DLC devalues games - opinions?

[ZodaEX]

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.

I liked EFLC as well, but just imagine if they had pulled a San Andres on it like they did with GTA3. EFLC wasn't 2 full games in one. It was two DLCs sold together that were far far shorter then the original game. In contrast Vice City and San Andreas were much bigger and better than even the original. Imagine what they could have been if they were stand alone games.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

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!

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.

Hmm. I think you are kind of missing the boat here.

Just because a developer writes some characters or events into their own story doesn't mean they are somehow obligated to give the player complete closure on every single thing. Sometimes things are just left open for sequels or, in this case, DLCs or "extra paid content" in other words. It doesn't mean they are somehow stealing your money or otherwise being unscrupulous, they just didn't have time/budget/etc to flesh out those parts of the story. OR, sometimes it was just meant to be left to the players' imaginations.

Just because Liara in Mass Effect 2 said she couldn't come with you because she had to deal with the Shadow Broker, Bioware was REQUIRED to tell you the rest of that story (which had nothing to do with the primary conflict involving the Reapers?) Since the beginning of games with stories, you'll always find branches of the story that don't have a specific conclusion. I mean that's part of storytelling, period. When I read a book and come across a character that gets introduced by the author, I don't throw a fit when at some point he walks off into the distance and I never know what becomes of him... that's just how it goes. Am I to get pissed off if the author one day decides to write another book telling me all about that character's adventures because he was "obligated to tell me since he introduced that character to me?"

I mean by your logic, you should be mad that Bioware made us pay for Mass Effect 2 after you bought ME1 (and of course ME3 when that's released) because they tell you about the Reapers coming to destroy the known galaxy but it's left completely open and has no conclusion (aside from the Saren/Sovereign thing being resolved).

Don't get me wrong, if a developer produces a DLC which promises to expand on something left open in the game's story and then that DLC doesn't provide any real answers... well that's upsetting because it was not a quality product, it doesn't mean they did something shameful. They just made a product that was not well made, which as we all know, happens pretty regularly unfortunately. In those cases just vote with your wallet and don't buy it.

Now the one thing that, in my opinion, is absolutely atrocious when it comes to DLC is making customers pay for something that's already been developed at the same time as the rest of the game and is included with the disc/download. To me that's literally criminal - it's like bait and switch or something. Unfortunately they'll probably be free to do this as much as they want, so hopefully consumers will stop falling for it and the publishers/devs will knock it off eventually.

 

[Ryom]

Liara and Morrigan are both major characters. This isn't about a character that was mentioned in passing once, this is about two major characters with plots that concern major parts of the narrative. Ripping their plots out and concluding them for 20 bucks extra is a slap in the face.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Liara and Morrigan are both major characters. This isn't about a character that was mention in passing once, this is about two major characters with plots that concern major parts of the narrative.

Indeed they are. But where do you draw the line between what the devs are obligated to give to you and what is "OK" for them to produce as additional content at a later date?

If they suddenly erased Morrigan from the game 2/3 of the way through and included a message popup saying "Look for the Morrigan expansion later this year to find out where the hell she went!" that would unacceptable. It's an obvious deletion of plot just to sucker in the player for their money.

If the dev expands on major characters with additional story that's their option.

Additionally, if said content was already inside the game and developed alongside all of the other content, that's double bad. But if they knew they just didn't have the time/resources to flesh out a whole side story about a character, I think they are perfectly within their right to expand on those characters later on for additional money.

 

[Derangel]

Liara and Morrigan are both major characters. This isn't about a character that was mentioned in passing once, this is about two major characters with plots that concern major parts of the narrative. Ripping their plots out and concluding them for 20 bucks extra is a slap in the face.

Their stories were detailed and concluded effectively in the game. If these DLCs never released you would NEVER know that Bioware wrote more about them. Bioware likely has a ton of details about every single major character in most of their games. Doesn't mean they're required to give you all of them.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Their stories were detailed and concluded effectively in the game. If these DLCs never released you would NEVER know that Bioware wrote more about them. Bioware likely has a ton of details about every single major character in most of their games. Doesn't mean they're required to give you all of them.

Exactly.

If Bioware eventually decides to produce a DLC regarding a continuation of Miranda Lawson's character background, Ryom would probably get upset saying they "ripped the plot out of the game about one of the games most important characters". Or any other major character in the game.

 

[ZodaEX]

Downloaded games, as well as content for downloadable games devalues them. Because when they are new they often Cost 50 dollars and when they are used they are worth 0 dollars. (nobody wants a used steam account with random games on it they didn't choose and an impersonal username)

 

[Thuban]

1) preorder promotions
2) release day/week dlc
3) unlocks for dlc already on the disk
4) endless streams of little expensive dlcs

I don't have a problem with #1 and #2. I says, good for them if they want to entice customers to preorder to get guarantee sales or pay full price for the game.

#3 feel like bait and switch to me. It's like buying a car and they electronically limit the horse power to 200 HP even though it's mechanically capable of more and after you buy it they tell you if you pay them more,they release the other 50 HP.

On #4, on one hand I think that if you don't want the DLC then just don't buy them. But on the other hand I feel cheated. I feel like I shell out $60 for half a game and have to pays $40 more 4 DLC at $10 each until I get the complete game.

 

[Zinn]

I think DLC can be done right, and done wrong.

Bioware and Rockstar did it right with Mass Effect 2 and GTA IV. You never got any sense that they were withholding content from the main game to sell in chunks as DLC. Instead, the DLC adds meaningful content to an already fully featured game.

Alien vs. Predator and Kane & Lynch 2 did it horribly wrong. On pretty much day 1, a ton of DLC packs were already available. A big "fuck you" to consumers who shell out $50-$60 for a game.

 

[Ryom]

Concluded effectively? Are you joking? They left those plots WIDE open, it was clear there was much more of the story to be told. If you keep up on the Bioware forums, you'd have seen the very popular speculation of how both situations would be resolved in the next game.

 

[veterator]

Well I didn't buy Borderlands when it came out....I think it was released late 2009.

Steam had it on sale for around 10 bucks with it's DLC each being around 3...so got the game + 3 packs for around 20 dollars. It's pretty well understood that one of the DLC packs is pretty much worthless, other two seem pretty good to me.

So got release day priced content that would have been around 80 bucks for 20 bucks. Mostly didn't buy it because I didn't like the videos I saw of it way back when, but the price was right with the DLC packs and all and the reviews were decent for the DLC (minus the one).

The general Borderlands game is a fairly long game and I probably wouldn't have been too pissed to pay near full price for it now that I've played it. But I would have been pissed to pay the full 10 bucks for the Underdome DLC (poor review one and kinda boring to play solo, haven't tried MP). So, that particular DLC if it had been the first one I bought for the game would have turned me off to all of the rest until I saw some long term evidence of people agreeing that underdome was a fluke.


But as a general rule of thumb, I really dislike games that have paid DLC within the first month of release. To me any game released can do with a month of bug fixes before they start trying to push more content out, especially if it has MP aspects. If it has zero day paid DLC, then I scoff and wait....because eventually it'll be included in some "platinum/goty" whatever pack down the line for half of what the game original cost without it.

So I won't say it devalues games, but I will say it makes it a lot harder to judge the value of a game with the way many are handling DLC now. That being inconsistent quality/quantity wise, and delay between the DLC for what you end up with when it's finally released.

It's really hard to say without having purchase a lot of DLC, but I don't do that as I have cut back on games in general due to money constraints and just a general lack of desire to want to play many of the offerings released.

 

[Zinn]

Concluded effectively? Are you joking? They left those plots WIDE open, it was clear there was much more of the story to be told. If you keep up on the Bioware forums, you'd have seen the very popular speculation of how both situations would be resolved in the next game.

Are you joking? Well duh, there is much more of a story to be told. There are a million and a half open plot lines they could close up either through DLC or in Mass Effect 3. But Mass Effect 2 was epic, long, and fully featured as it was. Adding these extra story elements wouldn't have even fit into the "formula" of the single player campaign anyway. If you really feel short-changed in any way by the single player campaign, I'm not sure what to say.

The DLC was added long after the fact of the games release and helps flesh out the story more, I don't see what the problem is.

 

[ZodaEX]

The DLC was added long after the fact of the games release and helps flesh out the story more, I don't see what the problem is.

Well the problem for some of us is when M$ pulls the plug on 360Live you won't be able to re-download your DLC when you Red Ring and replace your console. (unless there's a method of supported offline backups of D.L.C i'm not aware of.)

 

[Derangel]

Concluded effectively? Are you joking? They left those plots WIDE open, it was clear there was much more of the story to be told. If you keep up on the Bioware forums, you'd have seen the very popular speculation of how both situations would be resolved in the next game.

Effective conclusions to a character's story doesn't fill in all the blanks. It closes up their point in the current story. Telling every single detail about a character is actually an example of bad writing. Unless you kill the character off there should almost always be room left open to expand on them. Its an old trick with books. Leave it open enough to allow for sequels, but make sure the character's involvement in the prior plot is wrapped up.

 

[Ryom]

Call it a difference of opinion and let it be.

 

[jiminator]

more issues:
dlcs often are tacked on, do not integrate into the main game. may require character imports. added features will not apply to the rest of the game.

my suggestion if companies want to do dlc right -

offer a gold version at launch with a promise of ALL DLCs when they are available and also reasonable expectations of what they will be. Charge $30 more for it. Many people would pay, no problem. Customers would be happy knowing they are buying the full product and 1/2 a product

No doubt DLCs are here to stay, but damn, this nickel and diming is annoying.

 

[piscian18]

I feel like we're getting away from Developers who make games because THEY LIKE GAMES. I notice it really is getting into a segregated community between the Halo/CoD developers and people like Valve and say Tripwire for argument sake. Tripwire(Im not sure what the dev team is) and Valve give away the engine with the game. You can do whatever you want with the damn thing. At most Trip release the costumes for KIlling Floor you could buy if you want but that wasn't even DLC and no where near launch. Just something to freshen things up for what a 1.99?

MW2 has map packs you buy for $15 which any user could make themselves if it wasn't purposely locked out of the game. That's a dick move. End of story.

 

[Derangel]

I feel like we're getting away from Developers who make games because THEY LIKE GAMES. I notice it really is getting into a segregated community between the Halo/CoD developers and people like Valve and say Tripwire for argument sake. Tripwire(Im not sure what the dev team is) and Valve give away the engine with the game. You can do whatever you want with the damn thing. At most Trip release the costumes for KIlling Floor you could buy if you want but that wasn't even DLC and no where near launch. Just something to freshen things up for what a 1.99?

MW2 has map packs you buy for $15 which any user could make themselves if it wasn't purposely locked out of the game. That's a dick move. End of story.

Outside of indie studios most developers make games to make money, not because they like games. The game industry is a business, its been one for nearly three decades. I'm not defending the actions of companies like Activision, but if you want developers doing it for the love of games stick to the indie scene.

 

[Gabriel]

I agree about some DLC being bulllshit, like MW2's $15 'recycled map packs'. The only DLC I bought so far is 1 of Borderland's for about $3.50.

 

[Plague_Injected]

Concluded effectively? Are you joking? They left those plots WIDE open, it was clear there was much more of the story to be told. If you keep up on the Bioware forums, you'd have seen the very popular speculation of how both situations would be resolved in the next game.

Yeah Bioware said months before DAO's release that they planned to keep DLC coming for two years after release. DLC was a big part of their agenda, no question.

 

[Ryom]

While we're on the topic:

Bioware did DLC right with "Bring Down the Sky". It had visually impressive new locations with a plot line that made sense in the universe without trying to rip something out of the main game. Contrast this with Dragon Age "Witch Hunt" where most of the DLC is spent revisiting places you've already been to that ends up not answering questions you already had and were expecting resolution to.

If they wanted to make DLC, why not continue the BDtS plot line and have Cmd. Shepard hunt Balak down? Started in DLC and ended in DLC. I'd have paid for BDtS and felt alright about it. So far the only DLC they've put out that I'd have paid for is the free one.

 

[Derangel]

While we're on the topic:

Bioware did DLC right with "Bring Down the Sky". It had visually impressive new locations with a plot line that made sense in the universe without trying to rip something out of the main game. Contrast this with Dragon Age "Witch Hunt" where most of the DLC is spent revisiting places you've already been to that ends up not answering questions you already had and were expecting resolution to.

If they wanted to make DLC, why not continue the BDtS plot line and have Cmd. Shepard hunt Balak down? Started in DLC and ended in DLC. I'd have paid for BDtS and felt alright about it. So far the only DLC they've put out that I'd have paid for is the free one.

I want to pick up the Kasumi DLC (Stolen Memories?) at some point I think. Does look fun and I kind of feel the itch to replay ME2.

As for BGtS. Agreed. It was very well done. Though having it continue would be hard. Actually near impossible for them to do. If you killed him in the first game then it couldn't be continued so what would that DLC include for those people?

 

[UrielDagda]

I'm just waiting for DLCs to devolve into something even more fucked up, like having to put your credit card info into the game before you even start it. Then every time you run into an NPC with a quest, a prompt comes up saying "Charge xx cents to your credit card and begin this quest? (Yes/No)"

 

[Derangel]

I'm just waiting for DLCs to devolve into something even more fucked up, like having to put your credit card info into the game before you even start it. Then every time you run into an NPC with a quest, a prompt comes up saying "Charge xx cents to your credit card and begin this quest? (Yes/No)"

So messed up version of a F2P MMO?

 

[foursecondpin]

more like farmville/mafia wars price scam implemented in 60 dollar retail games

 

[Parmenides]

Bring down the sky was really good. And it was free. I don't know, but all this DLC stuff makes me just want to wait for a GOTY or Gold/Platinum release.

Fallout 3 GOTY was awesome and well worth the wait. I'm excited for Fallout: New Vegas, but with the promise of DLC's I might wait until later before I get it.

A company loses big time if a person doesn't purchase on/near day 1, i.e. If the person waits for a steam deal or buys a copy used or even a full packaged deal like GOTY. All the while the purchaser loses if he buys day 1, but the patient person gets the complete package at a nice price.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

i stay away from DLC at is a blatent rip off...it's like buying clothes for your avatar in xbl.....lol pure profit generation

 

[sirsnits]

IMO, DLC is a good thing, game creators can learn from their audience and either improve upon or add what people want.

I do disagree with the cheapoid (not a real word) shortcuts to easy cash, by taking parts out of a game just so they can cash in on it later in the form of an "add-on".

 

[-Sn1PeR-]

I don't know, but all this DLC stuff makes me just want to wait for a GOTY or Gold/Platinum release.

QFT.

 

[aciddrink]

DLC is one of the primary reasons I haven't played any games in about 2 months. I've called myself a hardcore gamer for years, but I'm tired of being nickle and dimed, so instead I spend my money on other things.

 

[meme]

The worst example I've seen of DLC is for Bioshock 2 multiplayer.

They sell a "Sinclair Solutions Tester Pack" which has by far the best machine gun in the game, the best sniper rifle in the game, the highest damage shotgun in the game, and what most people consider to be the best pistol in the game.

So either pay extra money, or use the gimp versions of almost all the weapons.

The machine gun in the tester pack fires bullets 30% faster than the regular machine gun. The sniper rifle in the tester pack has a clip of 4, instead of 2 in the regular sniper rifle. The DLC shotgun does almost 40% more damage than the standard shotgun (but is less accurate), the DLC pistol has a 50% bigger clip size.

The DLC weapons aren't just a little better, they're much, much better. It's ridiculous.

 

[Derangel]

DLC is one of the primary reasons I haven't played any games in about 2 months. I've called myself a hardcore gamer for years, but I'm tired of being nickle and dimed, so instead I spend my money on other things.

Yes because when you buy a game companies put a gun to your head and force you to buy the DLC....

 

[GreenMonkey]

I don't buy DLC because there's always some icky DRM attached. There's no way to be sure it will work X years down the road. Even passed up the DLC on Dragon Age.

 

[bafiofromgermany]

In my case if I know there will be a bunch of download content for a game that I want, I will wait for a year before purchasing that game. It always seems for major released games that has a bunch of downloadable content a game of the year edition will be coming the next year with all the content included.

I don't want to buy a game and finish it then have to continously go back to the game because of downloadable content. So I get the best of both worlds this way, I pay for it for original price with all downloadable content and play through the game the way I want to play it. I did this with Fallout 3 and am very happy I waited so I could get the full experience of the game at one time without getting nickeled and dimed. I will also be doing this with Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 when those full game packs come out.

I know not everyone has the patience to wait a year to play great games, but this is really the best way to go if you can hold out.

 

[Parmenides]

The worst example I've seen of DLC is for Bioshock 2 multiplayer.

They sell a "Sinclair Solutions Tester Pack" which has by far the best machine gun in the game, the best sniper rifle in the game, the highest damage shotgun in the game, and what most people consider to be the best pistol in the game.

So either pay extra money, or use the gimp versions of almost all the weapons.

The machine gun in the tester pack fires bullets 30% faster than the regular machine gun. The sniper rifle in the tester pack has a clip of 4, instead of 2 in the regular sniper rifle. The DLC shotgun does almost 40% more damage than the standard shotgun (but is less accurate), the DLC pistol has a 50% bigger clip size.

The DLC weapons aren't just a little better, they're much, much better. It's ridiculous.

That's raunchy funny. (I guess it's funny since I don't play). So people with DLC weapons play the same matches as those without?

 

[anonmoniker]

The DLC model is killing gaming IMO, and it's only going to get worse because each year brings a fresh supply of 12 year olds with mommy's credit card.

I can recall a time when secrets and easter eggs were included in games to increase replay value and reward players. Now, it's as if management is violating its fiduciary duties to shareholders by allowing anything to be included that could be broken out and sold separately, since giving away the formerly included extras reduces profits. This is also why we've seen the expansion model replaced with DLC. Formerly, expansions would be produced with about 1/2-3/4 the content of the main game, and priced anywhere between $19.99 and $39.99. Now DLC with 1/50 - 1/10 the content of the main game is produced, and priced anywhere between $5 - $15. DLC provides free money for almost no work, whereas expansions bring in far fewer dollars per unit of content produced.

I've realized that there's no point in philosophizing about the value proposition, or whether DLC is truly DLC as opposed to a piece of the main game charged for separately. Regardless of what is "right," the market will come to and incentivize an anti-consumer solution becuase there is nothing to stop the flood of morons who don't care about being ripped off. Since market forces can't be depended on, I just act on my own and go by my own sense of fairness:

True DLC: things like extra skins, guitar hero songs, gameplay levels totally disconnected from the main plot, etc. I just ignore these since they are purely optional and not needed to enjoy the game. If I wanted them I would buy them but I never have.

True Expansions: Think GTAIV, Oblivion Shivering Isles, numerous RTS games, etc. Generally they don't offer quite the same value ratio as the original game, but if you enjoyed the original they certainly aren't priced exploitatively. I buy these if I want them.

Map Packs: Halo, Call of Duty, Tiger Woods courses, etc. These are more of a gray area because many games are now shipped with a clearly insufficient number of maps, and within a few months multiplayer is effectively disabled because the rest of what should have been in the original game is released for a fee and people who refuse to pay can no longer find games and/or get split from their friends. This is made even worse because the single player campaigns are starting to become trivial in length. I'm done buying games with inadequate single player content from companies with a history of covertly turning multiplayer into pay-to-play after the initial $50-$60 purchase. I suppose I'll have to find a way to play the 2.5 hour campaign from the next Call of Duty without buying it.

Things That Are Clearly Part of the Main Game: Bioware, I'm looking at you. If it's an essential gameplay feature like an item box, finishes part of the story I paid to experience, is sold by an in-game vendor who breaks immersion until you give into his harassment and pay up, or is needed to keep continuity between two games in the series....arrrrrr, mateys.

 

[Mokkat]

I have only liked these kinds of DLC so far:

1. Expansion-ish big ones, like the Fallout DLC. For most of them, you can really feel that the dev team spend alot of time and effort to add something cool to the game. (fits SP not-too linear games like FO or ME though)

2. the "indie"-type DLC that fx Tripwire and the Madballs team use - cheap skin packs and nifty non-advantageous features, and beefy free content patches on the side. These guys are putting out DLC to fund more patches and content for the games, not to fuel the CEO's Ferrari - I gladly support them

 

[Derangel]

Things That Are Clearly Part of the Main Game: Bioware, I'm looking at you. If it's an essential gameplay feature like an item box, finishes part of the story I paid to experience, is sold by an in-game vendor who breaks immersion until you give into his harassment and pay up, or is needed to keep continuity between two games in the series....arrrrrr, mateys.

Bioware released a mod for Dragon Age that adds an item box to your camp. Finishes which part? Nothing that was essential to the main plot. The main plots in ME1, ME2, and DAO were wrapped up in the games themselves. Annoying, but there are mods to remove it. Bioware isn't dumb (or smart maybe?) enough to force people to buy DLC to understand what happens in the second game. If you don't buy ME2 DLC then that stuff isn't likely to carry over or if it is it will be explained in the little text files that Bioware loves to put in their games to expand on the universe.

 

[anonmoniker]

Bioware released a mod for Dragon Age that adds an item box to your camp. Finishes which part? Nothing that was essential to the main plot. The main plots in ME1, ME2, and DAO were wrapped up in the games themselves. Annoying, but there are mods to remove it. Bioware isn't dumb (or smart maybe?) enough to force people to buy DLC to understand what happens in the second game. If you don't buy ME2 DLC then that stuff isn't likely to carry over or if it is it will be explained in the little text files that Bioware loves to put in their games to expand on the universe.

Can you imagine if those pricks got a hold of classics like Final Fantasy 3/6? Pay to play Genji Gloves, Umaro and Gogo as paid sidequests, the airship your party hangs out on as DLC, etc. All I can say is thank god for megaupload/rapidshare, but it's fucking ridiculous to have to hunt down the rest of your game piecemeal after you pay $50 for it.

 

[ZodaEX]

We need to start a petition to bring back expansion packs, and kill off D.L.C. forever!!!!