Downloadable Content

[Sectus]

In recent times I have seen a lot of games that come out for low prices, or are sometimes free. With these games comes the basic setup, but the catch is that you have to pay for a lot of bonuses, or other things to make the game fun when it would have been alright to release it with the DLC as starting content.

How do you feel about games that have DLC, paying mind that some bonus content costs more than the game itself? Team Fortress 2 is a good note on this subject considering the bread and butter game is free, but it is filled with pay-to-win bonuses.

[Lionelion]

Fuck DLC
It should all be put within the original release, and if the creators want to release something new for it, it should be totally free

[Escalus]

DLC is made as a piss poor excuse for lazy ass developers who didn't even bother putting the content in the game in the first place.

(I miss the old days of pressing L1+L2+R1+R2 and typing in cheat codes to unlock special stuff in a game, not paying for the shit)

[fawnret]

As long as they don't rip it from the game I'm fine with dlc. I do enjoy getting some more out of a game after I've done everything already. There's a big difference between pre planned, already done dlc and dlc made post release. Good dlc would be something like Undead Nightmare. It's a self contained, separate bonus story. A bad example is something like all those characters in street fighter vs tekken that were on the disc already, but inaccessible so they could be dlc later. Really it just depends on how they go about it.

also Day one dlc is bullshit. Looking at you EA and Capcom

[RightWingGamer]

Sectus, I think what you're referring to are actually micro-transactions, not really DLC.

On topic, I'm fine with both. DLC and micro-transactions are both fine. They encourage developers to still support a game after release, and help the consumer get more value out of a game than they usually would.

Controversially, I am even okay with most forms of on-disk DLC. Think about it from a capitalist perspective, most developers wouldn't make something that they couldn't monetize. Ergo, Javik wouldn't be in ME3 except for his being DLC. The game can still be considered "complete" without him, and he is only "part of the base game" if you want to get technical and dig through the files.

When you bought ME3, you didn't buy Javik, you bought what EA told you you bought. I know it sounds cold, but it's true. The developers made the game, so they decide what is and isn't included in the $60 pricetag. Just because you have all of Javik's 1s and 0s on the disk doesn't mean you're entitled to use them.

In many ways, it's no different than micro-transactions in any other game. Think about it, those hats you see people wearing in TF2, do you really think that they are "downloadable?" Of course not, those hats are already on your hard drive. You just can't use them because you didn't pay for them.

When you pay for downloadable content, you aren't paying for the download, you are paying for the content. When it comes out, or whether it's already on the disk are both completely moot.

Similarly, when you purchase a game, you aren't paying for the fucking disk that it's burned on, you are paying for the content that the developers worked to create. Video games, and their content, are not tangible items. They are 1s and 0s in a computer, and pixels on a screen. That's what you are paying for, that's what the developers are charging for, and the final product is whatever they say it is.

/rant

[The-iMortal]

At 10/17/12 01:44 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: /rant

I second this rant.

[genewatts100]

I think a number of the issues surrounding DLC of late mainly relate to fans' irritation with what has been made in to DLC and not the concept of DLC itself. I'm sure many people like the idea of purchasing a game and after completing it being given the option of additional levels, quests, characters or play through options. That would essentially be purchasing an expansion pack. However, if the DLC is say, characters in a fighting game that have come free with previous games or parts to a game that feel heavily stripped down without the DLC then I can understand the irritation. It's true that this is completely at the developers whim but that doesn't mean people have to agree with their decision and much like the developer has the right to make something DLC, the fans have every right to complain and refuse to purchase it.

As for on disk DLC (sort of an oxymoron), I can understand people's irritation. Capcom's BBB rating declined heavily because of it and the main reason is that it's a form of deception. When you purchase DLC the word "downloadable" is key. You are taking something from a server and applying it to an existing game that you own. If it's on disc, you obviously didn't download it, you just opened a small gate in the disc. So essentially you've been lied to about the service you've been given. Admittedly the end result is the same but if Capcom didn't think anyone would have a problem with it, they'd have been upfront and told people how content was being unlocked. People tend not to trust businesses that deceive them.

[Nick8akon]

I third the rant, point is, some developers of these games (i mean ftp online ones), their source of income are the micro transactions, buying them is completely your choice, and the purchases help the producers make more cool shit. It's like what Tom is doing now, send some green, ads off for like a year, support the website for all of us. IT IS A DICK MOVE WHEN THE ITEM OR WHATEVER DISAPEARS AFTER A NUMBER OF DAYS!!!!!!!!! I'm looking at you Vindictus, the most time you can have stuff is like a month, >:0 why, would you do this to your fans T-T another is when you have to buy characters (Rusty hearts -_-#)

[LiquidFire]

At 10/16/12 11:16 PM, Sectus wrote: In recent times I have seen a lot of games that come out for low prices, or are sometimes free. With these games comes the basic setup, but the catch is that you have to pay for a lot of bonuses, or other things to make the game fun when it would have been alright to release it with the DLC as starting content.

I think DLC is alright. As long as they don't overdo it.

How do you feel about games that have DLC, paying mind that some bonus content costs more than the game itself? Team Fortress 2 is a good note on this subject considering the bread and butter game is free, but it is filled with pay-to-win bonuses.

Hold it right there... There is no DLC in Team Fortress 2, and there certainly isn't any pay-to-win bonuses. There's different weapons, but all of them have different up and downsides, but they can already be found in the game by just playing it.

[Jolly]

At 10/16/12 11:16 PM, Sectus wrote: Team Fortress 2 is a good note on this subject considering the bread and butter game is free, but it is filled with pay-to-win bonuses.

The only thing that's pay-to-win about Team Fortress 2 is that if you want to get an unusual hat yourself you have to buy keys.. And you can trade stuff to get both the keys and the unusual, so you don't ever have to pay anything.

It isn't pay-to-win at all.

At 10/16/12 11:22 PM, Lionelion wrote: Fuck DLC
It should all be put within the original release, and if the creators want to release something new for it, it should be totally free

If they added every thing they possibly could then no open world game would come out ever. Rockstar's games and the new Fallout games have DLC done right. Full expansions.. and for Red Dead Redemption you don't even need the game to play undead nightmare.

I'm okay with DLC, as long as it isn't horse armour. I quite like that the original released game isn't necessarily the end result. After I play through the game and get tired of it they developers might add something that gets me back into playing the game again. What's wrong with that?

I'm against day 1 DLC and DLC that's already on the game disc when you get it. Even after they hit the deadline and stop making the game and begin making the DLC.. Why put it on the disc or release it on the day it comes out? Seriously, just wait a few weeks after the game comes out to release the DLC.

[RightWingGamer]

At 10/16/12 11:22 PM, Lionelion wrote: Fuck DLC
It should all be put within the original release, and if the creators want to release something new for it, it should be totally free

Then what, pray tell, would be the reason for them to make that extra content? Because they love you very much and want to make you smile?

[KiDX05]

You got to keep making money from you games some how so offering dlc or content like in f2p games is understandable and welcomed I'd rather them support the game then forget about once it's released & dlc now a days is much better then 90's when you had to pretty much pay full price for a re-disked game that has the new feature I'm happy paying 10 - 15 for expansions & 1 - 5 for items rather then buying a game I already own a second time just cause it has one or two new things now.

Only DLC I don't agree with is day one it's on the disk it should be fucking free hell anything that's on the disk should be free none of this oh but it's on disk so everyone has it so everyone can see it when someone has purchased it bullshit.
The more a dlc costs the more it should offer as well lets say it's 15 bucks I'd expect two hours worth of story content or mp I'd expect at least 8maps some new weapons/or weapon/player skins, unlike other games that charge that much and give you fuck all for it.

[Ragnarokia]

DLC should only be for things coming in after the game has been made as little bonuses and should really be free in most cases to those who jhave the games. Most DLC doesn't class under expansion packs as we used to get to games, most of them are just petty little characters and the like and not entire new areas to explore in games. If they make an expansion pack DLC let's say Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge or Morrowind: Tribunal then those can be charged for, but tbh they should be provided with the original in bulk for no extra price these days, as I know Morrowind and its 2 expansions are in the game of the year edition. Anything less than a total expansion shouldn't have to be bought.

The worst part of DLC these days though is they are not expansions being made after the game is released anymore like they used to be. Now companies are purposefully not releasing all the game they create and purposefully not adding in characters or stages or endings etc. that already exist into the game which have been made just so they can sell them afterwards as "DLC" for more money. That is frankly a disgrace and I refuse to ever purchase any game which does that. Games should be released whole and complete, not incomplete with more things you then need to buy just so you actually have the game you were originally meant to possess.

[robotking98]

I have no issue with free-to-play games having DLC that you pay for to get bonuses and such. What really irks me though is when you buy a game (Doesn't matter if it's PC or console, or how much it costs), and it requires that you pay more for DLC. In my opinion, if you're going to sell the original game to make money, then you should be releasing all the future content as updates to the game people have already paid for, not getting greedy and charging them for it. It's just bullshit marketing in my opinion, done by developers in order to rake more money in. It's like buying a car that doesn't have any wheels, and then having to buy the wheels separately from the same person/company.

[LiquidFire]

At 10/17/12 10:28 AM, robotking98 wrote: It's like buying a car that doesn't have any wheels, and then having to buy the wheels separately from the same person/company.

No it's not. You buy a fully functional game, and then you buy dlc which is extra content, but the dlc isn't needed to run the game.
If you want to compare it to a car, then it's like buying a car and then buying a new radio or spoilers for the car.

[II2none]

I'm fine with it, up till the point where certain companies (EA) start gettin greedy. I will not support having to purchase an online pass TWICE just to play ME3 multiplayer. I know that's not exactly DLC but it's related. So aside from this, as long as DLC doesn't start becoming a "pay-to win" thing it's under control for now.

[RightWingGamer]

Gotta love all the spoiled brats here saying DLC needs to be free.

Like they're somehow entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor.

[robotking98]

At 10/17/12 11:27 AM, LiquidFire wrote:

At 10/17/12 10:28 AM, robotking98 wrote: It's like buying a car that doesn't have any wheels, and then having to buy the wheels separately from the same person/company.

No it's not. You buy a fully functional game, and then you buy dlc which is extra content, but the dlc isn't needed to run the game.
If you want to compare it to a car, then it's like buying a car and then buying a new radio or spoilers for the car.

A car runs fine without wheels, but it doesn't do you much of anything if you don't have the wheels. Sadly, it's the same way with most games that have DLC, if you don't have the DLC, then you're either simply screwed, or it's not enjoyable. Half the time the DLC is about as necessary to enjoy the game as the actual copy of the game itself.

[RightWingGamer]

At 10/17/12 09:42 PM, robotking98 wrote: A car runs fine without wheels, but it doesn't do you much of anything if you don't have the wheels. Sadly, it's the same way with most games that have DLC, if you don't have the DLC, then you're either simply screwed, or it's not enjoyable. Half the time the DLC is about as necessary to enjoy the game as the actual copy of the game itself.

That's not true. At all. The only case where that would be true is in a game like Halo 3, where you're locked out of half the playlists if you don't have every DLC.

[Addict]

I was browsing the XBL Marketplace the other day and saw a couple "oldies but goldies" DLC that had gone down 400 to even 800 microsoft points from their original price. I guess it's nice for anyone who hasn't got the DLC titles from when they first released, but I can't really find too many good deals on downloadable content.

However, if you're getting DLC that costs at least 800 MSP, you're usually getting something that is worth the cash.

[Chdonga]

At 10/17/12 08:41 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: Gotta love all the spoiled brats here saying DLC needs to be free.

Like they're somehow entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor.

It's because we are entitled to finished games we pay the developers for.

I don't see anything wrong with dropping a few bucks for nice cosmetics or some new multiplayer maps. But it's robbery if devs are charging $15 for large chunks of content that should have been in the game initially.

Also, on-disk DLC shouldn't exist. If it's available on the disk, it should be free.

[RightWingGamer]

At 10/17/12 11:16 PM, Chdonga wrote: It's because we are entitled to finished games we pay the developers for.

And that's exactly what you get. The game. But it's the developer's choice what is or isn't included in said game.

Like I said before, you aren't paying for the disk, you are paying for the content.

[Mr-Shark]

I almost never buy DLC, last time I paid for DLC was around the release of castle crashers on the xbox. Most games don't deserve my extra money.

[LiquidFire]

At 10/17/12 09:42 PM, robotking98 wrote: A car runs fine without wheels, but it doesn't do you much of anything if you don't have the wheels. Sadly, it's the same way with most games that have DLC, if you don't have the DLC, then you're either simply screwed, or it's not enjoyable. Half the time the DLC is about as necessary to enjoy the game as the actual copy of the game itself.

Getting a car without wheels locks out of the main function of getting a car, which is traveling.
Buying a game without DLC doesn't lock you ot of the main function of a game, which is playing said game.
90% of DLC is extra stuff. Such as new missions, new campaing, new maps or skins etc. Those are not required to play the game.
The way you express yourself is that games are unplayable without all the DLC, which they're not.

[kakalxlax]

At 10/16/12 11:22 PM, Lionelion wrote: Fuck DLC
It should all be put within the original release, and if the creators want to release something new for it, it should be totally free

1 word: patches