No DLC At All

DLC will destroy gaming. Even DLC that is worth your money because it only allows developers to release ripoff DLC that they want you to think is worth your money. Whats ripoff DLC? The damn horse armor for Oblivion and the Versus mode for Resident Evil 5 which I know for a fact Capcom held back to release as DLC.

The only way to stop all this is to not have DLC at all. Agree?

That sounds to me like a lot of alarmist hyperbole. Your basic idea is that if anything has a good and bad side to it, we must ban it altogether to prevent the bad, and that's just not logical at all.

DLCs are for fans...

I agree some DLC is bad, but I believe DLC like for Fallout 3 was more then worth buying for example. DLC keeps games fresh in my mind.

I agree some DLC is bad, but I believe DLC like for Fallout 3 was more then worth buying for example. DLC keeps games fresh in my mind.

theunloved

exactly my thoughts, the DLC for Fallout 3 and GTA IV was definitely worth the money, though things like versus mode for RE5 and horse armor for oblivion should be forbidden

The only way to stop all this is to not have DLC at all. Agree?

erglesmergle

[QUOTE="erglesmergle"]

The only way to stop all this is to not have DLC at all. Agree?

spazzx625

Yes, the examples you mentioned are bad DLC. I think the RE5 one is especially bad because it segments the potential user base of a mode which would have probably already been rather niche to being with even if it had come on the disk. I think the expansion-like DLC that they did with GTA IV and Fallout 3 is just fine.

The thing I really worry about with regards to that kind of stuff is that it's entirely possible that some day the servers could shut down. Actually, that's inevitable; nothing lasts forever. It's more a matter of whether they will cease to exist at any time in the remotely near future or whether they will still be there with your content for re-download 100 years from now. (Just for the record, I have never actually played either of those games, let alone their DLC.)

I love DLC myself and have purchased my fair share of it and have been quite satisfied with what I gotten from it. I like how it adds and extends the life of my games. I take it on a case-by-case basis. If I feel that what they offer is worth the money they are asking then I purchase it if not then I don't.

DLC isn't necessarily content that was pulled intently to be sold separately at a later date. There's a brief time period between a titles release and when the development of the actual game is complete. This period of time the team is usually running tests and fixing bugs(a time-frame when content is hard to put it).

During this time period, a company would either have those not working develop for another title or they may ask them to work on DLC(which has become a new trend). Majority of DLC comes from this time frame.

As stated before, if you feel DLC doesn't warrant the price, then what better way than to speak with your wallet. Though I must admit there a few DLC that are fishy and it does beg the question why this is being charged. Like the *cough* extra storage in Dragon Age: Origins *cough*.

DLC isn't necessarily content that was pulled intently to be sold separately at a later date. There's a brief time period between a titles release and when the development of the actual game is complete. This period of time the team is usually running tests and fixing bugs(a time-frame when content is hard to put it).

During this time period, a company would either have those not working develop for another title or they may ask them to work on DLC(which has become a new trend). Majority of DLC comes from this time frame.

As stated before, if you feel DLC doesn't warrant the price, then what better way than to speak with your wallet. Though I must admit there a few DLC that are fishy and it does beg the question why this is being charged. Like the *cough* extra storage in Dragon Age: Origins *cough*.

whisperingmute

Yeah thats not the way it always is but DLC opens up the path for developers to do that and Im sure every company wants their share of that money. And how do we know they didnt hold things back? If DLC is truly meant to extend the life of a game, it should be released at least 6 months after release not weeks or days. Youre telling me a game cant survive on its own for a week after release without DLC?

Remember back in the day when you bought a game, you were getting the same experience everyone else was getting? Now youre only getting version 1.0 of that game but expect to pay more money for version 2.0.

You can speak with your wallet by not buying useless DLC like LBP skins but for things like Versus mode for Resident Evil 5 or the Free Roam Camera for Skate 2 that allows people to make proper videos? Come on, people want those things and will buy them and it sucks knowing that these are things developers held back.

DLC is a form of stealing disguised as something good. It sucks to see so many people defend it when it more bad than good.

Just do not buy the crap. I know I never bought horse armor,and i sunk over 200 hours into oblivion.mattykovax

But thats not the point. The point is developers will still released gimped up games because there are still those who do buy the DLC. Simply not buying the DLC wont fix this problem.

Put it this way, 5000 people buy the Resident Evil 5 Versus Mode even though the feature should have been included. The 50000 people who do not buy the DLC because they know better will have to suffer from future gimped up games because 5000 people support Capcoms evil ways. Does that seem fair?

DLC, in my opinion is terrible.

Go back 10 years (holy hell) and instead of paid DLC we had paid expansions. DLC was free in the form of patches (as PC was the major gaming platform).

Now publishers are trying to milk us for money - and people are fine with it for some reason. Pay $10 for 1 hour of extra content. Pay $5 for a silly little gimmick that adds very little to the game.

The one thing that really bothers me now is day one DLC. When the devs, instead of just giving us the full game give us something that should have come with the game for $10 extra on the release day.

If you defend that, then you're simply a blind fool.

Go back 10 years (holy hell) and instead of paid DLC we had paid expansions. DLC was free in the form of patches (as PC was the major gaming platform).

LittleJackieJoe

[QUOTE="mattykovax"]Just do not buy the crap. I know I never bought horse armor,and i sunk over 200 hours into oblivion.erglesmergle

But thats not the point. The point is developers will still released gimped up games because there are still those who do buy the DLC. Simply not buying the DLC wont fix this problem.

Put it this way, 5000 people buy the Resident Evil 5 Versus Mode even though the feature should have been included. The 50000 people who do not buy the DLC because they know better will have to suffer from future gimped up games because 5000 people support Capcoms evil ways. Does that seem fair?

[QUOTE="mattykovax"]Just do not buy the crap. I know I never bought horse armor,and i sunk over 200 hours into oblivion.erglesmergle

But thats not the point. The point is developers will still released gimped up games because there are still those who do buy the DLC. Simply not buying the DLC wont fix this problem.

Put it this way, 5000 people buy the Resident Evil 5 Versus Mode even though the feature should have been included. The 50000 people who do not buy the DLC because they know better will have to suffer from future gimped up games because 5000 people support Capcoms evil ways. Does that seem fair?

Aside from the Horse Armor, Oblivion shows a great deal of wealth in the DLC department. Additional quests, weapons and locations, including two DLC's that were released as standalone upgrades for the PC version really cannot be considered bad DLC. Fallout 3 is in the same boat. Bugs aside, the DLC added a good deal to that game. If you don't want it, you don't need it to play the game fully, so how is that bad?

Rock Band / Guitar Hero is another great example of DLC. Why should I wait a year to get a disc with one or two songs from an artist that I like when I can buy a three pack (or more) of songs from that artist without having to get a new game? It is very logical and great to have that option in my opinion.

Some games get bad DLC, some games get great DLC. Some get DLC that only fans want (SF IV, RE5) it is up to the consumer to determine what is good or bad. But making the statement that all DLC is bad or that it shouldn't be made at all isn't true, nor factual.

DLC itself isn't a terrible concept, it's how it's employed. The only way to send the delvelopers the message is to not buy it.

to a exent i agree but dlc needs to be worth it to buy not worthless junk to make money off us gamers

dlc is more like desert for me. u like the game, u want more, but cannot wait a few yrs for the sequel, so developers give u something to entertain urself while waiting for the sequel to come out. if u ask me, dlc is more good than bad, only that greedy publishers and developers are abusing it.