Are you for or against DLC and Season Passes?

Just finished reading an article on why gamers support DLC and Season Passes. It made a lot of sense but it also made me realize how much I hate the shady practice. Some DLC is absolutely great (Witcher 3) and in my opinion Halo 5 had awesome free DLC. But honestly, I've bought some bad DLC and Season Passes for games I thought I would love (Destiny) and have gotten burned.

Do you think one day DLC and Season Passes will go away? Probably not. I think that gamers have made their bed full of DLC, Season Passes and Micro-transactions. Unless the gaming industry does a total reboot, it'll probably never go away. How many of you HONESTLY support DLC and Season Passes?

Article: 7 Reasons Why Gamers Support DLC and Season Passes

@armycombatvet: Depends on the game/ company/ reputation/ and what they're selling-

If it's map-packs, pointless modes no one wanted, cut-content intended for release (like ' real ending'), and costume cosmetics?

They can keep it! I'm against that kind of added trinkets. And only jump the gun if I desperately want to extent my playtime in certain games.

But a good expansion is a whole other story. I bought all the DLC for Dark Souls III in recent memory. Why? Because it was worth the price. And had no regrets in my purchase. Didn't feel tacked on, lazy, or bad. Did the same for Bloodborne, and The Evil Within with no issues. Though probably still the best expansion I ever bought was The Shivering Isles.

However the only extra I plan on getting for Resident Evil 7 is the "free" Not a Hero. Will it stay free is debatable. My negativity is mostly due to Capcom being terrible with DLC outside of Monster Hunter. They overcharge, and usually feels tacked on. Lacking in quality and quantity.

I like DLC and season passes in general. I buy those that I feel is worth it to me and pass on those that don't. It's worked out quite well for me so far.

post-release content has, for as long as I have been playing games, been a fact of life and I have been gaming for over 25 years at this point. The name has changed, but we called them "expansion packs" back then and they actually cost more (about 30 dollars) and, believe it or not, offered less content.

So no, I don't object to additional content to a game I enjoy. In fact, I welcome it. Season passes are similarly pricedd (30-40 dollars) to those expansions I dropped my hard-earned allowance and chore money on, and generally offer a decent amount of additional content, sometimes enough to rival the original game's.

The only thing I object to is "day one" DLC; that stuff should be included with the base game. Oh and pay to win nonsense and vanity items.

Yeah I suppose map packs are kind of a rip, I think they should be free as well. Some games really stiff you, too, with their stock offerings.

I think most would agree that there are "good" and "bad" DLC. In general, I do not find DLC to have good value. But I'm used to waiting to buy games until I can get them for about $30 or less. So something that's $10-15 and only lasts 2-3 hours is very unappealing to me. Even something like The Last of Us: Left Behind, which was a great DLC, didn't feel worth it to me because of how short it was. I'm honestly a tightwad and I'll try to know how much extra content I'm getting should I decide to purchase a DLC or Season Pass. I do like that Season Passes save you money on (hopefully all) the DLC a game provides. However, I'm starting to see cosmetic crap being thrown into the mix, which I think de-values Season Passes. I'm only interested in DLC that adds actual content to a game.

So I guess to wrap it up, I do support DLC and Season Passes that add actual content to games that justify their respective prices. And one good thing about being very patient when it comes to games is that games are often sold bundled with all their DLC once everything has been released. That's something I definitely like about DLC, though most aren't like me in that I don't mind not playing most new games until some 6 months to a year after they release.

The only DLC I've ever purchased was the map pack for COD4. I've never purchased a season pass. If a company announces DLC I wait for the complete edition. If a complete edition never drops I get the vanilla version dirt cheap. It's my way of saying F you to the trend.

I will never except the practice of DLC nor will I support it. Personally I hate every aspect of connecting consoles online. I hate day 1 patches I hate dlc and micro transactions and I hate multiplayer. I grew up in a different era.

I like it. I pay only $60 for the entire complete game and pick what extra I want instead of paying $100+ for the entire complete game and all the extras.

DLC is a nice option for those who enjoy the game and want more. I haven't bought many extra content packs for my games, but I have purchased before and I've been very happy with those buys.

Honestly I don't know much about season passes, but DLC is either really good or really awful. DLC should always feel like an extra side-game, or a new, shorter game. If the DLC is just missing content from the core game, or something that actively makes the normal gameplay much improved yet is only available through DLC, that's a problem.

But honestly most DLC stuff that I see on steam are skin packs and whatnot, which are fine. Can anyone give me a quick rundown of whats normally in a season pass?

@RSM-HQ Shivering Isles is probably my favourite expansion in any game! It's exactly what DLC should be. A different experience of the same base game.

Will a steady income source for the developers go away? ehmm no.

And as long as it´s the price it is now, i don't mind them at all.

I hate recent trends in dlc. Expansion packs (for those of us old enough to remember) was dlc done right. A portion of the cost of the main game, with a worthy amount of content. The base engine and most mechanics are programmed already, so those literally added content if we enjoyed the game.

The current state of dlc tricks people into purchasing things by making their value seem like it's worth it when there's really nothing there. Cosmetics? Differing colors? Why are people paying so much for this? Crappy, short bits of overpriced dlcs? Recent trends keep me from getting a lot of games until they come out with a complete package down the road (usually a "goty" edition) for a reasonable price.

The thing that really makes me mad is the consumers. It's amazing to watch consent be manufactured (Thanks, Noam) and just to be there to witness it, and to see the consumer regurgitate corporate selling points. It's really amazing how psychology works. The only unfortunate side effect is that we, as consumers, are forced to pay higher prices for less quality. Anybody that lived through times of "expansion" packs will know what I'm talking about. That's how "dlc" was done right...and there was value to the consumer. Now it's a cash grab by companies that have nearly perfected how to manipulate their consumers, with the consumers blessing nonetheless.

THIS!!! SO MUCH THIS!!! I hate the state of DLC and Season Passes. They are shit for the most part. Always overpriced. Why aren't they in the game to begin with. Pretty much what we all gripe about. Microtransactions in Halo and Battlefield now? Seriously? Remember Halo 1, 2, and 3? Remember the old Battlefields? Expansions! Full-on EXPANSIONS!!

But the new kind of gamer likes shiny new things. He needs that 8th costume of Chun-Li to add to the collection that he never uses anyway. $5.99? Sure, take my money. We don't need arcade mode. Just give me more costumes that do absolutely nothing and make sure to charge them up nice and good.

You must get mad a lot then.

Because if you look at the things people buy in the virtual world is not much more different than a lot people buy in the real world.

And you could say that instead of spending 200$ on alcohol that last you a night , it´s better to spend 200$ on virtual goods that last you at least more than a night.

@Jacanuk: I don't know anybody who WANTS this. Did anyone ask for this? No. Some video game companies in the 2000s started selling little things here and there, have this virtual goodie for your space avatar "That's $3.99 please" and the masses just flocked to it. I need those golden guns for Red Dead Redemption, I need that Day 1 DLC story content announced after completing Mass Effect 3, I need the horse armor for...well yeah I don't think people were really sold on that one.

Don't know what kind of point you are trying to say, but hopefully you aren't defending all of the nickle and diming that every company seems to want to shove down our throats.

Not trying to defend DLC or Microtransactions.

But i can see that it's a viable business model so of course the developers and publishers are going to take advantage of it.

Well, i'll defend DLC like GTA IV´s Gay Tony and Lost and Damned, because that was DLC done right and added a shit ton of hours to an already massive game.

Sounds like you could use a link:

https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1493469867&sr=8-1&keywords=manufacturing+consent

I'm curious what bringing in alcohol has to do with anything. I thought we were talking about video games? Maybe you can make an argument without bringing in other types of goods/services. Are you trying to say that you like the current business model for games? I don't. And laid out my reasons why...they used to add content in a better way. The consumer got more bang for their buck, got a whole product at launch, and the total costs for the game content + expansions stopped at less than 2x the original amount of the game.

The last dlc I can think of that was done really, really well, was Undead Nightmare. I haven't play all games, so maybe I'm missing some, but the rest I've seen since follow inferior (for the consumer, if not publisher) dlc models.

I brought it in because spending cash on virtual goods is no worse then so much other shit you can buy. Like Alcohol or a pizza.

And if you want to talk a pure economy view, the price of gaming has not followed the normal growth in ages, while the same can not be said for the budget of a normal AAA game, so again it´s easy to see why the developers/publishers look to under means of getting back their investment. After all they don´t make games for you or anyone else, they make them to make money.

And yes in the good old days it was different, but there was also a much different culture, back then Gaming was a niche market where people had a different mindset.

Depends on the content. From Soft do a good job with it. Disgaea does a good job with it. Yakuza does good without it. (except a few free things here and there for small trinkets)

I like content that is big enough that it can be justified in calling them expansions. For example, age of mythology's titan expansion, witcher 3 expansions, etc etc.

MGS Rising Revengeance had good dlc.

etc etc

@putaspongeon: The Evil Within Kidman DLCs isn't as good as the main game, with its entire focus on stealth and taking cover. It cleared up a lot of unanswed questions. Yet overall wasn't that fun to play. The exception being Shade encounters.