Anyone else getting tired of this "downloadable content" BS?

I think I said this somewhere before. What's with all the new games releasing half of their content and asking you to download the rest? Someone like me who lives in an area that don't have a PS Store is gonna be **** even if willing to pay more to get the rest of the game (lol). I can create a US/UK account, but I'm gonna be needing a billing address or something. **** this ****

Examples:

SVR09

Midnight Club LA.

sigh

DLC is a dual-edged sword I think, and I am not ready to sign-off on saying that it is inherently "bad" or definitively "good".

When DLC first launched (remember when we used to call them "microtransactions"?), it received a well-deserved bad rap due to the tendency for some publishers to nickle-and-dime you to death over chincy add-ons that were of questionable long-term value. I do not mind buying a map pack of 3-6 maps that I know are going to be in the rotation in a lot of rooms online. But I am not paying for a horse, and I do not concur with people being able to buy weapons or add-ons that they have not earned in the game, that they can then use in the game to boost online stats and especially in a multi-player (PVP) arena.

Since then, DLC has taken a much larger role in the market. In a recent podcast, I commented that the release of certain map packs and add-ons were garnering as much media attention as full-game releases. In fact, certain DLC has led to a better balance in the old market model of good titles only coming out in Q4. Now, big title add-ons sometimes lead to a title's resurgence in the spring and summer months and fill-out a gamer's timeline until we turn the corner into October. I regard this as a good thing, or at least a decent thing with some arguably good benefits to the industry. Games that I buy in the holiday season one year receive an update and/or add-on in the spring/summer, and the game continues giving me ROI through the next holiday season.

I do agree with the OP. Releasing a game and then releasing DLC which is just a token or key to unlock content that is already on the disk is flirting with the cheesy side. Releasing a game that immediately has a significant amount of DLC available within a few weeks of its launch begs the question as to why they did not just delay release of the game in order to pack the DLC in (I will exclude Rock Band from this categorization).

So, that's my stance on DLC in general, but the OP has a specific problem. So the question I would ask is, if the DLC could be delivered to you via some other medium, would you be more accepting of its place in the market? Is it true that the issue is not that you don't have a shipping address, but you would just need a US or UK billing address if you were going to set up an account? So, if you could get the media shipped to you on a disc or some other media that you could then install, at the exact same cost as others pay for the DLC direct, would that interest you? I have to admit, if this option were available, I might use it even though I live in the US and have access to a braodband pipe to download the stuff. This would prevent problems if I ever swapped out my PS3 or my PS3's hard drive and prevent me from having to download all of the updates again.

For that matter, it is interesting that you can download PS3 firmware updates to a USB drive and then install from there. Maybe it would be nice, if they could figure out a way to police it to keep people from stealing DLC (which I admit would be difficult and a pain), to have a friend in the US or UK who could download the stuff for you and ship it to you on a thumb drive. I reckon we are a long way off from a solution like that (like maybe never), but they are interesting possibilities to consider.

- Vr/Gull.>>

People will defend it, but no one should be paying $10 for a map. And if you don't, it effectively cuts you off from people who own the same game.

My Adivce, Buy a decent gaming pc: Maps and other updates are like 99% free.

People will defend it, but no one should be paying $10 for a map. And if you don't, it effectively cuts you off from people who own the same game.

My Adivce, Buy a decent gaming pc: Maps and other updates are like 99% free.

Jodan77

[QUOTE="Jodan77"]

People will defend it, but no one should be paying $10 for a map. And if you don't, it effectively cuts you off from people who own the same game.

My Adivce, Buy a decent gaming pc: Maps and other updates are like 99% free.

Kuruption84

I own the console and enjoy them a fair bit, so I don't want to sounds like I'm bashing them. But Whenever an outstanding multiplatform game is released, I get it for the PC for a number of factors, one being I don't have to worry about getting jipped on dlc.

I think that DLC is a good thing.

However, the way it has been used is not.

The biggest example that comes to mind is Soul Caliber 4, where Vader or Yoda were offered as DLC, depending on the console. This is an example of Namco releasing an almost finished game (to make them "console exclusive!"), then making gamers pay extra to have the complete product.

Rock Band is a culprit as well. They had DLC for Rock Band 2 BEFORE the game was even released. Why couldn't this be included in the actual game?

Now for a few theoretical examples of DLC that do gamers justice.

1. Extra missions in games like MGS4. They don't need to be canon, but the gameplay is just so fun that I would definitely pay for more.

2. In fighting games, new characters that were developed AFTER release.

3. Rock Band and Guitar Hero releasing more songs after release (they already do this, kudos).

I understand that this is an industry, and the companies are all out to make money, but they're using DLC to wring every single dollar out of the consumer. It's very underhanded, and unfortunately it's probably not going to stop soon.

So the question I would ask is, if the DLC could be delivered to you via some other medium, would you be more accepting of its place in the market? Is it true that the issue is not that you don't have a shipping address, but you would just need a US or UK billing address if you were going to set up an account? So, if you could get the media shipped to you on a disc or some other media that you could then install, at the exact same cost as others pay for the DLC direct, would that interest you?GulliverJr

if the DLC is worth it, yes. take smackdown vs raw for example, they have already created all the characters. but they're not releasing all of them. they saved a few as DLC....wtf? why dont they just **** add it to the game and raise the price tag, if all they want is money? like i said, i'd understand if i had to pay for new hitman missions, and i will. but some things are actually part of why you buy the game ffs. get it? but the thing is here, even if if all the DLC were really extras, and i'd like to pay for em....i cant. sigh

Pretty simple deal here, if you don't like it don't buy it. Nothing speaks louder than your $$$. _Bear

yea, but what if someone like me cant get it even if i had tons of $$$$? and not buying isn't really a way to stop it here. i've been buying ever damn smackdown game since the first one, im pretty much a collector. so no matter what, im gonna buy it. any other solutions? we should riot against those **** developers who abuse it tbh :/

Fortunately DLC isn't just an excuse for all developers to leave content out of the game. RK-Mara

how would that be an excuse? i dont get it.

[QUOTE="RK-Mara"]Fortunately DLC isn't just an excuse for all developers to leave content out of the game. kookitto

with the exception of full expansion packs, i dont think we should have to pay for dlc. we've paid for the game, why should we have to pay more for crummy updates.

preferably the developer should think about what they could add to a game BEFORE release. many people don't have access to xboxlive or the ps network.

[QUOTE="kookitto"][QUOTE="RK-Mara"]Fortunately DLC isn't just an excuse for all developers to leave content out of the game. RK-Mara

yea thats what i think. but your reply wasn't clear lol.

preferably the developer should think about what they could add to a game BEFORE release. many people don't have access to xboxlive or the ps network.

MadMac132

EXACTLY.

It really depends what it is for me. I'f it's just a few extra tracks for Guitar hero or something, i really don't care. But i'm really getting sick of developers releasing incomplete games, and then expecting us to download features that were promised from the begining.

And I'm even more sick of developers expecting us to act as their game testers, and then patching broken games later

I've got no deep issue with DLC. I've bought some of Oblivion's DLC, a lot of Motorstorm's DLC, all of Warhawk's DLC and some of the DLC for Civilization Revolution.

I skip DLC which is held back and try to skip games whose makers are clearly holding back stuff with the intention of charging me for it later (i.e. guys who announce there will be $15 worth of DLC on launch day) but guys announcing before a game hits that there will be DLC down the line doesn't shock and horrify me.

A developer that continues to support a game and listens to the feedback of the community when crafting and deciding the pricing of said DLC (Bethesda deserved all the flack they caught for the horse armor but by the end they were releasing quality stuff like Shivering Isles) is a developer I appreciate.

And I'm even more sick of developers expecting us to act as their game testers, and then patching broken games later

BuryMe

Halo3 has been upgraded twice since it's release and it was far from broken at launch. I fail to see how this continuing support of a game can be a negative.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"] And I'm even more sick of developers expecting us to act as their game testers, and then patching broken games laterMentatAssassin

I wasn't talking about ahlo 3. I was talking about games that are glitch ridden at launch, and then only patched after people start complaining that the game is unplayable

BuryMe

Could you give a couple of examples?

[QUOTE="MentatAssassin"][QUOTE="BuryMe"] And I'm even more sick of developers expecting us to act as their game testers, and then patching broken games laterBuryMe

reminds me of two world

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

I wasn't talking about ahlo 3. I was talking about games that are glitch ridden at launch, and then only patched after people start complaining that the game is unplayable

MentatAssassin

Could you give a couple of examples?

NCAA Football 09 was released with absolutely broken sliders (even admitted so by the developers), very poor return coverage, freezing issues when editing rosters, roster glitches when editing rosters, players leaving for the pros even after you succesfully talked them into staying in online dynasty, online dynasties being completely overriden by newer versions with duplicate name, and flurry of others. They've released two patches since then.

DLC for games like Rock Band to get additional songs to you specific tastes is awesome. Expanson packs like the ones for Oblivion or other large game extending additions are good too.

Free DLC is nice too, for additional maps, avatar clothing, game items. But should generally not cost additional money really.

Charging for pointless stuff or stuff that should have been there already is not good. I'll also never understand people purchasing gamepics on XBox. That just seems crazy to me, it would be mutch better to earn them through playing the games maybe, like along wiht the acheivements or something.

Developers reallying on the ability for users to download patches for a broken game is pathetic. But the ability to down laod a patch for an issue is good... but in no means should it be the norm like some games.

It really depends what it is for me. I'f it's just a few extra tracks for Guitar hero or something, i really don't care. But i'm really getting sick of developers releasing incomplete games, and then expecting us to download features that were promised from the begining.

And I'm even more sick of developers expecting us to act as their game testers, and then patching broken games later

BuryMe

precisely.

I'm disappointed with DLC so far - there have been good examples of it but they're so few and far between that all I ever see are the terrible uses of it.

Most recently, Tales of Vesperia is a horrible offender of the basic rules of DLC decency - not selling you **bleep** that you couldn't do yourself through regular gameplay. Lots of Japanese companies don't get this either - if you're too lazy or need a quick breast fix you can spend $30 to unlock all bathing suits in DOA:X2. Virtua Fighter 5 sells on-disc costumes for money. Vesperia sells in-game money for real money (screw The Godfather) and in-game levels for money. What? You can even buy skill packs and costume packs that would all be unlocked gradually by regular gameplay.

Next thing we know Bethesda is going to borrow the Korean MMO model that Japanese companies have pilfered already and start selling objects for Fallout. Don't want to earn the money to buy the Rock-It Launcher? Buy it for 200 Microsoft points or $2.50 on PSN. Buy perks for cash, levels for cash, bobbleheads for cash. Dog armor for Dogmeat.

Pain is also a great example of terrible DLC. And given the current announcements, I'm worried Little Big Planet is going to go that route - although in its defense at least there's actually a game there if you don't buy anything extra.

There are lots of examples of middling DLC - not offensive, but not spectacular. Map packs, extra missions, extra cars, etc. Your Gears, Halo, CoD4, Forza 2, Test Drive Unlimited kind of stuff.

As for great DLC, it's rare. Project Gotham Racing 4 comes to mind first, since it offered a free and paid version of the same DLC, so even if you didn't want to pay a paltry five bucks you'd still get a couple of extra cars and new single and multiplayer modes. Paying the money just gave you more. No one played the game, of course, which makes the effort they put into the DLC even more impressive.

I like DLC. Especially the way bungie does it. They'll release a map pack, and at first charge a normal amount of points for it, then after some months to half a year they make it free. The people that have money to spare and want to get the most out of the game will buy it, love it, and bungie will get the money they used for making the maps, and the rest can wait till it becomes free and they won't be missing out.

You just have to know when not to buy DLC.