DLCs, do they justify thier cost?

[exe163]

DLCs are being wildly used with the current gen system, do you think they are worth the price?

I personally think not, DLC is just a tool for devs to make more money off an released game. In PC gaming, so called "DLC"s were free by common assumption, they come from patches, Valve is the perfect example with CS. 95% of DLC in console however cost money, and most of them felt "it should have been in the retail package". DLC like CoD4 map pack added 4 maps in the map rotation, and cost 1/6 of the retail price. While the maps are decent, but they didn't feel any different from the rest of the stock maps in term of quality, just more of the same. Also by adding DLC separated the community from ones that purchased the DLC and the ones that didn't, making it harder to find games.

There are some exceptions of course. Such as Halo's and Warhawk's DLC, which not only adds maps to the game, but also new features that are not found in the original.

What do you think?

 

[CrimsonKnight13]

DLCs for free are the only way I consider them feasible. Devs should start seeing DLCs as continued support for fans to further the experience with a game. If you're going to charge someone, make it an all-out expansion with +10x the content of a DLC. Bioware gave a free go with the Mass Effect DLC on the PC & that is how all of them should do it. Bethesda did it all wrong with their multi-release of multiple Oblivion DLCs & charged chump change for them. That's not cool at all.

 

[Phimp]

While the only DLC I've purchased for a game were for Halo 2 and Halo 3, I think it's worth it.
But with the Halo games, they were maps that I could play over and over and over again hundreds and hundreds of time for as long as I play the game into the future, so I was getting my money out of them.

For some other games where it's an expansion of the game's campaign or a new character, skin, or something that isn't really going to be enjoyed, then no it's not worth it.

So it depends on
A. the price
B. if you will get your money out of it
C. your income

Because if you only played Halo 3 like three times a month with a couple friends... then it's probably not worth the money, but if you really like the game and the idea of a new map and many hours of online play on that map being quite enjoyable then it is most likely worth it.

But if you are a 15 year old kid without a job and feeding your gaming addiction with your allowance from mommy then it may seem like a ridiculous price. Whereas if the cost of DLC for a game you enjoy playing can be thought of as 30 minutes of your time at your daily job, then it's a decent price.

Also has a lot to do with supply and demand.
Halo3 map packs are sold for like $12 because millions of people will buy them at that price. If millions of people would buy them at $30 despite the fact that the price would be ridiculous, guess what the price would be. =p

Also, I recall reading somewhere that the people at Microsoft are the ones who price out all DLC for games because they get paid a good chunk of it, so the game developers really aren't getting that much out of the high cost.

just my $0.02

 

[Chombo]

Since I play on PC, its hard to beat free. In fact I can't really think of a reason I would play the console version of any of the games and also have to pay more for the original game and the DLC.

 

[Rurik]

As long as there is a static price, no. Publishers always ask more than it is worth. I was burned bad on the Mass Effect DLC, which was worth only 30 minutes of extra play. I may give the GTA4 DLC a shot, but that's it. I'd still rather play console games than PC versions, but will just refrain from DLC

 

[Deleted member 12930]

For some other games where it's an expansion of the game's campaign or a new character, skin, or something that isn't really going to be enjoyed, then no it's not worth it.

So wait... you'll pay for a map pack, but not for something that extends the single player campaign, because it's "not going to be enjoyed"? Obviously if you never play the single player campaigns / USE the DLC in question, than of course it won't be enjoyed...

This is a touchy subject IMO. For instance, people expect map packs for free, but are more than willing to buy new tracks for Rock Band. A new song in Rock Band is nothing more than a new 'map'. Yet no one really complains about paying for them. Why is that?

I am more than willing to pay a few bones for some extra features / items / etc. in a game. Oblivion is a great example of this - I've bought quite a few of the DLCs for it. The ones that add extra missions and story are the best. While the horse armor is really just... shitty and more a test of the DLC system (imo) than anything else.

 

[Domingo]

More often than not - no.
Whenever I think back to expansions and added content that was truly justified I always think of the Throne of Bhaal expansion to Baldur's Gate 2. That game was nearly as big and in-depth enough to be a full-on sequel, but it was priced at slightly less than 1/2 the price of the original game. I think that something like that would be completely justified as a DLC for $25-30.
The others have all been nearly 1/2 the price of a full-game...but only 1/4 of the length of the game and with nothing else added. They tried to bundle a bunch of freebies with the HL expansions and call them extras, but everyone saw through it.
On the consoles, almost none have been worth their prices. The Oblivion Shivering Isles might be the one exception.

 

[Freezebyte]

If you don't like it, don't buy/pay for it and let us who do enjoy it. Simple as that. No need to turn this into a bitch fest of unfairness. Developers/publishers arn't pointing a gun to your head forcing you to buy them.

 

[fodder0]

No, but ill buy them anyways.

 

[ynnek888]

The original Neverwinter Nights had some drama with their premium modules DLC.

Basically, there was this series owned and created by this guy, he spent countless hours making the first 3 parts feely available through the community modules.

Then NWN started Premium Modules DLC. The author actually got picked up by the team to work on another game. Anyways, he had plans to release the final installment as a DLC that you paid for.

Well, a lot of people made a huge upcry about how it should be free since verything else was free, even though it'll take 80+ hours a week of your personal time, and such.. In the end, along with Atari's other scheme of things, that was the final straw for Atari to end the premium modules efforts for NWN1, and the final authors gave what the complainers of the original community wanted. Absolutely nothing. It was impossible for him to keep a job and have a life and finish the module for free. Also, since he was the creator and owner the content, he also forbid anyone else to do any work on it.

 

[rob2000]

if they are reasonable about price and content then i think its ok. I do think that while they say nvidia fronted the bill for the pc map pack for cod4, that it should have been free. Of course thats my opinion, i also think the Gears of War map pack should have originally been free instead of charging at first, lots of money was made on that game, and it hardly had any multiplayer maps. I think those maps were already paid for and just not ready for release. If your gonna add single player levels. story mode, or a mod that completely changes gameplay then yeah i think compensation is fair. But when a games main selling point is multiplayer, and its sorely lacking with maps or gametypes i think it should be free when that should have been part of the game already. Guitar Hero, many times they have to pay to use those songs, so its understandable, but if the Record Labels were smart they would give the songs for free and advertise for the albums say for purchase on xboxlive or ps3 and maybe boost sales that way. Instead of nickle and dime the consumer every time.

as for the question if, you have to have it and will play the hell out of it, then i guess DLC is worth it, but freebies are worth a lot to many consumers who think of that everytime a game in that series is released. I also think the consoles need more community themed stuff to help them.

 

[Tzzird]

Though I've spent at least $200 on DLC for gh2/gh3/Rock Band songs, I wouldn't say I squandered that money. It's nice to have a large selection of songs to play when your friends come over.

Can't really comment on other DLC because I haven't spent much on anything outside songs.

 

[Phimp]

So wait... you'll pay for a map pack, but not for something that extends the single player campaign, because it's "not going to be enjoyed"? Obviously if you never play the single player campaigns / USE the DLC in question, than of course it won't be enjoyed...

I guess I was speaking for myself. I tend to play through single player or campaign only a couple times, unlike multiplayer, which I can enjoy over and over for a few years.

Rock Band DLC songs are also something I've purchased, because the ability to have more songs to choose from when a dozen people are over every weekend is definitely worth the $2 per song or whatever it is.

So if it's something I'll enjoy and play over and over again, then it's worth the money, at least for me anyways.

 

[exe163]

It's hard to put rock band songs in the same category, half of which is for the license of the song. Also most people only buy couple songs which they liked.

I am thinking about the lesser popular online games, there are only so many people own the game, less who own both the game and DLC; plus, for many casual gamers getting the DLC is a lot of trouble to get through.

 

[Deleted member 12930]

It's hard to put rock band songs in the same category, half of which is for the license of the song. Also most people only buy couple songs which they liked.

I disagree - you're still paying for DLC. No matter if it's a song or not. The point I was trying to make was proven by this very statement - people are willing to dismiss paying for songs, but not for extra landmass to explore in Oblivion, or extra weapons in Crackdown. Sure you're paying for a license to the song, but you're also paying for a license to the extra content in the above examples.

Work goes into creating all of those things, so IMO it merits giving the developers a little something for their hard work.

Speaking of Crackdown - they have a great model for their DLC. Give away some of it for free, to entice you to buy the premium stuff. Excellent marketing ploy.