Downloadable content

[Rydia]

How do you feel about downloadable content?

I am a little annoyed that you pay 50-60 dollars for a game, and you have to pay extra to get all the content. I feel like I'm getting ripped off especially if the content is available almost immediately after the game is released. Even worse that they can now release a game with major glitches and they will just release a patch to fix them. That would not have flown pre online gaming. And what if you are someone that does not want to hook their system up to the internet?

I do not bother paying extra for the extra content unless I have to. I can live with missing part of a story if I can still make it to the end of a game. But it is annoying when I go to discuss the game on a forum and I feel like I'm missing something because everyone is talking about something you had to download.

Why not just release an expansion for added content?

And I enjoyed this:

http://www.duelinganalogs.com/image/2011/03/30/downloadable-content-in-a-nutshell/

 

[Steve-O]

I agree with you to a point here, I know you can say that why didn't the company fit everything into the game but see this point, most games are on a disc of some form, say DVD for xbox or UMD for PSP. my point is that there is only so much data the disc can hold and for some games the game may already be on two or three discs. if you put all the game including the DLC onto the game then the game would end up being on 2 - 3 discs.

I do agree with the fact that you have to pay for it.. why pay 40-50 quid for a video game and then pay the same amount in DLC, this should be free

I never brought DLC before and my first DLC Download will be the music packs and the zidane costume for Duodecim... I will only buy DLC for games I really like and that what i'm gonna play alot

 

[10th Doctor]

I totally agree. I shouldn't have to download and pay for stuff that already should be in the game! Seriously, it's annoying. If it came out like, 6 months later, I guess it'd be cool to get side stories, but honestly, I'd like it to come out all together. That's what I paid for, right?

 

[Ahlchamest]

Yeah, I'm with you here. I hate it when I have to pay extra for a game I already have. I don't get many DLC, only ones I got are for Fallout 3 and Oblivion (because they both have more places to explore). I want to learn more about Dragon Age, but there are way too many DLC for that game, so I choose to ignore it

 

[Martel]

I think having expansions put up as DLC is a great idea - buying the discs and keeping them separate is a real nuisance, its much better to just get them via the internet. Things that contribute significantly to the game, such as Dragon Age's Awakening expansion, or Borderlands' numerous expansions, is good DLC - its a bit annoying that it isn't already on the disc, but its worth the money you pay for it...and these days, with DLC like that you can be sure there will be a Game of the Year edition when its all been released.

But when its just random crap, like additional costumes, status boosts for characters, weapons etc, it really pisses me off. These things should already be in the game, as people have said. You shouldn't have to pay for such mundane things: they might only cost around 79p a time, but it adds up. You have only to look at the Disgaea 3 DLC to see what I mean: buying everything separately will cost you about £50, and there is even a pack of all of it for £40. That is as much as the game costs at RRP! Never mind that I paid about £15 for that game, as well. That is just ridiculous.

 

[Shaissa]

My biggest problem with DLC is that some games take things too far and don't even add everything that they use to. For an example in sport games they would try to add all the roster stuff they could and upgrade it as far as possible, now you have to pay $1-10 or more just to get content that shoulda been in the game. Another problem I have, is that you use to be able to get secret characters and outfits without paying for them, then Dragon Age Origins comes out and decides to make you pay for Armor, almost ever side quest even one to return to Ostagar I mean seriously shouldnt you already be able too do that anyways? I mean yes with DLC the companies can release games at a decent time so they can focus on the graphics more, but at the same time I have to wonder, is it really worth paying $60 for the game knowing your going have to spend $20-40 just to get the full games experience?

 

[Amizon]

I honestly don't mind having DLC and I don't see the problem. Sure, it might be costly and all, but no one's forcing you to buy it at the end of the day.

I wouldn't buy ridiculously expensive ones. DLC can be quite good. For instance, I bought the packs from the first The Force Unleashed game. They were quite cheap and an interesting insight into a parallel universe had certain events not happened, etc. I don't agree with the fact that it should be expensive, but I do like there's DLC you can explore.

If anything, it's nice to have expansions when you've completed the main game and want more.

 

[Tom Badguy]

I have a love/hate thing for DLC. Remember the times before DLC? Where developers would have to squeeze as much as possible into one game? I liked that. Games with a ton of extra stuff to do. Nowadays, you have to pay extra and wait for new add-ons. It sucks to pay for it but a lot of DLC is really good and I feel you get your money's worth. DLC keeps you playing the game.

So it sucks that it costs money but at least you get to continue playing games instead of throwing them over your shoulder.

 

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

DLC is evil. I hate it.

It's another example of game companies assuming that everyone has access to high speed internet to download parts of a game they thought they'd already bought. I remember when The Sims 3 came out there was content THE NEXT DAY. The Sims 3 was a computer game, so I'm reasonable sure that running out of space on the disk wasn't the reason for it. And the prices were ridiculous.

DLC is just an excuse to make money off the fans. I remember the days I use to feel bad paying 30 dollars to get a The Sims expansion that added actual game play and now I'm supposed to be okay with paying as much or more for an outfit or something that should have been in the game?

It's bull. I wouldn't mind paying for DLC that adds new game play, but it's if the sort of stuff they leave out, like later alternative characters and such then it should be in the fucking game already.

 

[Sexy Beast]

My only qualm with DLC is that I sometimes run out of MS points to buy it. . I don't mind it unless I don't have the money required to get it. Aside that, I absolutely adore the idea of DLC. It provides more gameplay hours to the game, and if it's a game that has a shitload of DLC, then it's well worth your money.

 

[Linnaete]

If DLC is something pretty large with quite a bit of new content included such as what Fallout: New Vegas is about to receive, then I suppose it's fair enough to shell out a bit of money for this expansion. Sure, I may be a little ticked off at first if I suddenly find that my £40 copy of a game is only 2/3 of the full thing, though as long as it's purely optional stuff that isn't completely arbitrary (God knows how furious I may get if DLC ever becomes a total necessity).

Though the rise of DLCs has its theoretical problems. As a developer, if you know that your game will have DLC content after its physical release, there's nothing really stopping you from perhaps deliberately releasing the game a bit unfinished in some areas (i.e. certain items you must pay extra for when it should already be in the game) or to even then release it with some bugs and then release a patch almost straight away soon afterwards. It hasn't happened to me, though I can see where many gamers may be a little annoyed when they purchase a new game at full price and that disc they have there does not have everything on it as you would normally want it to. Still, DLCs are very profitable and are usually nice little extras for gamers willing to shell out a bit more, so all power to them if they want to. I normally don't bother, but that's just me.

 

[Rey]

DLC is amazing if it is something like Mass Effect I and Mass Effect II which continue the story. Mass Effect II's dlc pieces all continue the story and lead up to the beginning of Mass Effect III. I with no doubt will buy the dlc of Mass Effect II because I just love the Mass Effect story. If it is something like RPG Dlc like unlock weapons that are ALREADY in the game and they put it as dlc to get it easier then no way I am going to get that. People who do that are just so lazy to get the weapon/rare item in the game itself and they just pay for dlc which isn't worth it in my honest opinion.

 

[Rydia]

But why not just add all that content to the actual game? It already costs $60 for the game. Why pay nearly $100 dollars to get the entire game? Shouldn't most of that extra content come with the original game? That's a bit of a rip off to me. Wouldn't you rather not have to pay extra for content that should have already been in the game? And if the game is good, you'll want to play it again someday. How many of us still replay games from previous consoles?

Think if FF7 did not come complete. You had to pay extra to get Yuffie and Vincent, every character's best weapon, every character's back story besides Cloud, extra side quests (Wutai, that train thing in Mideel), extra areas (the other continents) pay to get back into Midgar after the first disk, pay to get Cloud back after his break down. Would this game have been that popular? Would you have wanted to pay extra for all of that instead of getting it all for the original price of the game?

I remember reading somewhere, that some of the DLC is already on the game disk, you just have to pay to unlock it. Why not a long side quest instead?

 

[Abstract Debauchery]

Ah, back in the day when games were good because they were made to be good. Back when the final product was released as is, so developers would take the time out of their day to test for bugs. Back in the motherfucking day when you bought a game from a company you trusted knowing you were going to get something fantastic. Not the case these days.

When DLC was first implemented, I rather liked the concept. However, I was worried that developers would start to half-ass their games and start making them rather shitty, knowing they could fix it later with a DLC patch with some extra content that no one needs. At first, this wasn’t a problem. I remember buying a game and getting a whole game, lasted me hours, and I had a good time. DLC came out for about $5 and I got a shit load of more content. I paid for 100% of a game, and the DLC gave me 50% more for a low price.

This is no longer the case. You can now make a game rather half-assed, and then fix it with some bullshit DLC that you wouldn’t have needed in the first place if you just made your game right. A game should be strong enough coming out of the box to stand on its own two feet. You shouldn’t ever need to buy DLC for an enjoyable experience.

Sure, you don’t have to buy the DLC, but that argument is old and tired. Especially when DLC is no longer part of the solution, it’s part of the problem. You pay $60 for a video game (thank you, Bobby Kotick), which has a high probability of being uber shit, and then you have to pay extra just to get things that should have been included in the first fucking place. Now, I could understand the concept for DLC when it comes to FPS games. However, in the case of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, the first DLC maps you could buy were already on the disk.

Let me put this in terms everyone can understand. Maps were on the game disk, that you bought, but you couldn’t access them. They were locked until you paid extra money to have access to them later.

Go ahead, try and justify that if you want, I’ll just be back here laughing at you.

The fact of the matter is, DLC can be good. It started out good, but now it’s just crippling the quality of games. Why work hard on a good game when you can half-ass it and release more later as $10-$20 DLC? Oh, but yeah, we don’t have to buy it, no one is forcing you to. Let’s just hope you enjoy little to no content, or just shitty content because the developers decided to whore out for more cash. Enjoy your broken content and the fact that you’re settling for shittier games and letting them get away with it, it’s all good.

Anyone remember the days when PC gamers got DLC for no extra charge in the form of content patches? Oh, I forgot, that still happens. Too bad developers are lazy and can get away with making a console game for half the price, a lower performance quality, a lower graphical quality, with a shitty community, for twice the profit, and completely pull the wool over your eyes. (Lol, Crysis 2) The industry knows that PC gamers wouldn’t deal with that. They would pirate shitty games, mod it themselves, and slap the devs right in the face by making their game better for them.

 

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

Let me put this in terms everyone can understand. Maps were on the game disk, that you bought, but you couldn’t access them. They were locked until you paid extra money to have access to them later.

Go ahead, try and justify that if you want, I’ll just be back here laughing at you.
.

That is my major problem.

I don't think that it's fair to charge people to "unlock" content they already purchased, and I'd like to know how it could be justifiable as a big defense for DLC supporters seems to be that they run out of space on the disk. How do you explain this then?

And for that matter, how is that even a defense. In this day and age where compression has reached such a state, and most media can hold quite a bit, how is it permissible to use lack of space on the media as an excuse?