Dlc After Launch

[zooos]

So there are 2 new trends in gaming that have been a little unsettling to me.

1st) Companies releasing DLC content after the release of a game.

I can't understand this, if the content is already done while not put it in with the original game. I feel like companies are trying harder to squeeze every penny out of a person.

2nd) This one sort of coincides with the first one but Companies immediately working on DLC after launch or announcing DLC before a game is even released.

I mean most games have bugs, you should be spending more time fixing the bugs before venturing to the creation of DLC.

I tried to keep it short and sweet, what are your thoughts on these two things?

The thing that triggered me to create this topic was this. Chet Faliszek talks about how Portal 2 will be getting DLC after launch. I still can't tell whether he means down the line it'll be getting DLC, or if not to long after release it will.

[zooos]

Sorry for the double post but here is the link to the article on G4 about the Portal 2 DLC. Valve's Chet Faliszek confirmed Portal 2 would be getting DLC after its launch.

Also figured out they meant the DLC will be announced after release, either way it relates to the second trend I mention.

[simon]

Content with the release of the game is to make people buy legit copies of the game.

Piracy sucks man.

[Livin-Legend]

I agree, companies want the extra cash and it's really cold-hearted of them. However, in Valve's defense, their DLC for Steam is free so they plan DLC as free bonuses and updates to keep people playing their games. I don't know if DLC for Portal 2 on PS3 will be free, but Valve has PC before consoles so when they plan their DLC, they're aren't thinking about ripping people off $10, but more off giving the fans a little more to keep them playing.

[alfraydo]

i admit, i am a bit peeved off at having to by DLC for a game that should already have it to begin with. while i don't like having to spend even more of my money, what simon mentioned above is true indeed.

[zooos]

At 4/10/11 07:49 AM, simon wrote: Content with the release of the game is to make people buy legit copies of the game.

Piracy sucks man.

I highly doubt piracy has anything to do with it, it's not like pirates can't also pirate the dlc afterwards. That just seems like a cop-out answer, and even if it was true, that's just another way companies punish legitimate customers. And if you ask me, piracy or not, that isn't right. It's not like companies don't get any money for their games due to piracy, if that were the case most companies would go bankrupt/have to quit producing games, they just want every single cent they think they deserve.

Piracy, the scape goat in the video game industry. When in doubt pull the term piracy out.

[KiDX05]

Bonus stuff = purchase a none pre-ownd copy at launch.
DLC after release = your buying unlock key's to use stuff already on the disc.
DLC way way after launch is usually legit dlc.

[RiuTenshin]

It's all about money, that's it. Piracy may be involved, but the main motive is to cash in.

[SloppyMoe606]

At 4/10/11 06:35 AM, zooos wrote: Sorry for the double post but here is the link to the article on G4 about the Portal 2 DLC. Valve's Chet Faliszek confirmed Portal 2 would be getting DLC after its launch.

Also figured out they meant the DLC will be announced after release, either way it relates to the second trend I mention.

Portal 2 DLC is free on the PC, so I'm cool with it.

[Quinny]

Killzone 3 is a prime example. DLC was released with the game and another map pack came out last week. I don't mind though because I got it all for free :3

[IrishChrisman]

Be like me, buy games, pira- "acquire" DLC

[fawnret]

I like dlc most of the time. When it's already on the disk I do feel like it's something that should have been already available, and I think it's too far to charge 15 dollars for a few lousy multiplayer maps, but dlc for games like mass effect I really enjoy. expanding the story with a fair amount of content for reasonable prices is a good thing. Far more worthwhile then a map pack for the same price or higher

[explodingbunnies]

DLC after launch is at least better than announcing DLC before the launch, although the Data is already on the Disc. Examples : MVC3, Dragon Age 2, and god knows how many more fucking games did that.

[LulzCal]

The more annoying thing is the so called 'DLC' that just unlocks things already in the game. Think of Just Cause 2, that game had all the DLC already on the disc, but you had to pay to unlock it.

[silico]

You don't always have to buy the DLC. I don't really get why lots of people pick on them.

Take Killing Floor for example: the only DLCs they release are different characters, and everything else (weapons, maps, etc.) is updated free.

Tripwire is one of those companies that got the concept right.

[explodingbunnies]

At 4/10/11 04:23 PM, silico wrote:
Tripwire is one of those companies that got the concept right.

No, most companies have DLC right. It's just that tripwire aren't greedy money-whores.

[SpiderTaco]

At 4/10/11 03:49 PM, explodingbunnies wrote: DLC after launch is at least better than announcing DLC before the launch, although the Data is already on the Disc. Examples : MVC3, Dragon Age 2, and god knows how many more fucking games did that.

Oh god this.

I mean come the fuck on, at least wait until a month after launch even if the DLC is ready instead of looking like a total asshole.
Or better yet, just give us the content without charging for an unlock code. Dickheads.

[zooos]

At 4/10/11 03:49 PM, explodingbunnies wrote: DLC after launch is at least better than announcing DLC before the launch, although the Data is already on the Disc. Examples : MVC3, Dragon Age 2, and god knows how many more fucking games did that.

I agree with this it's completely stupid that they do that.

I also wanted to add that Costume DLC is a bit annoying. I'm not saying it's all bad, but if thats the only DLC you can produce for a game (DR2) then it really isn't worth getting. Especially when the costumes were preorder DLC around launch.

As someone said Tripwire did a great job, although they had DLC costumes, this was coupled with new content in which they didn't charge. I paid for every single one of their costume packs full price just to support to the company.

Also bought The Ball even though I haven't played it.

[FlaminSquirrel]

I think DLC had the potential of adding even more content for a game that they either didn't have time to implement or extra stuff like more modes and levels that they thought of afterwards and wanted to put it in the first rather than release a full-blown sequel. Emphasis on the "had" the potential. Sadly it is for the money, and most DLC is either an extra hour or two for a campaign or more ludicrous maps. There's exceptions I think, but someone'll find a few for me. And as said, DLC is just extras; no one is forcing you to buy it (sans the fact that some games actually require DLC maps to do the multiplayer).

[BananaBreadMuffin]

A lot of DLC is about getting profit out of markets where there would otherwise be no opportunity to (rental and used sales). EA's $10 plan (see Battlefield Bad Company 2, Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age, Resident Evil 5, etc) is a perfect example of this. They realise that if lovefilm or blockbuster or whoever rent a game to ten people after buying it from EA at a wholesale rate, there's a big market that EA has been shoved aside from. So if they make a non-essential but not insignificat $10 DLC available at release, and distribute free codes for that DLC with the game, then anyone who buys retail can play as normal while anyone who didn't explicitly give EA their forty quid and what not is strongly incentivised to buy the DLC, giving EA about 7 bucks or whatever, even though EA never made that sale.

I'm always a fan of DLC anyway.

[Ef-X]

At 4/10/11 07:32 PM, FlaminSquirrel wrote: I think DLC had the potential of adding even more content for a game that they either didn't have time to implement or extra stuff like more modes and levels that they thought of afterwards and wanted to put it in the first rather than release a full-blown sequel. Emphasis on the "had" the potential. Sadly it is for the money, and most DLC is either an extra hour or two for a campaign or more ludicrous maps. There's exceptions I think, but someone'll find a few for me. And as said, DLC is just extras; no one is forcing you to buy it (sans the fact that some games actually require DLC maps to do the multiplayer).

Pretty much this. I do agree that they do it for the money and piracy issues, no surprise, but the concept itself of DLC has potential. Games with amazing storylines that dont necessarily end with an ending that you like can be expanded upon or just parts of the story you wanted more of, I view them as potential for giving more quality to stories in video games.

[zooos]

At 4/10/11 08:27 PM, BananaBreadMuffin wrote: His post

I approve of this, it's not as cheap and makes sense, rentals do take away from companies profit.

But of course DLC has potential, some games/companies have done DLC right in all different manners. I guess maybe it depends on the context as well as the method they create/distribute the DLC.

[sixflab]

I'd love for it to come packaged like a deal since they obviously pushed the release date back some in anticipation of working on DLC prior to release. I know it's about the money and in some cases I don't mind since the DLC can add a good amount of gameplay. But most of the time that isn't the case.

[iMini]

I am completely for Project $10/$15, where if you buy a new game you get a code for some good DLC, or you buy it used and have to buy the DLC.

I think the game that did this ideally was Bad Company 2, you spend $10 on a VIP code and then you get all DLC map packs for free.

It keeps the revenue coming in for those who create teh game and we get DLC.