLC?

[gruntmods]

This is bullshit. They make the LDC after the game. Why charge? Well maybe in a wonderful world where everyone gets things for free and don`t have to pay bills and by food and clothing then this would make sense. Until then it doesn`t. It costs the developers money to make the expansions, no matter how good their intentions, they need to cover the cost of making the DLC. I have never heard of a developer holding items out and releasing it as DLC, except in an EA fishing game, where the DLC was on the disk and was just unlocked by downloading a file. If you have a problem with it don`t buy it. No one is forcing y7ou to buy DLC, or play games or breath. Its all your choice, so deal with it.

[NeoBatWare]

This is ********. They make the LDC after the game. Why charge? Well maybe in a wonderful world where everyone gets things for free and don`t have to pay bills and by food and clothing then this would make sense. Until then it doesn`t. It costs the developers money to make the expansions, no matter how good their intentions, they need to cover the cost of making the DLC. I have never heard of a developer holding items out and releasing it as DLC, except in an EA fishing game, where the DLC was on the disk and was just unlocked by downloading a file. If you have a problem with it don`t buy it. No one is forcing y7ou to buy DLC, or play games or breath. Its all your choice, so deal with it.

1. It's "DLC", not "LDC". Additionally, "you" is not spelled with a "7".

2. Dragon Age Origins was released in November of last year. However if you read their press releases they state clearly that they have DLC in production and are finishing it up. The thing is, they released that information in August, months before the actual game's release. Two videos showing gameplay of the DLC were released in October, still one month before the actual game's release. Then the developers released 2 DLC expansions--The Warden's Keep, and The Stone Prisoner BOTH on the SAME DAY AS THE GAME'S RELEASE (November 3rd)!

UPDATE: It has also just been announced that Mass Effect 2 will have DLC available for download on the same day as its release this Tuesday. I don't know if it will be free or not but I should hope it would be.

3. I'm not saying they shouldn't charge. I am just stating that the cost is overpriced most of the time and should be better set to a more reasonable price depending on the content of the DLC. Additionally, I am simply stating that it is silly for the developers to be showing off gameplay of their DLC before the initial release. Why does the consumer have to pay for something that the developers could have easily included in the game and should have. But if the developers wanted to add something to the game, but merely didn't have time to finish it before the game's release, why not simply release the content they wanted to ship with the game a few weeks later and for free?

DLC is great. It expands the lifespan of games and shows the developers want to please the consumer. I simply wish that they would handle DLC properly and not screw the consumer.

Edited by NeoBatWare, 23 January 2010 - 04:50 PM.

[gruntmods]

1. It's "DLC", not "LDC". Additionally, "you" is not spelled with a "7".

2. Dragon Age Origins was released in November of last year. However if you read their press releases they state clearly that they have DLC in production and are finishing it up. The thing is, they released that information in August, months before the actual game's release. Two videos showing gameplay of the DLC were released in October, still one month before the actual game's release. Then the developers released 2 DLC expansions--The Warden's Keep, and The Stone Prisoner BOTH on the SAME DAY AS THE GAME'S RELEASE (November 3rd)!

UPDATE: It has also just been announced that Mass Effect 2 will have DLC available for download on the same day as its release this Tuesday. I don't know if it will be free or not but I should hope it would be.

3. I'm not saying they shouldn't charge. I am just stating that the cost is overpriced most of the time and should be better set to a more reasonable price depending on the content of the DLC. Additionally, I am simply stating that it is silly for the developers to be showing off gameplay of their DLC before the initial release. Why does the consumer have to pay for something that the developers could have easily included in the game and should have. But if the developers wanted to add something to the game, but merely didn't have time to finish it before the game's release, why not simply release the content they wanted to ship with the game a few weeks later and for free?

DLC is great. It expands the lifespan of games and shows the developers want to please the consumer. I simply wish that they would handle DLC properly and not screw the consumer.

Typing on a netbook isn't easy thank you.
Second, Games go gold before they are released meaning they are done being made, naturally the focus would shift to new content.

Edited by gruntmods, 24 January 2010 - 05:08 PM.

[DarkRuler]

A lot of dlc is made after the games come out (except the Halo Wars DLC which was actually made, finished and leaked months before the release)
but games like Fallout 3 where they made their dlc way after the game came out and now offer a disc with all dlc that costs the original game price ($60)

but it is like if you spent hours, days, weeks working on something wouldn't you like compensation for your hard work?
I know I would be a little pissed if I got $0 for something I made like that

also its not the developers (Bethesda, Bungie, Rockstar) that come up with pricing but its the publishers (Microsoft)

and the Mass Effect 2 dlc is free to people who get a code within an early copy of the game, so in a way it is free

also if you want free dlc then find a phished account


I do think that DLC should only be 500 points at most because if only 1000 people download it then that is about $6250 just right there