DLC devalues games - opinions?

J

jiminator

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,605
Seems like to be a huge trend to add DLC to a game, either as
1) preorder promotions
2) release day/week dlc
3) unlocks for dlc already on the disk
4) endless streams of little expensive dlcs

Also annoying is stuff like dragon age, where you have characters wanting to give missions which link to DLC you need to buy to do the mission. WTF? My game is an advertising platform for DLC?

It is appearing to me that the worst time to buy a game is pre-release or shortly after release. Frankly I find it embarassing for game companies when DLC comes out within the same week (kane/lynch2, mafia 2).

Buying early means you pay a lot more + you get a lot less features. The DLC announcements are like a slap in the face, "HA! GOTCHA AGAIN!!!"

Right now the better solution appears to be waiting a year and getting a gold edition of a game.

Dunno. I know a lot of game companies are suffering, but this does not seem to be the right solution to me.
 
jiminator said:
Seems like to be a huge trend to add DLC to a game, either as
1) preorder promotions
2) release day/week dlc
3) unlocks for dlc already on the disk
4) endless streams of little expensive dlcs

Also annoying is stuff like dragon age, where you have characters wanting to give missions which link to DLC you need to buy to do the mission. WTF? My game is an advertising platform for DLC?

It is appearing to me that the worst time to buy a game is pre-release or shortly after release. Frankly I find it embarassing for game companies when DLC comes out within the same week (kane/lynch2, mafia 2).

Buying early means you pay a lot more + you get a lot less features. The DLC announcements are like a slap in the face, "HA! GOTCHA AGAIN!!!"

Right now the better solution appears to be waiting a year and getting a gold edition of a game.

Dunno. I know a lot of game companies are suffering, but this does not seem to be the right solution to me.
Click to expand...

If anything, a deluge of DLC discourages me from buying a game. $60 for a 6-8 hour game is enough to stomach.
 
im also tired of all this dlc crap, ESPECIALLY at launch. we used to get nice free patches that added missions or maps or units, but now they nickle and dime us to death :/
 
DLC is here to stay, as the publishers are for the most part making butt loads of cash off of them. The only way to change their direction is to not buy DLC, but the majority of gamers, i.e. not people from this site buy any and all DLC for their game of choice and do it gladly.
 
I've had tons of fun with lots of the DLC I've purchased. Fallout 3 in particular. If DLC is good, I'll buy it. If it isn't, I won't. I am happy it exists though.
 
the fallout 3 DLC is much better though than general. They tend to have a lot of content and are really on the level of minor expansions. You are not seeing that type of quantity/quality with most of the other DLC that gets put out.
 
Hate DLC, on release i feel cheated ... either bc i u need to buy the premium version or there exclusives to retailers

Post launch i dont buy it, but i feel like i ll be missing stuff when i play the sequels (Dragon Age and Mass Effect series come to mind)
 
The only one that really annoyed me was the Recent Mafia 2 bullshit.

Playing through the vanilla game (from steam) I had no pre order dlc or anything, just vanilla game. I didn't hink I'd be missing out on THAT much but man, by the end it sure felt like I had missed a TON of variety and things.

With the preorder crap we lost out on TEN unique cars, TEN unique clothing choices, so 20 choices of things there.

Then with the stupid Jimmy's Vendetta/ps3 Jimmy shit we lost out on a LOT of car customization, no superchargers (tier 3 upgrade) and absolutely no decals or anything of the sort.

What's funny? Most of this shit is already IN the game, it was simply locked out for the dlc/pre order crap.
 
This is why I steer away from buying games new, and try to get the best price. The only DLC i have ever purchased was the Assassin's Creed 2 DLC, for PS3, and then because I bought AC2 in March and it was only $30, i felt like it was the best $30 I've ever spent so I decided to buy the DLC.

the DLC was mediocre, but still i felt like my overall experience with the game was worth it. It should have been included with the shipped game.
 
I've yet to buy a DLC, but I tend to buy most of my games well after they are released so it's usually bundled.

Getting someone to pay for extra skins or accessories is fine, but to have to pay for parts of the plot or weapons that give a decisive advantage is not.
 
Sure it does, it lets developers turn a mediocre game into a "Game with lots of content". :rolleyes:

What ever happened one time installments of good games?.


I miss Expansion Packs.
 
Yes, DLC devalues games because developers are building the DLC and selling it as add-ons rather than including it with the game like they did in the old days. They can make any excuse they want that the DLC team is a 'separate budget' but I argue that budget would of been combined in the old days.

I refuse to buy DLC and you should too. This is the absolute worse time to de-value or gives reasons to not provide better value for games. They have a hard enough time selling them as it is.
 
I don't buy DLC. And I don't like companys pumping out DLC's which are 1-2 hour in length. (Bioware comes to mind).

If it is tiny and unimportant and should not be included in the game, bury it. If you want to add more content, do a proper expansion.
 
Stiler said:
The only one that really annoyed me was the Recent Mafia 2 bullshit.

Playing through the vanilla game (from steam) I had no pre order dlc or anything, just vanilla game. I didn't hink I'd be missing out on THAT much but man, by the end it sure felt like I had missed a TON of variety and things.

With the preorder crap we lost out on TEN unique cars, TEN unique clothing choices, so 20 choices of things there.

Then with the stupid Jimmy's Vendetta/ps3 Jimmy shit we lost out on a LOT of car customization, no superchargers (tier 3 upgrade) and absolutely no decals or anything of the sort.

What's funny? Most of this shit is already IN the game, it was simply locked out for the dlc/pre order crap.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you there
I felt cheated after paying the retail price and finding out it only contained the linear story.

hard lesson to learn, from now on, I will wait some months after initial release to buy a game.
 
I don't know...there are plenty of pre-DLC examples of games that might have been good, perhaps even great, yet were forced out the door unfinished, for full price. Star Wars:KOTOR II and Vampire: Bloodlines come to mind.

With DLC, maybe some of those developers will have the chance they deserve to finish off a brilliant product that would otherwise have taken too long to appease an obstinate trading culture obsessed with short-term performance. While I don't care for DLC, the alternative seems mostly worse.
 
Aztlan said:
I totally agree with you there
I felt cheated after paying the retail price and finding out it only contained the linear story.

hard lesson to learn, from now on, I will wait some months after initial release to buy a game.
Click to expand...

Or maybe actually pay attention to games you want to buy and the prior games in their series....
 
DLC is here to stay. Sadly, it's you, the consumer, who allowed this to happen. And by you, it's more of a collective We. People complain and complain, but are just part of the problem. It's similar to how the CoD MW2 Boycott had hundreds of boycotters playing it on Steam just minutes after a release.

If you don't like DLC, don't buy it. But don't complain about DLC and go out and buy it. Especially don't complain how no one should buy it, and then you figure that you as a sole consumer won't make that much difference if you do buy it, because there are other people who are thinking the same thing.

For the most part, DLC doesn't bother me as long as

A) It's not included on the disk. If I bought a game, I expect to be able to play everything that's included on the disc. If you made it and want it as DLC, then just don't put it on the disk. Sadly, far to many games include the DLC in the game already, and just want you to spend that extra $$$ so you can play what you already own.

B) It doesn't change the story significantly, or resolve anything. DLC should be extra. It should not be a pay-for-patch.

C) It's not advertised. Once again, you shouldn't be forcing a player to purchase it. Yeah, you don't have to buy it, but there's a difference between seeing a mountain somewhere, and seeing a town, but getting the message "For only $19.95, you too can enter this town. Just press X to purchase and download this content."

D) It does not add anything that puts others at a disadvantage. DLC should be supplementary. A person who spent their money on it should not be more powerful than a person who just wants to play the base game.

As such, not all games should have DLC. Games like Dragon Age or Mass Effect should have expansion packs, which would be the equivilant to a series of DLC, the way things are currently structured. I don't care if expansion packs make people more powerful or change the quest. But there's a difference between buying one thing which adds 200 new features for $20 than having to purchase 200 new features at $1 a piece. Other games such as Rock Band and Guitar Hero are fine for DLC. Purchasing new songs at a few dollars apiece expands the experience. It doesn't break the game, nor does it make one player "better" than another.
 
Derangel said:
Or maybe actually pay attention to games you want to buy and the prior games in their series....
Click to expand...

I played the original Mafia for years and love it
so I was expecting kind of the same in terms of content, besides the story, the side missions and free ride

that was a mistake

Other games I have no issue with DLC, Mass effect 2 for example, had great content in the original game, and buying their DLC is no problem for me

but what they did with Mafia II was something else
 
Last edited:
I refuse to buy any game that I can't hold in my hands. But yea D.L.C is annoying. I wish developers would just stick to significant expansion packs.
 
Aztlan said:
I played the original Mafia for years and love it
so I was expecting kind of the same in terms of content, besides the story, the side missions and free ride

that was a mistake
Click to expand...

What side missions? You mean the half of dozen (or was it less) missions you got from one guy? As for the lack is free ride. Yeah. Though I found it kinda pointless in the original too. The story was weaker yes, but you make it sound like it was an outright bad story (ending aside). Its better than 90% of the shit in games.
 
Derangel said:
What side missions? You mean the half of dozen (or was it less) missions you got from one guy? As for the lack is free ride. Yeah. Though I found it kinda pointless in the original too. The story was weaker yes, but you make it sound like it was an outright bad story (ending aside). Its better than 90% of the shit in games.
Click to expand...

side missions like the ones found in the free ride extreme

I am not saying the story is bad, I actually enjoyed it
the lack of content is what I have a problem compare to the amount of money paid.
 
I think Rockstar did it right with GTAIV. The Lost and the Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony were excellent DLC. They created one world then created multiple stories in that world.
 
Aztlan said:
side missions like the ones found in the free ride extreme

I am not saying the story is bad, I actually enjoyed it
the lack of content is what I have a problem compare to the amount of money paid.
Click to expand...

Ah right. Been too long since I've messed with free ride mode.

I bought the collector's edition and don't feel too ripped off. The story of the original was fairly short as well, especially if you don't have a million cheap deaths.
 
Derangel said:
What side missions? You mean the half of dozen (or was it less) missions you got from one guy? As for the lack is free ride. Yeah. Though I found it kinda pointless in the original too. The story was weaker yes, but you make it sound like it was an outright bad story (ending aside). Its better than 90% of the shit in games.
Click to expand...

The story of Mafia 2 felt very "cut" together, like pieces and things were missing and changed at the last minute.

The main guy behind the series from Illusion left the studio when he found out how bad they were cutting his game and story up.

There was a whole slew of missions (names of which are still in the game files) that took place before the actual released game even started.

Not to mention Vito's "family" storyline, you can tell that a major part of his motheor/sister storyline was left on the cutting room floor.

Then as far as side missions go, while the original didn't have many really (and personally, to me, a li near storyline is one of the things I loved about Mafia) they did plan/work to put them in the game, but cut it out. As both the dock guy (Derek) and the Scrapyard guy even mention having "work" for you but never once actually do.

The whole game just felt "gutted" and pieced together from 2kgames, it didn't feel to me like the game that Illusion wanted it to be, rather like the publisher put their hands into the cookie jar and decided to sell the whole cookie crumb by crumb.
 
Stiler said:
The story of Mafia 2 felt very "cut" together, like pieces and things were missing and changed at the last minute.

The main guy behind the series from Illusion left the studio when he found out how bad they were cutting his game and story up.

There was a whole slew of missions (names of which are still in the game files) that took place before the actual released game even started.

Not to mention Vito's "family" storyline, you can tell that a major part of his motheor/sister storyline was left on the cutting room floor.

Then as far as side missions go, while the original didn't have many really (and personally, to me, a li near storyline is one of the things I loved about Mafia) they did plan/work to put them in the game, but cut it out. As both the dock guy (Derek) and the Scrapyard guy even mention having "work" for you but never once actually do.

The whole game just felt "gutted" and pieced together from 2kgames, it didn't feel to me like the game that Illusion wanted it to be, rather like the publisher put their hands into the cookie jar and decided to sell the whole cookie crumb by crumb.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree that the story is very disjointed. Despite that its still better than almost every single game story out there.
 
I think the biggest problem with DLC lies sometime in the future after the next generation of consoles are released.

Seeing that Xbox Live for the original Xbox has been discontinued, it's become impossible to download extra content for some of the original Xbox Live games out there without resorting to illegal means of obtainment. I know that the 360 isn't going to have Live service forever; when (or if) MS has their "Xbox 720" out on the market for several years, eventually they'll flip the switch on XBL for all 360 consoles out there. The same thing will happen except it will be even worse that time around because there are so many damned games out there that use DLC as a crutch for their already pathetic play times or lack of content that should have shipped with the game in the first place.
 
Nytegard said:
DLC is here to stay. Sadly, it's you, the consumer, who allowed this to happen. And by you, it's more of a collective We. People complain and complain, but are just part of the problem. It's similar to how the CoD MW2 Boycott had hundreds of boycotters playing it on Steam just minutes after a release.

If you don't like DLC, don't buy it. But don't complain about DLC and go out and buy it. Especially don't complain how no one should buy it, and then you figure that you as a sole consumer won't make that much difference if you do buy it, because there are other people who are thinking the same thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Publishers don't make DLC because it makes a small part of their fan base mad, they do it because it is profitable. It's not that DLC is bad, a couple of already mentioned games, GTA IV and Fallout 3 handled it very well; (I'd add Sins of a Solar Empire's couple of mini-xpack / DLC to that list as well); it's that DLC is much easier to abuse than full 'on the self' type releases.

Most games sell quickly and then disappear, only a few 'blockbuster' type releases stick around long enough to still be on people's minds by the type full fledged expansion packs can hit stores. You don't need anywhere near the advertising (because they come out while the main title is still fresh in people's memory, and most people are still playing it), distribution, or publishing costs you would with on the self expansion packs.

The one thing I do think that really hurts the consumer in dealing with DLC is that much of it is not reviewed, or at least gets no where near the coverage of full games (for obvious reasons). The releases for marquee titles like GTA and Fallout got good coverage, but so much of the smaller mission packs and add-ons go unnoticed by much of the gaming press it's hard to know what's worth the few dollars and what's a ripoff.
 
I am thankful for DLC advertisements. It tells me what games not to buy. However, there are exceptions to the rule. Games that are worth it and felt complete in their own right apart from future DLC will still be a buy from me. However, I will never buy the DLC for those games either.
 
I can either take or leave DLC's. I already owned Fallout 3, had been waiting for quite awhile for the Game of the Year Edition to go on sale on Steam that had all the DLCs included and did that game that way.

For Dragon Age I purchased the first 3 DLC's have not purchased the latest couple of em.I purchased DLC's for Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 as they added to the game , same with the Dragon Age DLC's.

Sure the game studio is milking us for more money, after all they're in business to make money and if they can get away with it why not ? The only way it would stop is if people talked with their wallets.
 
jiminator said:
Seems like to be a huge trend to add DLC to a game, either as
1) preorder promotions
2) release day/week dlc
3) unlocks for dlc already on the disk
4) endless streams of little expensive dlcs

Also annoying is stuff like dragon age, where you have characters wanting to give missions which link to DLC you need to buy to do the mission. WTF? My game is an advertising platform for DLC?

It is appearing to me that the worst time to buy a game is pre-release or shortly after release. Frankly I find it embarassing for game companies when DLC comes out within the same week (kane/lynch2, mafia 2).

Buying early means you pay a lot more + you get a lot less features. The DLC announcements are like a slap in the face, "HA! GOTCHA AGAIN!!!"

Right now the better solution appears to be waiting a year and getting a gold edition of a game.

Dunno. I know a lot of game companies are suffering, but this does not seem to be the right solution to me.
Click to expand...

Your completely off your gourd. DLC expands your game from what it is to more of what it could be. You dont have to pay for it, you can just say no. I can afford to pay for it, if you cant, get a job if you want it, if not, dont buy it. Simple as that.
 
The problem is when DLC resolves plot lines started by the main game. Dragon Age and Mass Effect are both suffering from this with "Witch Hunt" and "Lair of the Shadow Broker". Instead of being optional, if you want know how those stories end suddenly it's not the trilogy you are buying, it's the trilogy and however many plot resolving DLCs they feel like splitting off and charging you an extra $10 for. We are up to $20 extra just to resolve two major plot points for DA and ME and this is just the beginning. They are going to end up charging you a full games worth in DLC to resolve stuff you already paid to start.

They were clear about ME being a trilogy in the very beginning, so everyone can go in expecting to buy 3 games to get the whole story. Except now it isn't, it's 3 games plus all the DLC they want to split off. Times however many games out, which probably includes Dragon Age, so double that figure.

Plot lines started in the main games should be RESOLVED in the main games. If they want to make completely NEW plot lines in DLC, fine... but don't charge us extra to finish what was already started... and paid for!
 
"affording" is not the issue.

if you are a consumer in a store and see a box of legos for $30 dollars and buy that, and later see a package with 2 "wheel" legos and another package with a "propeller" lego and yet others with different colored blocks and all selling for an additional $5 each, or $30 for a "gold" kit which has the original blocks and all the additional blocks....

Well, you certainly don't "need" the extra blocks to build stuff. All the same you probably would have preferred to buy the "gold" edition in the first place, but since you paid the high prices for your legos when they first came out, now to get the same thing as the gold edition you have to buy all the little pieces.

ultimately it comes down to the consumers that have supported the company the most by paying the most for their product at launch are getting the worst version of that product. Later consumers get a hefty discount, bugfixes already included and often all DLC content also.

IMO that is not the way to build successful relationships with your bread and butter customers.

Value wise you can look at it this way:
If your game cost $40 for 80 hours of entertainment that comes down to 50 cents per hour. By that standard all of the DLC packs should be priced at $1 to $1.50. The awakening expansion should be priced at $7.50. If you bring up replay, then multiply by 2 or 3.
 
Last edited:
jiminator said:
"affording" is not the issue.

if you are a consumer in a store and see a box of legos for $30 dollars and buy that, and later see a package with 2 "wheel" legos and another package with a "propeller" lego and yet others with different colored blocks and all selling for an additional $5 each, or $30 for a "gold" kit which has the original blocks and all the additional blocks....

Well, you certainly don't "need" the extra blocks to build stuff. All the same you probably would have preferred to buy the "gold" edition in the first place, but since you paid the high prices for your legos when they first came out, now to get the same thing as the gold edition you have to buy all the little pieces.

ultimately it comes down to the consumers that have supported the company the most by paying the most for their product at launch are getting the worst version of that product. Later consumers get a hefty discount, bugfixes already included and often all DLC content also.

IMO that is not the way to build successful relationships with your bread and butter customers.

Value wise you can look at it this way:
If your game cost $40 for 80 hours of entertainment that comes down to 50 cents per hour. By that standard all of the DLC packs should be priced at $1 to $1.50. The awakening expansion should be priced at $7.50. If you bring up replay, then multiply by 2 or 3.
Click to expand...

You can't go "games should cost x amount for each hour". Value on games doesn't work that way. What counts is the quality included in that time frame. I'll take a great 6 hour experience at $60 versus a terrible 20 hour one at $20.
 
Since the advent of the DLC, I've taken to not buying the game until over a year after it's out, and getting the game + DLCs in one package for 66% off.
 
I refuse to buy dlcs. It makes me think what else was left out of a game. I was kind of disappointed about the dlcs for dragon age. But I still spent over 70 hours on it and I dont regret not having the dlcs. The value of the game was well worth it. I would not buy a game if it was announced to have dlc. I would until they had a goty edition for a cheaper price.
 
Ebisan said:
I refuse to buy dlcs. It makes me think what else was left out of a game. I was kind of disappointed about the dlcs for dragon age. But I still spent over 70 hours on it and I dont regret not having the dlcs. The value of the game was well worth it. I would not buy a game if it was announced to have dlc. I would until they had a goty edition for a cheaper price.
Click to expand...

A lot of stuff is removed from games over the course of development. Kind of the way development works. Sadly there isn't time or money to make everything fit into a game. 3D Realms is a great example of why there has to be limits and why some sacrifices have to be made. Ideally DLC can be used to finish up that stuff and allow the studio to make a little money off of their extra hard work.
 
No, 3D Realms is a great example of why you don't scrap 3 different game engines and start from scratch every time the next best engine comes out.
 
Just read a thread in the PC game section about the new Bioware DLC. They say the "Witch Hunt" DLC doesn't actually resolve anything and that maps were reused for the DLC.

This is not my definition of value. I think it's good that they didn't finish up the plot line in the DLC that was started in the campaign, but that makes all the buyers feel like they've been cheated. This story DOES NOT belong as DLC and neither does Lair of the Shadow Broker.

Oh well, when people are willing to pay for this nonsense then they get what they get. A fool and his money as they say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top