How DLC Actually Helps Games

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
What's your opinion of DLC? Good for games or greedy, grubbing cash grab?

"On-disc or day 1 DLC is just greedy." wrote one gamer, expressing a popular opinion that DLC is part of the nickel and diming infecting modern gaming. "I paid for a $60 game, I expect all features to be available at launch. I shouldn't have to spend another $30 on top of that to ensure a complete gaming experience," wrote another gamer. The viewpoint that "modern DLC feels tiny and short at the best of times and often too expensive for so little" captures many gamers' frustration with DLC.
Click to expand...
 
DLC should be exactly what we all think it should be, addition to an already polished game. Not an extension or reason to release prematurely and incomplete. Prices should not be outlandish and should represent the quantity and quality it provides. I don't think it should be a way to pay to play but rather be expansive on the story/extra missions or quests. When you start putting in necessary DLC and in a way it is required to be had to beat the game or beat other players who cannot achieve the same without spending the time grinding.
 
With the way games have gone in AAA releases, they are insanely expensive to make.

I think that most people would rather bitch about DLC and not pay $100 for new games.

I do wish that the full game was a set price, and all future content was included.

Of course DLC done right is awesome. Example: Europa Universalis 4, or any newer Paradox game.
 
This is their reason for why it's good for games.

Wardell and I agree that, "for consumers, even though some companies have abused DLC, overall it's the best thing that has happened for game development." By improving job security, keeping game teams together and reducing the amount of time, energy and money spent on hiring, DLC helps make your games better.
Click to expand...

So it's good for the game studio but how does that make it good for consumers? It doesn't. On the other hand if they fire talented developers they tend to make Indie games which is better for consumers.

DLC needs to die in a fire. No sane person thinks that DLC is good.
 
Today's DLC is yesterdays Expansion Pack. The difference is an expansion pack typically consisted of material the dev's actually wanted to include but simply couldn't due to time. As a result the exp's were usually pretty large and significant once finally made available, take 6 months to 2 years to come out, and the time and resources poured into them to create were worth the $30.

I dont really know how I feel about todays DLC's. From what I have seen some of it is very minor stuff but is priced accordingly. 10 bucks for a couple of extra maps and some new skins. The part where people start complaining is when it reaches $20+, but I havent seen any DLC this expensive that did not include some significant work to be honest.

People seem to think that just because the developer created more content that all of it should have been automatically included. When Lord of the Rings was filmed they made all 3 of them at the same time. Do you feel ripped off because they didnt release a 10 hour epic for the price of one ticket?
 
Day 1 DLC or DLC to finish the story is unforgivable. Adding another playable character, extra level, skins, or side story/quests to a game already released is good.
 
I have always been more or less neutral to day-one cosmetic DLC; Though it feel like I am getting an incomplete game for the sake of maximizing DLC.

For instance a game that has 20 day-one DLC skins but only has 5 skins in the game that is sold at full price. Note the "Full Price", if the game is sold super cheap (or free) I expect that a cash store is going to be the main form of income.

I dislike paying my $60 bucks for full game and seeing "more" than I got with the game in the cash store, even if it is just aesthetics, I feel used somehow.

As such I have taken the "wait for a while" with any new game over the last couple of years. It has saved me money.
 
Releasing a buggy / broken AAA title and having DLC available at or near launch is what bothers me most.

Put all of your resources into making the proper game, once it launches fix any issues that pop up, then start on DLC. You shouldn't be wasting resources on your DLC money grab before you have finished a proper working game.
 
Oh lordy a thread about DLC. I'll come back in 20 pages and then marvel at the rational discussion that has taken place.
 
DPI said:
Oh lordy a thread about DLC. I'll come back in 20 pages and then marvel at the rational discussion that has taken place.
Click to expand...

Give it 3 and we'll be debating politics. That's when the real fun starts. :D
 
DLCs used to be called "expansions", and they were fully worth it. Now... Well.... Torrents are popular for a reason.
 
McFry said:
Today's DLC is yesterdays Expansion Pack. The difference is an expansion pack typically consisted of material the dev's actually wanted to include but simply couldn't due to time. As a result the exp's were usually pretty large and significant once finally made available, take 6 months to 2 years to come out, and the time and resources poured into them to create were worth the $30.

I dont really know how I feel about todays DLC's. From what I have seen some of it is very minor stuff but is priced accordingly. 10 bucks for a couple of extra maps and some new skins. The part where people start complaining is when it reaches $20+, but I havent seen any DLC this expensive that did not include some significant work to be honest.

People seem to think that just because the developer created more content that all of it should have been automatically included. When Lord of the Rings was filmed they made all 3 of them at the same time. Do you feel ripped off because they didnt release a 10 hour epic for the price of one ticket?
Click to expand...
The DLC for Alan Wake and Dead Space 3 (probably others) literally added on the ending to the game. Your analogy isn't very valid. Those would be equivalent to expansions, not DLC. That would be like if you were watching Return of The King and you got to see the final battle, but then you had to pay $5 more to watch Frodo throw the ring into mount doom, paid another $5 to see all the aftermath scenes at the end, then another $10 to see the Mines of Moria scenes cut out from Fellowship of the Ring (after the movie was out).

The argument the author offers is that management doesn't lay off teams when DLC is present, but honestly that's kind of bullshit. They keep on a skeleton crew to keep producing content, they lay off everyone else like before. The whole industry's screwed. With very FEW exceptions, most DLC is just pocket lining on the publisher's part and cheapening of the game. DLC like Far Cry Blood Dragon, State of Decay Lifeline, those are practically expansions, I don't think anyone has an issue with those. Other DLC where you pay $3 to get a better gun or cosmetics, who cares. It's everything ELSE that just needs to die.
 
Here's my 3 reasons why DLC is bad. I couldn't care what happens on the development side. It's not like there's a lot of studios going around with a camera showing us the process of developing a game. Would probably look too much like slave labor anyway. I care what I know from the consumer side of things.

#1 Day 1 DLC. It's been said again and I'll repeat it again. If your game has DLC content from the day it's sold then something went wrong in development.

#2 The cost of a DLC is usually enough to buy a game. Skyrim is cheaper than all of it's expansions. Borderlands 2 I got it for $5 but the expansions are more than the game. You could get games like "This War of Mine" or "Minecraft" for the same as DLC. Isn't that a lot more game for your money instead of buying a fucking dog skin?

#3 Mods and expansions. Things like skins and stuff I'd rather have from the modding community. That's why Skyrim continues to be an amazing game. Not because of DLC but because of Mods. If developers are still working on the game then work on a expansion pack. Make expansions not DLC. At least I might get my moneys worth.
 
Traze said:
With the way games have gone in AAA releases, they are insanely expensive to make.

I think that most people would rather bitch about DLC and not pay $100 for new games.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how much it costs to make. Consumers will pay $59.99 or so for a new game. That's the target price. Doesn't matter if it takes $20 to make or 20 million. That's the price. Make a game worth playing that can sell enough copies to make up how much you spent.

Same with movie tickets. You make a movie for $20,000 or $200 million - tickets are still $10 a pop.

DLC - some do it right, others don't. Day 1? Get real. $15 for DLC for 4 new levels? Nope.
 
i still remember the days when hidden costumes was fun to look for.. now i gotta buy it..

i have always believed dlc was going to strip content from games and start milking users.... and.. it kinda came true..
 
Ashbringer said:
Here's my 3 reasons why DLC is bad. I couldn't care what happens on the development side. It's not like there's a lot of studios going around with a camera showing us the process of developing a game. Would probably look too much like slave labor anyway. I care what I know from the consumer side of things.

#1 Day 1 DLC. It's been said again and I'll repeat it again. If your game has DLC content from the day it's sold then something went wrong in development.

#2 The cost of a DLC is usually enough to buy a game. Skyrim is cheaper than all of it's expansions. Borderlands 2 I got it for $5 but the expansions are more than the game. You could get games like "This War of Mine" or "Minecraft" for the same as DLC. Isn't that a lot more game for your money instead of buying a fucking dog skin?

#3 Mods and expansions. Things like skins and stuff I'd rather have from the modding community. That's why Skyrim continues to be an amazing game. Not because of DLC but because of Mods. If developers are still working on the game then work on a expansion pack. Make expansions not DLC. At least I might get my moneys worth.
Click to expand...

Agree on all points. My biggest peeve is when I pay for DLC and it is a 15kb unlock file to what I already had on the disc. That makes me a bit upset, rationalize it either way all you want but I am just stating that it seems shady to me.
 
DLC is a broken concept for someone like me.

Games are huge now, and buying more storage space is the last thing on my mind. By the time DLC comes out chances are likely that I've already uninstalled the game to free up 50gb for the next hot title.
 
It depends for me. The DLC for Fallout 3 and New Vegas I thought was great and enhanced the game. The content in the DLC was excellent and felt like it was worth the price of admission. I'm all for DLC that enhances the game and gives good amount of content.

Where as the DLC in Assassin's Creed and Watch Dogs (excluding Bad Blood) where its usually a couple missions and skins feel like a cash grab. I'm not a huge fan of those. Thats the type of content that I think should've been included in the game.
 
A Call of Duty DLC that includes 5 new maps and 2 new guns is BULLSHIT (dont play that shit anymore anyways)

A GTA DLC that includes an entire new campaign ALONG with MP maps and modes is legit.

There's one side.... and then there's the other. I don't think its cut and dry and it certainly comes down to the people behind the game.
 
I would rather not pay for something on day 1 and spend $60 and deal with all the huge showstopping bugs that are almost surely going to be present. Frankly I could give a fuck about DLC, if you have the balls to demand $60 from me on day 1 when the game is going to half that price in a month, make that experience as non-buggy as it can be. I'm pretty sure I paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 for Diablo II and then another $35 for the expansion on day one and I didn't regret it. Since the Steam sales started though a game really has to hit it out of the park if it's going to demand I part with more than $10-15. If DLC really pisses you off just put that game on your backburner and dig into something else until you see it for sale with everything for whatever you consider a reasonable price.
 
The Quake and Quake 2 expansion packs, Secret Missions and Special Operations for the Wing Commander series - that's the best comparison to what I think DLC should be.
 
I think DLC is okay ... I liked the DLC options for Oblivion, Skyrim, Civ 5, and Fallout 3 ... they weren't necessary to finish the game but they added nice side missions or capabilities ... since full expansions are far less common than they used to be and most companies can't afford to offer extensive free patching (like Blizzard did with Diablo 2) I think that DLC provides a nice option to enhance a games capabilities without creating excessive pain for either the player or the developer
 
Converge said:
A Call of Duty DLC that includes 5 new maps and 2 new guns is BULLSHIT (dont play that shit anymore anyways)

A GTA DLC that includes an entire new campaign ALONG with MP maps and modes is legit.

There's one side.... and then there's the other. I don't think its cut and dry and it certainly comes down to the people behind the game.
Click to expand...

I don't know what either actually sold for, but I think it also comes down to pricing.


Take your analogy.

If the GTA was priced $30 or less for that, I'd say that's a fair price.

Your CoD example - if they wanted to sell that for 3-5$ for a "Pack", I'd be fine with it, although $5 would be stretching it.

Its all about how you sell things.
 
Some companies do it right, some just pad the game cost. Too bad Steve couldn't find a reputable news site talking about this issue.
 
The only acceptable DLC is called a sequel. Every single piece of DLC that isn't free is a shameful attempt to get more of your money.
 
How to deal with DLC.
(spoilers duh)

ku-medium.gif
 
The argument made little sense to me.

With proper project planning there is no reason that the small core planning team can't have title 2 ready for the large team to start work on when title 1 goes gold...

The massive laoyoff cycle is just a matter of really poor management in the industry.

I have never in my life seen an industry which as a whole is managed so incredibly poorly.
 
Pandur said:
Most of the time, this!

Exception to this rule is DLC released a while after the game release continuing the spirit of what used to be called expansions.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

There's a huge difference between what we used to get - large swaths of game for $19-$29 more as expansion packs and what we now get. One or two guns for $9.99, maybe a "revisioned" map. See revisioning maps from the past is cheap. You don't have to come up with a new concept, so you save money not only on assets but also testing (balance, etc). You can have the rookie mapper do the work, because he's just doing what amounts to tracing a painting.
 
Another point i don't think anyone has brought up is this... for online games it can segregate the player base. take Call of Duty for example. The Map Packs they release are WAY to expensive for one. And secondly... because they are a paid item... many people don't buy them and many do so the player base has basically been cut into a fraction of what it should be. I fell into this trap after i bought two out of 3 level packs (i didn't want to pay the price they had them for as it was High Way Robbery so i waited until a very rare deal come up) and then had been unable to play for 6 months. Only to come back into playing and be unable to get a game hosted in my country! I played for months with 800ms ping and had a HUGE disadvantage (and thats on top of the negative lag compensation i already get!!) and my gaming stats just took a constant dive due to no justified reason.

These kinds of things really ruin the spirit and intention of an online game. Segregating the player base is just bad. not only that... this practice is something that never used to happen. Levels were given away after the game's release and on top of that... users could create their own and the communities chose which were the cream and they became popular.

Mainstream anything and its ruined. Gaming has been mainstream for to long now. The "corps" have fkd it (mostly).
 
Zarathustra[H];1041438061 said:
The massive laoyoff cycle is just a matter of really poor management in the industry.

I have never in my life seen an industry which as a whole is managed so incredibly poorly.
Click to expand...

Don't worry.. they are everywhere. It's just not easy to "see" this be the case. Take manufacturing (and hell... even engineering) for example. A lot of secretive and hidden away secrets... but oh... my.. god.. is there some fucking dumb shits running things!
 
My biggest annoyance with "DLC" is the dubbing of the phrase "season pass". It's like publishers just see games as mediums to be used for milking cash from players with little concern for much else. This isn't a damn ticket to schlitterbahn water park or six flags astro world, jesus.
 
I've been playing Shadow of Mordor lately. That is honestly one of the first games I've played where I felt like getting the DLC might be worth it. It's a complete game, so getting to the end makes me want to play more. Too often, DLC feels necessary to get a complete game.

What I'm getting at: I'll pay for DLC for games I feel were complete in the first place. But kiss my ass if you think I'm going to pay more for the thing I feel I paid too much for in the first place.
 
I miss expansion packs where you knew you were getting entirely new content and that it was probably worth it's price in value.
 
My thoughts are as follows...

1) Day1 DLC where a large portion of the content needed is already on the "Disk" and gets the last bit of code to open it up... this needs to end -- Honestly I'd rather the game get pushed back to complete the polish required for this.
2) DLC that completes the primary story of the game should never be a paid item
3) DLC that expands upon the story, adds side quests, etc is fine unless it conflicts with point 1.
4) DLC that adds maps / music tracks / Vanity Items / etc are fine unless it conflicts with point 1.
5) DLC that was developed by community request such as new features are fine, unless it conflicts with point 1.
 
HoffY said:
Another point i don't think anyone has brought up is this... for online games it can segregate the player base. take Call of Duty for example. The Map Packs they release are WAY to expensive for one. And secondly... because they are a paid item... many people don't buy them and many do so the player base has basically been cut into a fraction of what it should be. I fell into this trap after i bought two out of 3 level packs (i didn't want to pay the price they had them for as it was High Way Robbery so i waited until a very rare deal come up) and then had been unable to play for 6 months. Only to come back into playing and be unable to get a game hosted in my country! I played for months with 800ms ping and had a HUGE disadvantage (and thats on top of the negative lag compensation i already get!!) and my gaming stats just took a constant dive due to no justified reason.

These kinds of things really ruin the spirit and intention of an online game. Segregating the player base is just bad. not only that... this practice is something that never used to happen. Levels were given away after the game's release and on top of that... users could create their own and the communities chose which were the cream and they became popular.

Mainstream anything and its ruined. Gaming has been mainstream for to long now. The "corps" have fkd it (mostly).
Click to expand...
Same problem in Dark Souls 2. Part of the fun of Dark Souls is cooperation play, and invasions. Then they released the DLC which extended the game but good luck finding people with the DLC. Not that I bought it but regular Dark Souls 2 is a pain to find people, so I can't imagine the DLC owners ever finding people. Especially since it's late game content so you really aren't going to find anyone. It's a lot like the Sega CD and 32X where people made fun of the fact that you needed the already expensive Genesis to even work those machines. Yet DLC works the same but we're alright with this?

But this screws over DLC owners compared to non DLC owners. I have problems with Skyrim cause some mods require all the DLC's, which I do not have. Skyrim Legendary is $40. Screw that, for a mod? I have more interest in the mod instead of the DLC.
 
Pyro411 said:
My thoughts are as follows...

1) Day1 DLC where a large portion of the content needed is already on the "Disk" and gets the last bit of code to open it up... this needs to end -- Honestly I'd rather the game get pushed back to complete the polish required for this.
2) DLC that completes the primary story of the game should never be a paid item
3) DLC that expands upon the story, adds side quests, etc is fine unless it conflicts with point 1.
4) DLC that adds maps / music tracks / Vanity Items / etc are fine unless it conflicts with point 1.
5) DLC that was developed by community request such as new features are fine, unless it conflicts with point 1.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with you, except for point 1.

What does how it is distributed determine if it is OK or not?

Paying to license/unlock features on equipment/software you already own is commonplace across just about every industry. Nothing wrong with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top