Why DLC sucks

Hey guys I'm gearing up for my new YOUTUBE GAMING CHANNEL. As I do I will keep doing these blogs here, but stop by and see what Im about when my channel starts. On to what you came here for this BLOG!!

Now I know the title of this is going to immediately ruffle some feathers. I am also aware that most of those feathers will be of NEW gamers. When I say new I mean any gamer who started his/her career with the PS3 and Xbox 360. You see Downloadable Content didn’t rear its ugly head regularly until the aforementioned gaming machine made their debuts. Downloadable Content (DLC) was in theory an extra add on to an existing game to expand the life and enjoyment of that game. Initial thought of as an aftermarket tool to breathe life into aging games. It was also thought of to extend the enjoyment of a particular game, or improve those games dynamic. If you think about things that way DLC should be a God send to the gaming community. Instead the industry has used this outlet to turn things into a money making scrape goat. Don’t believe me? Just watch.

DLC made its debut in later PS2 and Xbox games. When a game was thought to be used up developers came up with a great idea to extend the life of their product and it worked well at first. Roster updates for Madden, extra stages and features in Socom, and the like were brilliant in their endeavors. The real beauty of it was no one was being charged for these add-ons. As time when on it became clear that things were not always going to be this way. Let’s turn back the clock and examine things for a minute or two. DLC is a more complex version of what gamers use to call: Easter eggs, hidden content, and cheat codes. Think about it long and hard for a second. If you’ve been gaming since the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) days then it’s quite clear to you. When you needed help in Contra you typed in the now infamous Konami code and “BAM!” 30 lives were at your disposal to help you. Secret levels and devices have always adorned Final Fantasy games. There were tons of codes and secrets for Grand Theft Auto 3 that would change how the populace of the game acted. There were codes that gave you new and rare cars. There were also codes that helped you with health and other power ups. We won’t even go into PC MODS which gave you numerous manipulations of your games. So with this in place the idea of DLC was great because you could go above and beyond what was already being offered to improve a game vastly. Who wouldn’t want extra characters, different weapon sets, or stages that you previously didn’t have access to?

Well when the Xbox 360 and PS3 hit their prime the idea of using DLC as a financial weapon for financial gain began to launch. Extra skins for characters, multiplayer stages, and add on content were used first as a testing ground to see if you the gamer would purchase them. The next step was to use the previously mentioned material to have you RESERVE games in advance. This was an effort to make the game in question more desirable to you. “Hey if you reserve Call of Duty you can get this exclusive MAP pack earlier!” For a while this worked like gang busters and to the delight of publishers raked in big bucks. Now DLC is planned out way ahead of time and presented to you in the form of a SEASON PASS (which I will discuss in a later BLOG). You see publishers have now conditioned gamers to believe they have to have this material and if you have to have it….why not get it at a discount rate? This is the beauty of the season pass. Who wants to buy one map for $7.99 when they can get all 10 for $19.99? Heck of a deal am I right? You see that is the fallacy of this theory. Truth is you already have spent you’re hard earned cash on the game which retails normally at $59.99. Now you can either buy separate levels or gears (which are already in game) for $7.99 which if you buy the 10 amount to roughly $80.00. The publishers aren’t fools though which is why they sale you a season pass for a seemingly discounted rate or $19.99. This makes it appear to be an irresistible deal that you can’t pass up when in actuality they had already bet on you buying the $20 set and not the separate levels. It’s a brilliant marketing and sales tactics if you are the publisher, but you are not them. So to sum it up the gamer has now spent $80.00 (assuming you didn’t buy everything separate) for one game. The story of re-packaged Game of the Year Editions (GOTY) is REALLY a slap in the face as companies not only show you it was all inclusive from the start, but now they discount the whole thing after the fact.

DLC these days are pre planned (quite obviously) and packaged to gamers as a “FAVOR” instead of what it really is. A money making scheme by the publisher. What is really happening is that the gamer is purchasing a deliberately unfinished product. Once you buy DLC (code to unlock) the already in game features you will now have the finished vision of what the company really planned. So are you starting to see why “DLC is sucks?” Down loadable content these days is a money making plot. A device by which to suck up you the consumers hard earned dollars. This isn’t to say there aren’t any worthwhile DLC out there. Games such as Tekken Tag Tournament 2 gave you extra time released characters at no cost. Little Big Planet had tons of shared content from online creators. For the most part DLC has become the evil King Koopa and your money is princess Peach. Now you will have to play Mario in order to rescue your beloved Princess (USD) back from the evil clutches of Bowser (played by EA or Activision take your pick) in order to live happily ever after. In short you can wise up and make informed decisions or you can just keep watching your princess get kidnapped. Either way I hope you see now “Why DLC suck!”. Until next time if you can’t be GOOD be GOOD at it. PEACE! In the meantime you can check out my current Youtube channel and see what it all about. https://www.youtube.com/user/sfcspectacular or google Sfc Spectacular

Remember when you used to unlock characters by beating arcade mode a bunch of times? But now you're saying buying new characters is one of the few examples of "good DLC." I'm confused.

I'm not reading all that, so I have a very short response:

GTA 4: The Lost and Damned, and The Ballad of Gay Tony. That is all.

Good read, but well, not something I haven't heard before. What you're basically saying is that DLC doesn't suck, but the publishers behind it. How do you reckon we solve this problem? And if it can't be solved, how do we deal with it? Those are questions I would like to see answered. Most blogs are about criticising certain phenomena, not about dealing with or solving them. We already know a lot of publishers are bad and that they're trying to make you spend more money, so what can we do about it?

There also seems to be a tendency to write lengthy comments about what sucks, while there must be stuff about gaming that makes you happy. Otherwise there would be no reason to keep playing games... Seriously, all this negativity needs to be countered. I realise bad stuff needs to be addressed, but it wouldn't hurt to read about the happy moments in a gamer's life...

the concept of dlc is NOT wrong or bad or negative, at all, WHEN AND IF it's done legitimately and well.

they the devs/pubs have taken a great idea and warped it into an abomination in many instances.

it's really that simple.

Some DLC good.

Some DLC bad.

That's my in depth take on it.

I didn't read all of that.

But I do miss the days where you actually unlocked extra content by playing the game. Buying extra sh!t that should already be in the game is bs. I don't buy dlc often because it supports bad dev habits.

The only dlc I do approve of is the Scorchers from RAGE and the Nier dlc. They both have great quality for the price and both of them arent milking your money.

@El_Zo1212o: I don't recall mentioning paying for characters was good. What I did say was that's how these companies baited people in. Games like tekken tag 2 had time released DLC which cost nothing to gamers.

We used to call them expansion packs, now they are small money grabs called DLC. We want more of the DEP ( Downloadable expansion packs) not DLC.

@loafofgame: I thoroughly agree that it is the tendency for bloggers (and gamers) to criticize something and have no solution. I am not one of those ppl. What can be done you ask? Well ---

As gamers we could evaluate which games we buy DLC for carefully. This would send a message to publishers on being more focused on games they make

We could voice our opinions directly to a company that makes sub standard DLC. Detailing what we thought was good, bad, and improvements needed.

Game companies could release more beta of DLC or proposed ideas for it. Gauging public intrest.

While saying what do we do about it true and good outside of being a designer the above is a few short list of what we as gamers can do. Offering up constructive criticism is a way of addressing things that need to be fixed. I whole heartily agree with you though that if you don't have solutions then it's best not to complain. The truth of the matter is unless you're an older or nature person you won't even think to address this stuff. Lets face it most teen age gamers just want the game parents are buying it so what do they care about the cost? In the end gaming is enjoyable and it's always my option to stop, but this is just my feeble attempt to address things.

@SoNin360: what you said is really the gist of things. Some are good and some are bad. It's just some gamers don't make the distinction and buy everything in site. In the end it's what they want to do with their money, but buying junk DLC is just encouraging more JUNK to be made. Thanks for the reponse.

@armyman_22: oops. Sorry, my brain seemed to have skated right over the "at no cost" part.

This was perhaps the best dlc I have ever bought.

I'm a pretty old school gamer, 35+ years and going, and on the whole I think dlc has been an excellent addition to console gaming. Certainly I don't buy every bit of dlc for every game I buy but I purchase my fair share of it and for the vast majority of it I'm pretty satisfied with it. I "vote with my wallet" by getting what I think I'll enjoy for the price they offer it for whether that be the initial price or a sale later on. That's the great thing about dlc, since it's offered online they can be more flexible with prices. The problem I have when I hear some people tell others to "vote with their wallet" is that more often then not is that they basically want others to buy what they think is worth it and things simply don't work that way. The one thing that I don't care for about dlc though is that it can fragment the player base especially with things like map packs.

Don't buy the DLC then. I've only bought one DLC this generation, Dark Souls: Prepare to Die. My problem isn't that they're making extra content; it's that the extra content isn't going to be permanent unless a collector's edition/GOTY disc is released in the future, especially for console DLC.

DLC is fine as long as it is appropriately priced.

Few things get my blood boiling like a DLC that I paid $20 for and can beat in a few hours. I expect close to an expansion pack at that price range.

The only time I get DLC is if it comes with a GOTY Edition on disc, other than that I have no interest in it.

Literally un readable

Remember when they sold games as new for a few extra characters?

Games cost more to make but gamers refuse to pay more so they came up with a way to make extra by having content that was not going to be in the game as extra. You still get the complete game.

Any game that they want to use DLC should be planned while making the game.

I generally don't buy "DLC". I guess traditional expansion packs can now qualify as DLC, wheres they used to be store bought. Examples of DLC/Expansions I thought were worth are the Civilization 5 expansion packs. Although I did buy a DLC bundle for leaders earlier in the game life. I also bought Saints Row 3 DLC but it came in a heavily, HEAVILY discounted bundle. Saints Row 4 is something like $80 if you buy all the DLC (LOL). Not even including the game!

I look at crap like Battlefield 3 and 4 where buying all the content is nearing $200 (LOL again), or SimCity, Sims 3. Well, it's one of the reasons why I don't buy EA games anymore. I don't like their business practices at all.

The Mass Effect 3 day one DLC I bought because it included a prothean (WTF should have been included in the base game - background is way too important to leave out. But EA suckered me because I was very curious and intrigued with prothean backstory). So ME3 DLC was a big disappointment to me. One reason why I'll never buy it again unless it comes in some sort of super bundle 2 years down the road (or it's firaxis).

Map packs as DLC in shooters is flat out dumb. Back when Quake 1,2, and 3 were relevant iD software released mods and free map packs to the community (Threewave CTF along with DM maps). Companies unfortunately don't do this anymore.

Season passes are somewhat of an insult to me in a sense. Especially when they're announced before the actual game is released. You want me to put money down on DLC that hasn't been developed yet if it wasn't cut content. I'll do you one better and wait for the GOTY or complete edition and get everything at a discount. If you're game is worth it.

Good points there. Indeed, we already reached the point where they would announce DLCs prior to the game's release date. And what's worse, unlocking supposedly 'extra' content with money when we know they could just have them included in the finish product.

As for DLCs in general, I'm fine with them as long as they don't contain something that would break the game's balance, especially on competitive, multiplayer games.

On-disc DLCs? I'm okay with that too, as long as they're free. You don't expect consumers to pay extra for something that's already on the cart. That's really evil. However, releasing a half-baked retail game just because they can 'patch' it later on is the true evil and should be purged without a speck of a trace.

But how do you convince all those casual, 'new' and indifferent gamers to take action? And how do you convince companies? Is this a solvable problem? Isn't what we really need a change in business morality (which seems completely unrealistic)...? And at some level, aren't we as consumers also to blame for the situation we're in? And from a totally different angle: is it really such a big deal? If some DLC is good and some of it is bad, does it really hurt our cumulative (not individual) gamer happiness; our gaming experience...? And another angle: might the displeasure with all this AAA nonsense lead us to funding indie projects? Sure, the production value might not be so high, but you get a game made with passion and solid gameplay that would never have been made by a big company. Is there maybe something wrong with us if we desire and demand those high production values from larger companies...?

I'm not expecting you to answer all those questions. ;-) Just brainstorming...

This stood out the most, so don't mind me answering :3

Just because there are more worthwhile and appropriate DLCs out there doesn't mean that a select few rip-off DLCs are excused to be around as well. No matter how you slice it, bad DLCs are bad. I'm sure you don't want a game riddled with locked content, only accessible when you download a key for a few bucks. Even if said key is free, it's still quite disappointing.

The GTA4 expansion packs were more fun to pick up and play than the main GTA4 game.

The missions in TBOGT were insanely fun and i replay them often.

@armyman_22: If you count expansion packs, then DLC in theory might've been even earlier than 6th gen console era.

Quake II had 'Extremities' and 'The reckoning.'

Half-life had 'Opposing Force', 'Blue Shift'

etc. etc.

I remember 'Expansions' which were DLC before you could download it. Expansions likes Warcraft 3 - Frozen Throne and Starcraft Brood Wars. It used to be DLC was worth the money. Now if I hear a game as DLC in advance of the actual game being released I won't buy it. It just doesn't seem right to me.

If DLC meaningfully expands on a game or adds some kind of neat, different side mode, I'd say it's good. but yeah things like unlockable characters through DLC and stuff is just awful.

@HipHopBeats: I couldn't agree more with you

@El_Zo1212o: no prob...thanks for the reply

I love DLC. Map packs, cars in Forza, cosmetic items (even avatar items). Give me more!

I'm not disagreeing with you. Criticism is fine and valuable. I'm just pointing out that if you want to make a fair assessment (even if it's focused on criticising a bad thing) it's important to consider different angles and contexts.

@armyman_22: You only listed bad examples. There are good DLC's aswell. You can't just argue one side. Sure there is a lot of bs DLC. But don't freaking buy it then. Vote with your wallet. Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age, Assassin's Creed. Hell something like Far Cry Blood Dragon is one of the best standalone games i have played in a while and it's only a DLC

nice job writting an essay nobody wants to read

@The_Last_Ride:

when critiquing dlc one must take into consideration all of its components and not just "how good/bad it was." that would be the super-simplistic and most meaningless way to evaluate dlc, for me.

price, timing, quality, innovation, pro vs anti-consumerism, length and exploitation must be considered.

And that's what i did when i mentioned some of the good DLC out there. Nobody complained when it came to PC with expansions. Because people buy bad DLC doesn't make all DLC bad. Just some of it

@The_Last_Ride: I agree you need to look at the whole picture. There are some gamers that see DLC as bad and use the assumption that the DLC content would be in the game if DLC did not exist. In other words some see all DLC as bad.

I think that us gamer are to be blamed for some of the problem with DLC. Because we gamers as a whole expect more and more from AAA game and refuse to pay more, the cost to make these games has increase. So companies need to do something to increase their profits. I think DLC are the best compromise they could make. They can get more profits from each game and we can still pay less for the complete and only pay for the extras we want.

I have no problem if it used well. I tell anyone if they are going to do DLC then they must work on the DLC while the game is in development.

Also releasing DLC that's not an hour long, or are just maps and stuff like that is not worth the money. If you create a DLC that's 10-20 hours and demand 20 or even 30 bucks for it that is a-ok for me because that's more than most games. Value is what i am looking for. If the price is right and you get more than an hour, then i am happy with it if the content is good

I think people bitch about DLC WAAAAAY too much.

DLC I find most appealing is when they take time to release it - like the episodes for GTA IV, and/or it's free for everyone (like the 4 extra downloads I've gotten so far for GTA V).

DLC I don't like is when it's either included on a game disk and/or released on or very shortly after the launch of the game.

Then there are 'game of the year' releases of games that include previously-released DLC while being a budget title, and if I don't have the game by that time, it might be incentive to finally purchase - like Red Dead Redemption GOTY that included Undead Nightmare.

@armyman_22:

DLC isnt extra. it is a part of the game that is removed and installed later to make more money. the only DLC i ever bought is Artorias of the abyss on dark souls. i bought it because i loved the game. but other than that. i would never pay for those multiplayer map packs on COD and what not shooters. even if i was rich. i wouldnt. i would be just stuffing their already full wallets with money.

Please give good proof of you claims

Nintendo gave us 10 new multiplayer maps for Pikmin 3 for 4.99$. That was pretty awesome.

I remember expansion packs. Shivering Isles? Amazing.

@wiouds:

I would say that "proof" lies in on disc dlc, day 1 dlc and oh, I don't know, within a couple weeks dlc.

you'll never get the kind of proof i'm assuming you're referring too, but, those I listed above should never be bought by any gamer who cares about the industry.

@udubdawgz1: I can see one disc.

I tell any one if they want to have DLC in their games then they must work on some while the game is being developed. I can see how DLC are being made while the game is in development.

@wiouds:

I agree with your comment as a quality dlc concept, but, would counter by saying what you're referring to is true and good IF we're talking about "legitimate" forms of dlc.

on-disc and day 1 and within a week or 2 is NOT. those are anti-consumer exploitations. those forms of dlc should ALL be included free.

it is truly reminiscent of buying a company and selling it off in parts. as opposed to, buying a company and slowly selling off those parts that are not performing.

@udubdawgz1: Even day 1 and week later DLC as extra that would not have been in the game from the start. I do not see them as part of the game taken out to be sold, but as extra that were made to sell.

Second off from a programing standpoint if they do not work on at least some part of the DLC while the game itself is in development then they should not have DLC.

I bet their is a gap between when the game is finish and when it is release. Also I am sure there are different stages to game development.

There is no reason they should be free. Gamers expectation has gone up but refuse to pay for these higher standers. What do they do to make more money to deal with the anit-supportive attitude that many game have? They make a pain project and then have less one follow it. This happens in board and table top RPG as well.

@wiouds:

I completely disagree. if this so-called dlc content is ready for release so early upon game release then they could have and should have included it in the regular game. I don't care about what the devs/pubs plan or declare as dlc. all that does is prove the very heart of the issue: greed as opposed to profit, exploitation and anti-consumerism.

and, I will not even hear the "refuse to pay for these higher standards" rationale you stated. that's going to get into the whole issue of pricing and I want to stay focused on dlc that should NOT be labeled dlc (again, I don't care what the devs/pubs call it or how they planned it) and should have been included in the main game.

yes, they should be "free" because they should have ALREADY been on the game when released. so, it's not "free" in that sense.

making money is cool and fine. tapping into greed under the guise of "dlc" is not. on-disc, day 1 and soon thereafter is blatantly ridiculous.

@udubdawgz1: Most of the day one dlc I got were free because I got the game new.

Can some DLC be ripoff? Sure. Does that mean all of them are? No

Would DLC have been in the game if there were no concept of DLC? I would say no.

I do not find the gamers' greed as a good reason to make DLC free.

I can recall DLC and other add-ons for MS Flight Simulator being available from the mid 90's onward. So, it's not just a console thing. I have no problems with it if it's a simple add-on such as extra aircraft models and doesn't affect the outcomes on the main game.

If DLC affects the outcome of the main game, then I have problems with it.

@wiouds:

sorry, I wasn't trying to imply all dlc should be free. heck no.

and, i'm all for good dlc that's worth the cost. I've definitely bought some (though, not a lot) that I deemed worthy.

it's just that those 3: the on disc, day 1 and within weeks dlc, go against my foundational beliefs as a gamer.