Victory Road  

Go Back   Victory Road > General > Video and Computer Games

Notices

 
 
  #1  
Old July 15, 2012, 08:06:36 PM
Quadcentruo's Avatar
Quadcentruo Quadcentruo is offline
Giratina
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Unknown area
Posts: 3,734
Default Downloadable Content

We all know that downloadable content, or DLC, is available for nearly all modern games and it used to be adding content to a game to further one's experience with a game. Now it seems that DLC is about filling in the gaps that a game has by itself, in other words the DLC is needed to fully enjoy a game. It really seems to be more of a source of money for developers rather than a source of entertainment for the gamers.

So what are your thoughts on DLC now and then? What do you think DLC should be like now?

Personally, I think DLC should be something to further someone's gaming experience. An added and optional quest, a cool new map to explore, but overall, DLC should cost nothing. The DLC should be used to continue someone's interest in a game and should not be "pay $10 to continue enjoying this game" kind of thing.
  #2  
Old July 15, 2012, 08:25:41 PM
Fubab_107's Avatar
Fubab_107 Fubab_107 is offline
Shaymin
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Unknown Pointless Veil.
Posts: 2,830
Default

DLC can be a hit and miss with certain cases.

Most companies feel that they only need to add maybe 1 - 5 added things and price it at $5 - $10. Others can't add more because then it feels as if they could just make an expansion pack. Granted, that way they could charge more for the DLC without feeling like they're ripping off people.

Way I see, Two companies are HUGE offenders of DLC. THQ and Capcom, for very different cases.

Capcoms DLC or "Disk Locked Content", notoriously on Street Fighter X Tekken, Locks nearly a quarter of the cast, and asks for payment to unlock them a year after the game came out, just so the people who but the Vita version get the characters without the added charge. This wouldn't be so bad if it didn't make all the console buyers feel ripped off for not buying/wanting a Vita.
Basically. If you buy the Vita version, You get everything. But you buy any other version, You must pay an added $20 for the other cast. Frankly it really bugs me because I don't see myself purchasing a Vita, So I can't have nearly half the game... WTF.
Aura's Wrath also has a DLC that gives you the "True" Ending... So what I got wasn't an ending..........
Dragons Dogma also has a weird habit of sending you straight to the Shop Menu after pressing start... I haven't played the game yet... but that can't be good.....
They also have a case of costumes in other fighting games costing nearly $10, but we'll get to that.

THQ, Oh my THQ... Their Game is Saints Row The Third. A good game cut short. The game was technically only 3/4ths complete, with multiple elements being taken out to provide a "40 Weeks of DLC" Quota. Not only does it tick me off I only got Three Quarters of a game, but the other Quarter is all DLC?!
Their DLC is either only a couple of outfits, Vehicles + Outfits, or 2-3 Added Homies...
In short, they want nearly $5 for costumes. Much like Street Fighter 4. I can forgive Street Fighter 4 though, because those costumes were made and added post release, not scrapped from the original to provide DLC.

Before anyone mentions it. Mass Effect 3's End Game DLC was added and made Post release, by a demand from fans wanting a new ending. At least this one I can slightly forgive since it was made Post game, and not stripped at last minute just as an excuse for DLC.

Games shouldn't be run on DLC. DLC was supposed to be added features. Not something you have to buy to 100% a game.

I could go on and on about DLC's that tick me off... But I'm afraid I might start treading into Free-to-Play Territory at one point.

Last edited by Fubab_107; July 15, 2012 at 08:26:40 PM.
  #3  
Old July 15, 2012, 09:17:32 PM
Cyrus's Avatar
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Moderator

 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: My snow bunker.
Posts: 1,546
Default

I don't know much about DLCs, but all I can say is - I want to get my full gaming experience from the game I purchase when I hand the money over to the cashier at Gamestop. I don't want to have to pump out extra cash just to get special features or new missions or whatever. If a game costs $49.99 to buy at the store, then $5-10 for DLC, why can't I just pay $54.99-59.99 up front to the cashier? It doesn't make much sense to me.
  #4  
Old July 15, 2012, 10:05:53 PM
SpaceManPlusPlus's Avatar
SpaceManPlusPlus SpaceManPlusPlus is offline
Zoroark
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: BC
Posts: 288
Default

In the mindset of playing 3rd gen in 2005, DLC was in my wishlist for video games, and ME3 did Extended Cut well.
They said, it takes money to host a DLC, that is why Extended Cut is free for a finite period of time.
In addition, I'm not in the position to perform online transactions because all of the money are in my quatloo-glove in the forms of toonies.
I would rather see more expensive games than paid DLCs.

Last edited by SpaceManPlusPlus; July 15, 2012 at 10:06:48 PM.
  #5  
Old July 16, 2012, 01:16:32 AM
TurtwigX's Avatar
TurtwigX TurtwigX is offline
Giratina
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Strawberry Field- permanent stay
Posts: 3,088
Default

This will be split in to 3 parts. 1- Why DLC should not be free. 2- Rant about Capcom and their idiocy. 3- How i think DLC should be handled, with examples.
First, to address the free DLC issue, with Game Freak as an example. With DLC as it normally is, it sits there, like an actual game, except as an add-on. So what do you do with actual games? Just take them off the shelf? No, you pay for them, which is why DLC should cost something. With the Pokémon events, those are free. But they're also only for a limited time, like special edition bonus content. Those who miss the deadline are lost forever, so the convenience of DLC comes at a cost. Literally.
Second, let's talk about Capcom. Their games are very well known, and very popular, most notably their fighting games and the Mega Man series. Now in this new age, DLC allows them to add more content even after production is finished. But they have abused this. DLC to THEM is locking content already ON your disc, and QUITE A BIT of it, and forcing you to pay ridiculous prices for it. To me, that makes no sense. Things that make the game enjoyable, things that seem normal, popular things. All unlocked through DLC. As if buying the actual game wasn't enough, Capcom just wants control of your entire wallet with these "Add-ons" you've actually ALWAYS had. They even made you pay for DLC for the ENDING to a game. They won't allow you to enjoy the full game without their DLC. It they keep on the road like this, they're going to crash and burn. People are already realizing more and more day by day how awful they're turning out to be. Hopefully Capcom will learn their mistake soon or face an awful future.
And now lastly, how I think DLC should be run, with a helpful example. DLC is exactly what it stands for, Downloadable Content. Things that you did not have before in your possession, but have been made after release of the game and can be downloaded for a reasonable price. Having free DLC like the "Pokémon event DLC" would be annoying to gamers as content that is limited time only would enrage gamers just like Capcom is now. Things like new maps, new stages, new items, new parts to the story, things like THOSE should be DLC. Things that are new to the game, make it more enjoyable, and increase playtime. And example of good DLC is Sonic Unleashed's maps. The game has DLC for EVERY country in the game, and each pack includes a few newly created levels that are more challenging than the originals on the disc already. That is adding on more content to increase playtime, bring the gamers joy, and is a reasonable way to handle things. But that is just how I see it.
  #6  
Old July 22, 2012, 05:15:09 PM
PokeRemixStudio's Avatar
PokeRemixStudio PokeRemixStudio is offline
Moderator

 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,222
Default

I'll just leave this here, which takes a close look at Mass Effect 3's Day 1 DLC controversy.
large informational image    

In short, DLC is meant to keep all portions of the development team busy so that the company won't have to lay off the members of the idle cycle. And they have to charge extra for it, otherwise they'll be paying people to make content that won't earn any revenue. It's a big-business policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
I don't know much about DLCs, but all I can say is - I want to get my full gaming experience from the game I purchase when I hand the money over to the cashier at Gamestop. I don't want to have to pump out extra cash just to get special features or new missions or whatever. If a game costs $49.99 to buy at the store, then $5-10 for DLC, why can't I just pay $54.99-59.99 up front to the cashier? It doesn't make much sense to me.
Because downloadable content is meant to be downloadable? If I buy a game soon after its release, and then the extra content comes out, there shouldn't be any need to go to the store again. Also, I'd like to see if I enjoy a game before I decide to expand upon it.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	me3 dlc.png
Views:	452
Size:	167.7 KB
ID:	3288  

Last edited by PokeRemixStudio; July 22, 2012 at 05:16:39 PM.
  #7  
Old July 22, 2012, 05:49:48 PM
Cat333Pokémon's Avatar
Cat333Pokémon Cat333Pokémon is offline
Administrator

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nevada
Posts: 10,353
Default

I am a mixed bag on DLC. I will pay for it if I feel it is worth the price. $10 to get 10 extra hours out of a game is definitely worth it in my opinion. Remember, you're getting more of a game that you enjoyed (well, you better if you are forking out for the DLC). A lot of people will easily pay six times that price for a new game that they'll only play for the same amount of time. So, would you rather pay $10 and get 10 hours more of a game that you enjoy, or would you rather pay $60 and get 10 hours of a game that you thought would be good but ended up being a disappointment?

Let's look at a good example of DLC: the Fallout series. If you're like me, you may wander around for a few hours, checking out different areas, and working on getting achievements. Bethesda also sells several DLC packs for Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. If you love the game, you can buy a DLC pack and get more out of the game. These packs contain a signficantly expanded period of gameplay, at least a few hours each. They normally cost 800 MSP ($10), but if you buy the Game of the Year Edition, you can get the core game plus all the DLC (not to mention, you can share the DLC with friends for free) for one package cost.

In practice, though, companies can get a bit greedy. 400 MSP ($5) for a single level that you may only play once or twice will likely feel like a complete waste. And with Nintendo finally jumping on the DLC bandwagon with New Super Mario Bros. 2 and selling levels, Nintendo may wind up getting hit with a few black marks too.

Now an example of DLC gone wrong: on-disc DLC. No. No. No. No. No. Just no. If I buy a game, I should be allowed to access the content of that disc without paying extra money. If they patch the game to allow access to the "on-disc DLC," that patch should be free! To put this in different terms, imagine if you bought a box of trading cards, but inside was a small locked box containing 20 extra cards. To unlock the box and see the extra trading cards, you have to purchase a key. Why would you buy a key at the price of the 20 cards when you already have the locked box containing the cards in your hands?

Now for the next split issue: disliking the content and cheating. Level and item packs are primary of interest here. What if you spend $10 on a level pack but don't like any of the levels in it? It's not like you can rent the game and see if you like the levels first, unlike renting the game itself. What about a weapon pack for a shooter? In some cases, you buy the weapon pack and get instant access to some high-end weapons. Well, there went any reason to play the game legitimately, given you can use a near-unlimited rocket launcher on every enemy in the game. Don't even get me started on how this is cheating in multiplayer.

Finally, let me bring up completion. Achievement hunters like to get every possible achievement in a game before they can consider the game 100%-ed. However, for a lot of games, you absolutely need to buy the DLC for that. Of course, I'm not gonna argue here because you paid for the content, so you might as well get some extra challenges. What does annoy me, however, is when you cannot physically complete a game that you payed hard-earned money for without paying even more money for some type of DLC. Sadly, I don't have an example, but I know it exists.

Also, the record for a game with the most DLC would have to be Railworks 3: Train Simulator 2012. Ignoring the fact it's on sale right now, it's $34.99 for the game and $2,126.92 for all of the DLC.

tl;dr: DLC is good when you feel it has value. DLC is bad when it comes on the disc. DLC is really bad when you can't beat the game without it.

Last edited by Cat333Pokémon; December 9, 2016 at 04:01:28 PM. Reason: Typo
  #8  
Old July 22, 2012, 08:02:46 PM
Quadcentruo's Avatar
Quadcentruo Quadcentruo is offline
Giratina
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Unknown area
Posts: 3,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat333Pokémon View Post
Also, the record for a game with the most DLC would have to be Railworks 3: Train Simulator 2012. Ignoring the fact it's on sale right now, it's $34.99 for the game and $2,126.92 for all of the DLC.
There is no way for me to describe my reaction to this.

The basic idea of DLC is good - new content to further someone's gaming with a particular game. However, a lot of companies are shooting themselves in the foot by poor execution of DLC by making it almost required to completely enjoy a game or having expensive DLC for a small amount of content. The price of the DLC should reflect the amount of content given. If you're given 20+ hours of additional game-play, the DLC should go for at least $10. Not like multiplayer map-packs which have 4 new maps for $15 (which is 1/4th the price you paid for the game just to get 4 new maps that are hit-or-miss if you like it or not).
  #9  
Old July 25, 2012, 11:06:43 AM
PokeRemixStudio's Avatar
PokeRemixStudio PokeRemixStudio is offline
Moderator

 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat333Pokémon View Post
Now an example of DLC gone wrong: on-disc DLC. No. No. No. No. No. Just no. If I buy a game, I should be allowed to access the content of that disc without paying extra money. If they patch the game to allow access to the "on-disc DLC," that patch should be free! To put this in different terms, imagine if you bought a box of trading cards, but inside was a small locked box containing 20 extra cards. To unlock the box and see the extra trading cards, you have to purchase a key. Why would you buy a key at the price of the 20 cards when you already have the locked box containing the carsd in your hands?
That's a flawed analogy. It would cost the card manufacturers extra money to reproduce those physical cards (paint and paper/plastics) which you might not be paying for, which would be a waste. No company would ever do that. However, it doesn't cost anything to reproduce 1s and 0s, so the game company could put them on every disc no problem. And if there's demand for access to it, then the company can charge for it. You might as well argue that you should have access to everything that's on the internet (MP3s, paid downloadable games) because you have an internet connection.

And with some demo versions for paid software, you're downloading the fully functioning program, but with an extra programmed feature that limits its usability. You're in possession of all the 1s and 0s, but you still need to pay to use them. Just how on-disc DLC works.
  #10  
Old July 25, 2012, 11:20:43 AM
Blood Swampert's Avatar
Blood Swampert Blood Swampert is offline
Charizard
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Fortree City, Hoenn
Posts: 135
Default

My only true problem with DLC is the actual "downloadable" part. On-Disc DLC isn't a bad thing if you have to just pay it up front at the register and get it in the store. I only have a 4GB Xbox and I don't want to have to Download a ton of stuff and burn up all my memory. It would be more convienient for ME to just be able to play the freaking addons.

But selling you a game that's only 3/4ths complete, missing an ending, or has half of its content locked is just...wrong.
  #11  
Old July 31, 2012, 12:08:51 PM
BadboyUK's Avatar
BadboyUK BadboyUK is offline
Mudkip
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Galifrey
Posts: 43
Default

I think that DLC shouldn't continue the story ,I am ok with new Maps ect. But when they make DLC a continuation of the story ,I don't agree with it .I am a big DLC fan. I buy every DLC that comes out for the games I own and mostly just for the new maps .When you buy a game ,you buy it for the story .And you should expect the whole of it (except if they are going to make a 2nd installment). But when DLC is a must have on the story ,I just don't agree.
  #12  
Old August 10, 2012, 09:52:34 PM
tymp's Avatar
tymp tymp is offline
Mudkip
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 33
Default

Free market system at work. If there's perceived value attached to it, then people will pay for it. Apparently people are complaining about something they can choose not to buy. Don't buy it if you're not willing to part with your money.
  #13  
Old August 10, 2012, 10:36:12 PM
emogirl's Avatar
emogirl emogirl is offline
Cyndaquil
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 21
Default

I like DLC and all, but I hate when things have to cost money, especially a lot of it. I'm a big fan of Sims, so of course I have and play Sims 3, but I hate that there is so much DLC, because most of it costs money, which is just annoying. I already bought that game, why can't I have all the features? >< I mean, it's fine when it's free, but man, >>
  #14  
Old August 11, 2012, 06:29:04 AM
Quadcentruo's Avatar
Quadcentruo Quadcentruo is offline
Giratina
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Unknown area
Posts: 3,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tymp View Post
Free market system at work. If there's perceived value attached to it, then people will pay for it. Apparently people are complaining about something they can choose not to buy. Don't buy it if you're not willing to part with your money.
The reason why we're complaining about something we can choose not to buy is that if we do choose not to buy the DLC, then we are missing half a game in some cases. We don't buy a game just to go home and buy more things to make it complete and a playable game. It would be like if you bought a game, went home to play it, then 2 hours in a message pops up and says "Demo complete. Please download the full game to continue playing." You thought you bought the full game, but it turns out it's incomplete without the DLC.
  #15  
Old August 12, 2012, 09:29:55 PM
tymp's Avatar
tymp tymp is offline
Mudkip
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcentruo View Post
The reason why we're complaining about something we can choose not to buy is that if we do choose not to buy the DLC, then we are missing half a game in some cases.
If the problem is the game being half complete for full price, then the subject of complaints is not the downloadable content, but the decision to release a half-complete game for the price of a full game. The only time I've seen such a thing happen was with Gran Turismo 5 Prologue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcentruo View Post
The DLC should be used to continue someone's interest in a game and should not be "pay $10 to continue enjoying this game" kind of thing.
The morale and formation of the team is at risk if they're asked to make more new content together outside of their original development cycle for no pay (due to the DLC being free). They'd be shooting themselves in the foot then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcentruo View Post
It really seems to be more of a source of money for developers rather than a source of entertainment for the gamers.
No one starts a company so that they can lose money.
  #16  
Old August 13, 2012, 11:11:29 AM
Azu's Avatar
Azu Azu is offline
Servine
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lilycove City, Hoenn
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcentruo View Post
The reason why we're complaining about something we can choose not to buy is that if we do choose not to buy the DLC, then we are missing half a game in some cases. We don't buy a game just to go home and buy more things to make it complete and a playable game.
This is something that I particularly agree with. I don't have an issue with selling games, selling content for games, or selling bonus features.

What I have an issue with is when the producers make it deceptive with the downloadable content. When half of the storyline or a crucial character can only be purchased separately, you sell it in parts one and two. Not as if it is a full game with a beginning, middle, and end.

If you want to sell it in two parts, do it. That's what sequels and prequels market on. That's one of the reasons that Kingdom Hearts is so popular (people like to explore a continued storyline, a further continuation, a new universe etc). Even if it is a huge continuation in some cases, the plot within in a particular game does have some kind of finish, some kind of ending.

Bonus chapters, bonus endings, and extra areas are all lovely as extra content. But I only think its fair when they are just that- EXTRA.
  #17  
Old August 13, 2012, 03:37:22 PM
Quadcentruo's Avatar
Quadcentruo Quadcentruo is offline
Giratina
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Unknown area
Posts: 3,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tymp View Post
No one starts a company so that they can lose money.
True. You'd be stupid to start a company and only aim to lose money. My point is that companies would sell a game and hype it up so it looks amazing and a fantastic game, but then once you buy the game on release day, you find out that all of the cool features they showed off are stuff that you have to purchase with DLC.

They hype up their game so people will buy it, but make it so the best parts are all DLC, making people pay full-price for a game plus another $10-$20 just for the best parts.
  #18  
Old August 14, 2012, 02:54:55 PM
Cat333Pokémon's Avatar
Cat333Pokémon Cat333Pokémon is offline
Administrator

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nevada
Posts: 10,353
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azu View Post
What I have an issue with is when the producers make it deceptive with the downloadable content. When half of the storyline or a crucial character can only be purchased separately, you sell it in parts one and two. Not as if it is a full game with a beginning, middle, and end.

If you want to sell it in two parts, do it. That's what sequels and prequels market on. That's one of the reasons that Kingdom Hearts is so popular (people like to explore a continued storyline, a further continuation, a new universe etc). Even if it is a huge continuation in some cases, the plot within in a particular game does have some kind of finish, some kind of ending.

Bonus chapters, bonus endings, and extra areas are all lovely as extra content. But I only think its fair when they are just that- EXTRA.
Precisesly what I think. If you buy a game, the game on its own should feel absolutely complete, like you shouldn't be playing it and feeling like something is seriously missing. Games also try to avoid referencing the DLC with the exception of the store. Another exception: if the DLC is, say, a revolutionary riot, and several characters mention that they think a revolution is coming up, that's fine.
  #19  
Old March 25, 2013, 12:44:31 PM
Reuniclus's Avatar
Reuniclus Reuniclus is offline
Moderator

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: The Desert...help me
Posts: 3,300
Default Opinions on DLC

I've been thinking about this for a while. More recently, games have been offering DLC be it for Xbox, 3DS, etc. Sure there's DLC that's free, but I'm against the kind that you need to pay extra for. A good example of this is the new PMD game; there is the option to get/buy DLC for around $2.50 a map. I of course don't mind free DLC, but I don't like the fact that you need to pay extra in order to get the full experience of the game itself.

What do you guys think?
  #20  
Old March 25, 2013, 12:50:56 PM
Cat333Pokémon's Avatar
Cat333Pokémon Cat333Pokémon is offline
Administrator

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nevada
Posts: 10,353
Default

I wrote an incredibly long post with my opinion on DLC last July, and my opinion hasn't changed since, so I'll just reproduce that here and fix a couple things:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat333Pokémon View Post
I am a mixed bag on DLC. I will pay for it if I feel it is worth the price. $10 to get 10 extra hours out of a game is definitely worth it in my opinion. Remember, you're getting more of a game that you enjoyed (well, you better if you are forking out for the DLC). A lot of people will easily pay six times that price for a new game that they'll only play for the same amount of time. So, would you rather pay $10 and get 10 hours more of a game that you enjoy, or would you rather pay $60 and get 10 hours of a game that you thought would be good but ended up being a disappointment?

Let's look at a good example of DLC: the Fallout series. If you're like me, you may wander around for a few hours, checking out different areas, and working on getting achievements. Bethesda also sells several DLC packs for Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. If you love the game, you can buy a DLC pack and get more out of the game. These packs contain a signficantly expanded period of gameplay, at least a few hours each. They normally cost 800 MSP ($10), but if you buy the Game of the Year Edition, you can get the core game plus all the DLC (not to mention, you can share the DLC with friends for free) for one package cost.

In practice, though, companies can get a bit greedy. 400 MSP ($5) for a single level that you may only play once or twice will likely feel like a complete waste. And with Nintendo finally jumping on the DLC bandwagon with New Super Mario Bros. 2 and selling levels, Nintendo may wind up getting hit with a few black marks too.

Now an example of DLC gone wrong: on-disc DLC. No. No. No. No. No. Just no. If I buy a game, I should be allowed to access the content of that disc without paying extra money. If they patch the game to allow access to the "on-disc DLC," that patch should be free! To put this in different terms, imagine if you bought a box of trading cards, but inside was a small locked box containing 20 extra cards. To unlock the box and see the extra trading cards, you have to purchase a key. Why would you buy a key at the price of the 20 cards when you already have the locked box containing the cards in your hands?

Now for the next split issue: disliking the content and cheating. Level and item packs are primary of interest here. What if you spend $10 on a level pack but don't like any of the levels in it? It's not like you can rent the game and see if you like the levels first, unlike renting the game itself. What about a weapon back for a shooter? In some cases, you buy the weapon pack and get instant access to some high-end weapons. Well, there went any reason to play the game legitimately, given you can use a near-unlimited rocket launcher on every enemy in the game. Don't even get me started on how this is cheating in multiplayer.

Finally, let me bring up completion. Achievement hunters like to get every possible achievement in a game before they can consider the game 100%-ed. However, for a lot of games, you absolutely need to buy the DLC for that. Of course, I'm not gonna argue here because you paid for the content, so you might as well get some extra challenges. What does annoy me, however, is when you cannot physically complete a game that you payed hard-earned money for without paying even more money for some type of DLC. Sadly, I don't have an example, but I know it exists.

Also, the record for a game with the most DLC would have to be Railworks 3: Train Simulator 2012. It's $54.99 for the game and $2,273.95 for all of the DLC.

tl;dr: DLC is good when you feel it has value. DLC is bad when it comes on the disc. DLC is really bad when you can't beat the game without it.

Last edited by Cat333Pokémon; March 25, 2013 at 12:52:05 PM.
  #21  
Old March 25, 2013, 12:52:16 PM
Eagles's Avatar
Eagles Eagles is offline
Haxorus
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: I don't even know sometimes
Posts: 480
Default

To me, DLC does make sense to be paid for IF AND ONLY IF the developers legitimately had created the content AFTER its release. I hate day one DLC, because there is absolutely no excuse to not just put that in the game. I also hate it when games plan out their DLC and stuff, that doesn't really seem fair for the player, to plan out all the extra content they're going to probably buy before the game's even released. But when DLC is a few months or so after the initial game release, that makes sense to me. The developers wanted to add something in, and as long as it's optional and isn't a completely necessary, I find it perfectly okay to pay for DLC, because they either didn't have time to make more content before release or they had thought up of the idea after the release date.
  #22  
Old March 25, 2013, 01:14:31 PM
Cat333Pokémon's Avatar
Cat333Pokémon Cat333Pokémon is offline
Administrator

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nevada
Posts: 10,353
Default

Remember, much of the delay between production completion and being in your hands is bug testing; rating by ESRB, PEGI, CERO, etc.; production of media; reviewing; production of advertisements; and delivery to retailers. Half of that process revolves around the game being finished and not receiving updates. A single change means the game has to be re-rated and thoroughly re-tested.

With day one DLC, the folks behind the game can produce new content while waiting for it to be released, and that additional content can immediately be added to the new game on release day without causing delays and driving up post-production costs.

(If gamers beg for a game to come out quicker, it's all the more reason for them to make more DLC. )
  #23  
Old March 25, 2013, 01:19:37 PM
Eagles's Avatar
Eagles Eagles is offline
Haxorus
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: I don't even know sometimes
Posts: 480
Default

Fair enough, but if it's nothing huge, then at least make the DLC free. Or if the developers want to make people pay for it, at least don't release it on day one so people don't feel like they're being cheated out on.
  #24  
Old March 25, 2013, 01:38:52 PM
Cat333Pokémon's Avatar
Cat333Pokémon Cat333Pokémon is offline
Administrator

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nevada
Posts: 10,353
Default

I think a good way to do it is offer the DLC free to folks who pre-order the game, then charge for subsequent releases. It worked well with Borderlands 2.


As for something a little different, what do you think about new games that include DLC codes, which are obviously unusable if you buy a used copy? I've heard about that and think it is reasonable as long as the DLC isn't critical or considered overpowered hax for online play (rocket-propelled grenades in shooters, for instance). After all, the publishers and producers make very little money on used copies of games, with almost none of that coming from the sale itself and mostly from in-game purchases, similar to the model for "freemium" mobile apps (free app, paid extras).
  #25  
Old March 25, 2013, 01:58:24 PM
TurtwigX's Avatar
TurtwigX TurtwigX is offline
Giratina
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Strawberry Field- permanent stay
Posts: 3,088
Default

I remember criticizing Capcom for their Disc-Locked Content just a few months ago.

I'm perfectly okay with DLC as long as it's COMPLETELY bonus content. A new character that doesn't contribute to the story, extra levels for an old world, or an extra mode/powers that add more excitement to the restrictions of the normal game. Sonic Unleashed is a good example, it released map packs for the different areas of the world that were developed after the game was released, about 3 acts each. Disc-Locked Content can even be okay if the reason is for Pre-ordering bonuses, to encourage more people to purchase early. Just like in Sonic Generations with Casino Night Pinball (Which I LOVE)

DLC is bad when it isn't free and it; 1) Is necessary for completion of the story or important to the game. 2) Is already present on the disc, but locked cause they want a quick buck. 3) Is released at almost the same time as the game. Why don't they just put it ON the game? Those kinds of bad-intentioned ripoffs are things I hate. DLC should add more fun to the game. It shouldn't feel absolutely necessary to get.
  #26  
Old March 26, 2013, 12:55:09 PM
Quadcentruo's Avatar
Quadcentruo Quadcentruo is offline
Giratina
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Unknown area
Posts: 3,734
Default

DLC in any situation can be done right or wrong, depending on how the companies handle it. Let's take an example from Call of Duty (hear me out on this):
What they did(still do, technically): Charge $15 for 4 extra multi-player maps.
What's right about this: 4 extra maps. Adds variety to games.
What's wrong about this: $15 price tag. That's about $3.50 for a map and from my experience, most people don't particularly like all of the DLC maps and tend to skip them when they are next in line to play.
What's doublely wrong about this: If you don't have the DLC and the map next in line is part of a DLC pack, you'll be kicked. Basically, you need the packs to always be playing.
What could've been done to make it right: $5 for 4 maps. Not an unreasonable price for a small addition to the game.

Now let's look at Team Fortress 2 and its Mann. Co Store:
What it is: A store where players can buy different weapons; hats; misc items; paints for their hats/miscs; name tags and description tags for their weapons and clothing; and other various items.
What's right about this: Is not necessary to fully enjoy game (technically), items go on sale whenever Steam has major sales (summer, holiday, etc.), allows for test runs of a majority of weapons, prices on some items are cheap, but...
What's wrong about this: ...some items are rather expensive. Some weapons that are available in the drop system are not available in the Store (minor issue).
What could be done to make it perfect: Make weapons a set price and hats a set price. A majority of the weapons are $0.49, but some of the newer weapons are $9.99. After an update that makes all hats purchased from the Store normal hats (no more "Uncraftable" text on newly purchased hats), most hats are anywhere from $4.99 to $9.99, with some going beyond that even. If weapons were set at one price and hats were set at another, there would be no feeling of being ripped-off ever.

Now let's create a hypothetical situation:
A game your company has created that is similar to Skyrim has been out for 6 months. After working out the major bugs, the developers are ready to release the DLC, but are asking you to set the price. The developers promise that the DLC will add anywhere from 5-20 hours of gameplay, depending on how much players are willing to explore and how willing they are to do side-quests.
What you can do so it gets good reception from the start, but you might lose money: Knowing that some players aren't nearly as ambitious when it comes to exploring, nor willing to do side-quests, you set the price to something cheap, like $5, to make sure they don't feel like they are being ripped-off.
What you can do to get guaranteed profit, but it will not be received very well at first looks: Knowing that you can get 20 hours out of this and you need to make money, you set the price to something that matches the playtime, more-or-less - $20.
What would be a big miss: You test the DLC for yourself and find out the developers over-estimated the playtime and the goal for the DLC - the DLC essentially attempts to add-on to the story and only adds 3 hours max.

Most larger companies with a large fanbase would go with the second choice simply because they know their dedicated fans will buy the DLC on launch day. However, that leaves fans that aren't as dedicated with a bitter-sweet decision to make - do you spend $20 on something that you may or may not like or do you skip out on the DLC and potential miss out on a great expansion to a game?
What's absurd is some companies might decide to go with the miss-option and have DLC that poses as completion to the game (I believe Fable: The Lost Chapters did something like this). Why would a company go with this decision? Two reasons, one being more just than the other.
First reason being to fix an ending: Remember Fallout 3's ending? It went something like this:
In case you haven't played Fallout 3 and plan to    
You enter the radiation-filled chamber of Project Purity, enter the code to purify the water, you die. The end.
Or you send Lyon in your place and have her die instead.

Not a very satisfying ending. And as an unintentionally insult-to-injury, if you saved in the final room (as I did my first time through) and reloaded that save to leave so you can do more stuff after you beat the game, you couldn't leave the final room, meaning your game was over. Broken Steel (Fallout 3's first DLC), however, fixed this ending by keeping you alive at the end and I believe it raised your level-cap too (correct me if I'm wrong).
I don't mind if a company goes with the miss-option to fix an ending, especially if the ending was awful (imagine of BioWare decided to release miss-option DLC for Mass Effect 3).
Second reason: To make players feel like they don't own the entire game, causing them to go back to that bitter-sweet decision mentioned above. Companies would go with this decision simply to make money. The best example I can think of from the top of my head would be Capcom's "DLC" for their fighter games, where certain characters were locked until bought. That's a no-no and Capcom should be smacked on the knuckles for that.


Review: DLC in any situation can be done right or wrong, depending on variables such as price, how much is added to the game, if it's "miss-option" DLC or not, and if it makes the game more enjoyable.
  #27  
Old April 7, 2013, 11:56:09 PM
Cat333Pokémon's Avatar
Cat333Pokémon Cat333Pokémon is offline
Administrator

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nevada
Posts: 10,353
Default

Oh, I might as well add another comment with something I remembered. Before DLC, there was something else that is almost identical to the concept of modern-day DLC, almost exclusive to PC games: expansion packs. You would buy an expansion pack, and it would add additional content to the existing game, such as new levels, tools, or characters. Just like today's DLC, you had to own the game itself to use the expansion pack, and the game would still be 'complete' without it.

A prime example is RollerCoaster Tycoon. The original game on its own was great. However, there were two expansion packs that were sold in stores on CD-ROM like the original game. The expansion packs gave you additional parks, rides, painting tools, ride music, materials, and much more. How is that any different than DLC you buy nowadays?
  #28  
Old April 8, 2013, 03:32:01 AM
Twiggy's Avatar
Twiggy Twiggy is offline
Kyurem
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere interesting?
Posts: 2,102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat333Pokémon View Post
Oh, I might as well add another comment with something I remembered. Before DLC, there was something else that is almost identical to the concept of modern-day DLC, almost exclusive to PC games: expansion packs. You would buy an expansion pack, and it would add additional content to the existing game, such as new levels, tools, or characters. Just like today's DLC, you had to own the game itself to use the expansion pack, and the game would still be 'complete' without it.

A prime example is RollerCoaster Tycoon. The original game on its own was great. However, there were two expansion packs that were sold in stores on CD-ROM like the original game. The expansion packs gave you additional parks, rides, painting tools, ride music, materials, and much more. How is that any different than DLC you buy nowadays?
Heh. I still remember them. And there are some games that still have expansion packs... and DLC, too.

Aaaaand then there's the rare few that also have DLC as physical disk content, too. There's a lot of ways to distribute "downloadable" content.

Personally, I find DLC to be very fine unless said content is already on the disc. I'm even OK with day-one DLC as long as the game itself is complete by playthrough.
  #29  
Old April 8, 2013, 03:16:21 PM
Quadcentruo's Avatar
Quadcentruo Quadcentruo is offline
Giratina
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Unknown area
Posts: 3,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat333Pokémon View Post
How is that any different than DLC you buy nowadays?
Besides the obvious stuff, I'd have to say price-to-content ratio is vastly different. The Expansion Packs you could buy for these kind of games added quite a bit of content at the price of $10-$20 (more or less). Like you said, the Packs for Roller Coaster Tycoon added parks, rides, paints, and lots of other neat stuff.
Compare that to a modern game with DLC, in this case Gears of War, the ratio is much larger (e.g., RCT would have about a 1:1 or 1:2 for price-to-content ratio where GoW would have about a 10:1 [price:content]). I remember seeing my brother play Gears of War's multiplayer and he was browsing through the Shop for it for some bonus content and one of the things he checked was a skin for the guns that gave it a lightning decal. It cost roughly $5. $5 for a decal. $5 for a single cosmetic change in your weapon. Doesn't change its performance at all, just makes it look cooler. To me, that's a complete rip-off.
  #30  
Old April 19, 2013, 02:12:02 PM
SuperEspeon25's Avatar
SuperEspeon25 SuperEspeon25 is offline
Zoroark
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The Sburb Beta
Posts: 278
Default

Being a Halo and Battlefield player i think that PC players get MUCH better deals having DLCs for free while im stuck paying $40-$50 on map packs
  #31  
Old April 19, 2013, 02:22:08 PM
Quadcentruo's Avatar
Quadcentruo Quadcentruo is offline
Giratina
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Unknown area
Posts: 3,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperEspeon25 View Post
Being a Halo and Battlefield player i think that PC players get MUCH better deals having DLCs for free while im stuck paying $40-$50 on map packs
Not entirely true. Even on Steam, DLC still costs some money, but it's anywhere from $1 if it's a nice developer/Indie developer to $15 if it's Activision pulling Treyarch's puppet-strings again.
I have yet to see DLC on Steam be free. Then again, I don't normally look for DLC.
  #32  
Old April 19, 2013, 02:32:33 PM
SuperEspeon25's Avatar
SuperEspeon25 SuperEspeon25 is offline
Zoroark
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The Sburb Beta
Posts: 278
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadcentruo View Post
Not entirely true. Even on Steam, DLC still costs some money, but it's anywhere from $1 if it's a nice developer/Indie developer to $15 if it's Activision pulling Treyarch's puppet-strings again.
I have yet to see DLC on Steam be free. Then again, I don't normally look for DLC.

Huh, did not know that. I thought it was free.
  #33  
Old April 20, 2013, 04:51:19 AM
Twiggy's Avatar
Twiggy Twiggy is offline
Kyurem
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere interesting?
Posts: 2,102
Default

The Sims 3 is probably an example that I personally like in a strange way.

You see, your expansion options in The Sims 3 are... well, I'll just list them here.
  • Official expansion packs which give you new content, features, and other niceties for quite a good amount of money per pack
  • Official stuff packs which give you new content, but almost never features for somewhat less money than expansion packs
  • Actual downloadable content whose pricing varies
  • User-generated content and mods

Patching your game also sometimes give you new features that are common among the game engine, regardless of the expansion level.

I'm going to talk about the third kind here. The other three are self-explanatory.

You see, with every new copy of The Sims 3, comes about $10 of DLC store credit to be used. Each expansion pack may also "contribute" to one DLC per pack. There are many kinds of DLC in the game's DLC store, and the pricing is, well, wild. Anywhere from 1 cent to a few bucks, and you can potentially stretch a dollar or two by buying them in packs. The DLC can be anything from a small prop to an entire neighbourhood, and everything in between.

I really like the discount deals that push prices to cents. Or a cent. Or zero. You can safely ignore any DLC and you'll be fine.

You can also think about it in this way: Sometimes, The Sims 3 is sold at a discount at either Origin or Steam (yes, The Sims 3 is one of them still sold there). The DLC credit is $10. Sometimes entire game itself is barely more than the credit!

Last edited by Twiggy; April 20, 2013 at 04:54:42 AM.
  #34  
Old April 25, 2013, 08:56:04 PM
Sub-zero's Avatar
Sub-zero Sub-zero is offline
Regigigas
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lin Kuei Temple, Arctika
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fubab_107 View Post
DLC can be a hit...
Agreed with you, bby. DLC should be... DLC. Content that is extra. As you said, not content that completes the game. Capcom does take advantage of this, yes. I did pay for Asura's Wrath True ending, but I was bothered that I had to pay for it. Costumes, the 14.5 episodes, ok. That's extra content, I suppose. I dunno what they were thinking with SFxTekken. I thought NetherRealm Studios did well with giving out patches in the form of costumes for the elemental ninjas. Meh.

Koei did this with the recently new Fist of the North Star: Ken's Rage 2. 8 bucks for one character? Get OUT! Never gonna happen. Never.

The Japanese are crazy, mah bbys.
 
Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Victory Road ©2006 - 2018, Scott Cat333Pokémon Cheney
Theme by A'bom and Cat333Pokémon