Is DLC getting out of control?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Cdscottie
Cdscottie

1872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#1 Cdscottie
Member since 2004 • 1872 Posts

Over the past little while I've noticed that DLC seems to be getting out of control. We have developers selling DLC on the day of a games release and then you have developers releasing DLC that is extremely useless/overpriced.

It has been announced that there will be DLC available on the day of release of many games as of late. May I ask why? Why can't it be included with a game that hasn't even been released yet? Even if the game has been sent to the distributor and the DLC was completed afterwords, why not have a free download? Take the Sims 3. As soon as the game released, you had to ability to purchase items/clothing for the game....for real money. To me, that's just plain wrong and greedy.

As well, there are some companies that seem to overprice DLC that has very little use. Empire: Total War did it with their elite units package and just look at Railworks on steam. Railworks releases DLC almost weekly and a simple boxcar add-on costs $8.....$8 for a different skin on an object that already exists in the game. Does anyone see the injustice here? Or do you think they just enjoy taking suckers money?

Either way, when is the point when we say enough is enough? Why don't they release the game at a discounted cost, which in theory may increase sales, and allow die-hards/fans to purchase the DLC to make up the difference in the cost? Do you feel that game companies are trying to milk the fans of every penny when it comes to ridiculous add-ons such as ONE unit?

What do you guys think?

Avatar image for Swiftstrike5
Swiftstrike5

6950

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

#2 Swiftstrike5
Member since 2005 • 6950 Posts
If developers put extra work into making a game then I don't mind paying DLC for it. Assuming it's reasonably priced. If they shave off content to sell later as DLC, that's just unethical business practice. The issue is telling the difference.
Avatar image for chapman86
chapman86

583

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#3 chapman86
Member since 2004 • 583 Posts

legally, all the dev have right to chop off their original product and sell you for whatever the price they wanna charge you.

if Blizzard want to chop off starcraft 2 into 3 pieces, it is their decision. If you dont wanna pay, dont pay it, it is you who makes the decision to make a purchase. not them.

Avatar image for F1_2004
F1_2004

8009

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 F1_2004
Member since 2003 • 8009 Posts
Dragon Age already has DLC to be released on game release day :| I think it's BS, but whatever. If people keep buying it, they'll unfortunately keep doing it.
Avatar image for Gladestone1
Gladestone1

5695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Gladestone1
Member since 2004 • 5695 Posts

Well if its well worth it than ill pay the price..Dont want it day one though..Ill take it 3 months into my games release, maybe a month..How ever if people keep seeing this, people will grow tired of it..If devs are doing this an leaving game-content out..People will wind up getting upset..Already theres been back lashes on games..Just last week, people where crying about dragon age origins..It may be new it may be a way for developers to bring in extra cash..

We all know who to blame on this one though..It all started with bethestha an the horse armor..

Avatar image for kilaan
kilaan

845

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 kilaan
Member since 2003 • 845 Posts
You think it's bad now give it a year. The first time DLC was ever announced in Oblivion I immediately "thought to myself, this is a bad trend, no gamer in their right mine would get it." This was the horse armor mod and people ate it up. Ever since then it's been going downhill from there.
Avatar image for thusaha
thusaha

14495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 thusaha
Member since 2007 • 14495 Posts

If gamers keep buying, devs will making more DLC. So stop buying DLC.

Avatar image for Captain__Tripps
Captain__Tripps

4523

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Captain__Tripps
Member since 2006 • 4523 Posts
If DLC is made after the game is finished, I don't see the big deal. I've never purchased any myself. Anyone that says day one dlc should be on the disk. Well maybe, but that would result in a delay. You could infinitely delay the game, adding more content so at some point you have to feature lock and finish the game. If the artists/designers go onto make dlc after that, I think its fine. You don't have to purchase it.
Avatar image for kilaan
kilaan

845

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 kilaan
Member since 2003 • 845 Posts
I just hate how its going to split up the multiplayer community. As PC gamers we have been pretty fortunate on getting free DLC as far as game like Modern Warfare and L4D but you can guarantee Activision/Blizzard is going to start charging for Modern Warfare 2, Starcraft, and Diablo III DLC. You have to think what happens when you split the community up like that, people getting kicked out of games because they don't have a certain Map Pack?
Avatar image for MyopicCanadian
MyopicCanadian

8345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#10 MyopicCanadian
Member since 2004 • 8345 Posts

It depends what it is, really. But you'll find enough people buy stupid DLC, so the DLC market will probably only increase. Kinda cool though that for Forza 3 they did create some DLC for launch, and there will be a code packaged with each new game. A little way to combat the used games market, I suppose.

Avatar image for nutcrackr
nutcrackr

13032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 72

User Lists: 1

#11 nutcrackr
Member since 2004 • 13032 Posts

Yes.

I think there should be a rule that no game gets DLC in the first 3 months of release. Patches fine, free content fine. No paid content.

The problem is that developers know that in 1 month not many people are left playing the game (single player especially, multiplayer they will if its good) so they want to get in quick.

Avatar image for RobertBowen
RobertBowen

4094

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#12 RobertBowen
Member since 2003 • 4094 Posts

It all comes down to supply and demand. If the DLC didn't sell, then the devs/publishers wouldn't keep making it. But the simple fact is that many gamers are willing to buy all of this extra content regardless, so they are creating a demand for it.


I agree that the horse armour DLC (and some of the others) were a bit of a joke, but I think that just started as a bit of an experiment by Bethesda. I'm not trying to be an apologist for them in any way, but I do think Bethesda learned some good lessons from that experiment which strengthened their later DLC. The 'Knights Of The Nine' questline for Oblivion, and most of the DLC for Fallout 3, were much more acceptable. They have also been releasing DLC some time after the core game, which makes it more palatable.

But other devs are simply perpetuating the mistakes that Bethesda first made, and not learning (or not choosing to learn) from those mistakes. Nickel and diming for skins, vehicles, etc., is just unacceptable behaviour - especially if they are effectively just replacing a texture on (reskinning) existing models. Most of that kind of content is also grossly over-priced.

[QUOTE="Captain_Tripps"]
If the artists/designers go onto make dlc after that, I think its fine. You don't have to purchase it.
Gladestone1



Well, it used to be the case that artists/designers would be moving onto development of the NEXT game in a studio. I know that dev team sizes can go up and down (increasing as game development ramps up, with some lay-offs after development ends), but even so, it seems a bit much to focus on making DLC to be released on day one of a game's release, just to make more money. Make a full expansion pack instead, to be released 3 months later, instead of charging for every little piece of extra content.

But I guess some gamers have no sense, or too much money.

You have to think what happens when you split the community up like that, people getting kicked out of games because they don't have a certain Map Pack?
kilaan



I understand what you're saying, but this problem has been around for a while with popular MP games when it comes to custom mods and maps developed by the community. Unless you are willing to spend a while downloading a mod and custom map pack, you have to play on unmodded servers. So I don't think this is a new problem, or even as great a problem as you think.


Yes.

I think there should be a rule that no game gets DLC in the first 3 months of release. Patches fine, free content fine. No paid content.Yes.
nutcrackr


I agree with this. I think the timing is the key problem here. If 'extra' content was released 3 months after the game hit the shelves, it would be more acceptable.

But I do think the nickel and diming (extra skins, a new model, etc.) has to stop. Just include those things in a larger bundle of content like a mini-expansion pack (ie, worthwhile additions), as Bethesda is now doing with their DLC.

Avatar image for mephie25
mephie25

129

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 mephie25
Member since 2009 • 129 Posts
I personally hate it. I've never wasted my money on it. As long as people keep giving money out, theyll keep taking it. Edit: In a way you've got to admire some of the developers. Here they are releasing different skins of things that are already in game, and people just rush to throw their money away. What are the developers gonna do? Say no? In retrospect If I was in their shoes I'd likely do the same thing. Who wouldnt? People are stupid these days, developers simply exploit it. "Hey lets change the color of this model and charge another 10 bucks, you know those dumbasses will buy it!"
Avatar image for Baranga
Baranga

14217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#14 Baranga
Member since 2005 • 14217 Posts

I think Dragon Age's DLC isn't outrageous. They have a good reason for it and two of three packs are free anyway.

The Empire and Mirror's Edge DLC is insulting though. Don't know about the Borderlands DLC, but the whole game looks like ass to me.

Avatar image for teardropmina
teardropmina

2806

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#15 teardropmina
Member since 2006 • 2806 Posts

DLC isn't out of control...it shouldn't have been there for PC games to begin with.

Avatar image for zomglolcats
zomglolcats

4335

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#16 zomglolcats
Member since 2008 • 4335 Posts

legally, all the dev have right to chop off their original product and sell you for whatever the price they wanna charge you.

if Blizzard want to chop off starcraft 2 into 3 pieces, it is their decision. If you dont wanna pay, dont pay it, it is you who makes the decision to make a purchase. not them.

chapman86
That's true that if you don't want to pay it, then don't pay it, but that doesn't mean it's right. Blizzard could charge $80 for each individual Starcraft 2 installment if they wanted to as well. The "if you don't like it, don't pay it" argument doesn't solve anything, as you're ignoring the issue at hand.
Avatar image for Snake3232
Snake3232

735

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#17 Snake3232
Member since 2005 • 735 Posts
who says u gotta pay for Sims 3 DLC.......... :)
Avatar image for Ondoval
Ondoval

3103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#18 Ondoval
Member since 2005 • 3103 Posts

You can choice about the DLC. I was interested in HL2 and I bought the game. I was not interested in the HL2 Episodes and I dind't bought them.

I was interested in Dawn Of War II and I bougth it; I'm not interested in the expansion so I'll not buy Chaos Risen. I bought Fallout 3 but not the DLCs. I bought Doom 3 and also Resurrection Of Evil. I bought F.E.A.R. and Extraction Point but not Perseus Mandate nor F.E.A.R. 2. I bought S.T.A.L.K.E.R. but not Call Of Prypiat. Is all matter of what you want, and your perception about if it worths the money.

I'll buy the Wings Of Liberty (SC II first game) but I'll only will buy the two next games if they are prized as expansions or the Wings campaing is superb or the improves in the mp are substantial.

Yes, they are a lot of developers abusing of DLC to sell crapy stuff at high prices, but the answer is simple: buy only DLCs and/or expansions that truly worth the investment.

Avatar image for nsorrelle
nsorrelle

89

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 nsorrelle
Member since 2009 • 89 Posts

It is and it isn't.

I'd say Bethesda learned their lesson on nickel and diming people. Their DLC for Fallout 3 was overall pretty good, I'd say only Anchorage wasn't worth the dough.

Some console games really piss me off. I love Little Big Planet, but the developers constantly have costume packs released for $4 a piece and they charge more for songs than iTunes does.

As for Dragon Age, I can see their reasoning for the DLC. It sounds like it's a lot of extra content for a decent price.

Avatar image for Cdscottie
Cdscottie

1872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#20 Cdscottie
Member since 2004 • 1872 Posts
I agree that some companies are doing DLC correctly. I know I've purchased the mini-expansions for Sins of a Solar Empire, Oblivion, and the such and I understand that if I don't like DLC, don't purchase it. I was just curious if anyone who was a fan of these said games that released release day DLC or charge way to much for it felt like they were being bent over. I am all for purchasing DLC to support a developer but it has to be warranted.
Avatar image for PublicNuisance
PublicNuisance

4582

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#21 PublicNuisance
Member since 2009 • 4582 Posts

Over the past little while I've noticed that DLC seems to be getting out of control. We have developers selling DLC on the day of a games release and then you have developers releasing DLC that is extremely useless/overpriced.

It has been announced that there will be DLC available on the day of release of many games as of late. May I ask why? Why can't it be included with a game that hasn't even been released yet? Even if the game has been sent to the distributor and the DLC was completed afterwords, why not have a free download? Take the Sims 3. As soon as the game released, you had to ability to purchase items/clothing for the game....for real money. To me, that's just plain wrong and greedy.

As well, there are some companies that seem to overprice DLC that has very little use. Empire: Total War did it with their elite units package and just look at Railworks on steam. Railworks releases DLC almost weekly and a simple boxcar add-on costs $8.....$8 for a different skin on an object that already exists in the game. Does anyone see the injustice here? Or do you think they just enjoy taking suckers money?

Either way, when is the point when we say enough is enough? Why don't they release the game at a discounted cost, which in theory may increase sales, and allow die-hards/fans to purchase the DLC to make up the difference in the cost? Do you feel that game companies are trying to milk the fans of every penny when it comes to ridiculous add-ons such as ONE unit?

What do you guys think?

Cdscottie

I a with you on this issue. If you can sell DLC on the day of release then include it as a free patch. I know that there is a gap of about 2-3 weeks between when a game is being actually manufactured and when the release day is but come on. I refuse to pay for DLC, I will buy an expansion pack but paying $5-10 for basically a 3-8 hour update just feels wrong. it doesn't help that I prefer physical disk over digital download anyway.

Avatar image for warmaster670
warmaster670

4699

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 warmaster670
Member since 2004 • 4699 Posts

We have developers selling DLC on the day of a games release and then you have developers releasing DLC that is extremely useless/overpriced.

Cdscottie

So? thats no different then games themselves, or anything else for that matter, companies try to sell games that suck and are overpriced, and they try to sell DLC/Expansions that suck and are overpriced.

If they suck its simple, dont buy them.

I a with you on this issue. If you can sell DLC on the day of release then include it as a free patch. I know that there is a gap of about 2-3 weeks between when a game is being actually manufactured and when the release day is but come on. I refuse to pay for DLC, I will buy an expansion pack but paying $5-10 for basically a 3-8 hour update just feels wrong. it doesn't help that I prefer physical disk over digital download anyway.

PublicNuisance

So you wouldnt pay $5-$10 for 3-8 hours of content, but you could easily pay $30 for an expansion that probably doesnt even have 15 hours in it? most expansions are no better than DLC, people seem to think they are though because there not called DLC.

Avatar image for Cdscottie
Cdscottie

1872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#23 Cdscottie
Member since 2004 • 1872 Posts

So? thats no different then games themselves, or anything else for that matter, companies try to sell games that suck and are overpriced, and they try to sell DLC/Expansions that suck and are overpriced.

If they suck its simple, dont buy them.

warmaster670

And that is what I do. I just don't think it's fair for developers to release a sprite pack, an $8 dollar unit, or an expansion pack that only adds several skins to already inplace game pieces. I have no issue purchasing DLC for games that I enjoy and will enhance the game to be even better and I don't mind purchasing expansion packs.

I just feel that developers take advantage of their fanbase, the people who keep these developers employed in the first place.

Avatar image for warmaster670
warmaster670

4699

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 warmaster670
Member since 2004 • 4699 Posts

[QUOTE="warmaster670"]

So? thats no different then games themselves, or anything else for that matter, companies try to sell games that suck and are overpriced, and they try to sell DLC/Expansions that suck and are overpriced.

If they suck its simple, dont buy them.

Cdscottie

And that is what I do. I just don't think it's fair for developers to release a sprite pack, an $8 dollar unit, or an expansion pack that only adds several skins to already inplace game pieces. I have no issue purchasing DLC for games that I enjoy and will enhance the game to be even better and I don't mind purchasing expansion packs.

I just feel that developers take advantage of their fanbase, the people who keep these developers employed in the first place.

Like i said though, its like that with anything, including the games themselves.

If people are willing to waste money on it then hell why shouldnt a company release it, once the publics not willing to do it it wont happen anymore.

Its like xbox live, they can get away with it because people are willing to pay it.

Avatar image for F1_2004
F1_2004

8009

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 F1_2004
Member since 2003 • 8009 Posts
Well, more and more devs are starting to do it, because let's face it, releasing part of the content as release-day DLC makes more profit than giving it for free, no matter how many people hate it. If more high-profile games start doing it (which they are), I'm going to have to live with it if I want to keep playing games. Speaking out against it is the right thing to do.
Avatar image for BLaZe462
BLaZe462

1432

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 BLaZe462
Member since 2002 • 1432 Posts

nah

Avatar image for kilaan
kilaan

845

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#27 kilaan
Member since 2003 • 845 Posts
I don't blame the developers for releasing crap DLC, I blame the stupid people that buy it. I mean they wouldn't bother making and releasing a $4 skin pack unless there was a demand for it.
Avatar image for ssvegeta555
ssvegeta555

2448

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 ssvegeta555
Member since 2003 • 2448 Posts

If gamers keep buying, devs will making more DLC. So stop buying DLC.

thusaha

If only if it was that simple. Idiots far out number the rationale, sadly. :(

Avatar image for PublicNuisance
PublicNuisance

4582

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#29 PublicNuisance
Member since 2009 • 4582 Posts

So you wouldnt pay $5-$10 for 3-8 hours of content, but you could easily pay $30 for an expansion that probably doesnt even have 15 hours in it? most expansions are no better than DLC, people seem to think they are though because there not called DLC.

warmaster670

Fair enough. Some expansions are short, but not all of them. I also don't like paying more than $20 for an expansion. My main problem with DLC aside form price is thta most DLC is only sold online, I try to buy retail when I can. For instance I might pickup the Fallout 3 DLC because it is two packs for $25 where I live. $12.50 each isn't bad and I get a physical disk.

Avatar image for Cdscottie
Cdscottie

1872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#30 Cdscottie
Member since 2004 • 1872 Posts

[QUOTE="warmaster670"]

So you wouldnt pay $5-$10 for 3-8 hours of content, but you could easily pay $30 for an expansion that probably doesnt even have 15 hours in it? most expansions are no better than DLC, people seem to think they are though because there not called DLC.

PublicNuisance

Fair enough. Some expansions are short, but not all of them. I also don't like paying more than $20 for an expansion. My main problem with DLC aside form price is thta most DLC is only sold online, I try to buy retail when I can. For instance I might pickup the Fallout 3 DLC because it is two packs for $25 where I live. $12.50 each isn't bad and I get a physical disk.

I don't mind paying $30 for an expansion, as long as it has enough content. I've purchased all of the DoW expansion packs and found that they were worth the money. Some people may not but some people do.
Avatar image for DigiTM73
DigiTM73

801

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 DigiTM73
Member since 2009 • 801 Posts

As long as it's good decent DLC then it's ok. A bad example of DLC was Oblivion's Horse Armor, a good example of DLC is Fallout3 material.
By the way this comment I have made has since become DLC material, since I did add to your topic, thus fees will incur. :)

Avatar image for Snake3232
Snake3232

735

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#32 Snake3232
Member since 2005 • 735 Posts

[QUOTE="thusaha"]

If gamers keep buying, devs will making more DLC. So stop buying DLC.

ssvegeta555

If only if it was that simple. Idiots far out number the rationale, sadly. :(

If I buy a game and DLC gets released straight away I feel ripped, but i still manage to get DLC free
Avatar image for SemperFi10
SemperFi10

3139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#33 SemperFi10
Member since 2004 • 3139 Posts
[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Dragon Age already has DLC to be released on game release day :| I think it's BS, but whatever. If people keep buying it, they'll unfortunately keep doing it.

That actually had to do with the game already being finished several months ago. It also involves a separate studio's work on some DLC that was supposed to come out around this time. DA: O should have been out for awhile already. The original product was not "shaved" to create DLC, one of the studios simply don't want to get ripped off. I'm sure they have a contract stating that their work would be published and sold for $xx per unit.
Avatar image for F1_2004
F1_2004

8009

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 F1_2004
Member since 2003 • 8009 Posts
No, I'm pretty sure Bioware did all the work.
Avatar image for SpaceMoose
SpaceMoose

10789

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#35 SpaceMoose
Member since 2004 • 10789 Posts

Yeah, it's getting a little bit ridiculous, but fortunately I'm not really buying any of the games where they are doing that crap. While I'm pretty sure that I made a post on here once saying that it wasn't really that big of a deal, selling the costumes for Street Fighter IV was especially ludicrous. They are taking the kinds of things they use to make money in free-to-play games and making them cost extra in in regular retail games now as well. It's pretty disgusting and I refuse to support it, especially when some of the prices are ridiculous relative to the content. The reason I had said it didn't matter much in that case was that it doesn't actually affect the gameplay at all, but it's still pretty ridiculous.

What is really bothering me even more though is exclusive content, such as content exclusive to a particular retailer, or to people who pre-order a game. That garbage seriously needs to stop. It's probably not going to, unfortunately. When they have different exclusive content for different retailers it's even more annoying. No matter how trivial some of the bonuses might actually be, it's like they are just trying to piss people off who want to have access to everything in a game or something.

I just want to buy a game and be done with it. I don't want to deal with all this convoluted nonsense. All it does is turn me off of a game altogether. If they want to sell additional significant content, like what they are doing with GTA IV for example, that I have no problem with, but some of this stuff like extra units for Empire: Total War and multiplayer mode for Resident Evil 5 (which probably nobody cares about anyway) being DLC is just ridiculous and asinine. In fact, that crap they did with Empire: Total War completely turned me off to the game. I don't want to deal with a company if that is how they are going to treat their paying customers. It really says a lot about where they stand and what one can expect from them in the future. What belongs in collector's editions is figurines or art books or maybe even crappy night vision goggles, not exclusive in-game content.

What they did with Resident Evil 5's versus mode is kind of mindbogglingly dumb, because let's say there are a few people who would enjoy it: Well, it would probably be kind of hard for them to find a game in the first place even if everyone with the game had it, since it would probably still be rather niche. The fact that most of the people who own the game probably don't buy the DLC makes it even harder for the poor saps who DO buy it to find a match.

Basically, I refuse to buy games where they pull these kinds of stunts, period. I might buy them at a later date if I can get them really cheap with all of the DLC included, but I'm not going to buy 98% of a game at the store and then have them try to sell me the other 2% for half of the cost as the game proper. If that is the direction games are headed in then they can all go to hell because I'm not buying 98% of a game. I have precious little tolerance for bull**** cost-hiding marketing (free cell phone!) and I'm not about to encourage this trend to turn every game into something with recurring fees. If they want to sell their games for $70 for $80 outright with everything included, then by all means they can go right ahead, but if they're going to be all sneaky and devious about it then by all means they can kiss my ass.

Sorry, but anyone who paid $20 for the additional Street Fighter IV costumes is a ****ing moron and I seriously hope they quit playing games and go take up some other hobby that I don't partake in. People are just encouraging game companies to keep pulling **** moves like this by actually buying this stuff. Twenty dollars. The actual game itself was on sale for that much a few weeks back on Steam. Yep, additional costumes are worth as much as the game itself. (Okay, half if you go by the game's normal price.) Yeah, that makes ****ing sense. You know what? Screw you, Capcom.

Avatar image for k0r3aN_pR1d3
k0r3aN_pR1d3

2148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#36 k0r3aN_pR1d3
Member since 2005 • 2148 Posts
I miss the old days when games just came as they were and DLC was called Expansion packs.
Avatar image for tutt3r
tutt3r

2865

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#37 tutt3r
Member since 2005 • 2865 Posts

well its a good and bad thing i mean if its a good game dlc is something i would crave but i totally understand where your coming from. and yeah sometimes it seems like were getting nickel and dimed.

Avatar image for luv2dance1984
luv2dance1984

44

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 luv2dance1984
Member since 2004 • 44 Posts

DLC was a way of releasing expansion packs to console games, because most expansion packs required the original game installed on your pc, there was just no way for publishers to sell those for consoles, we PC gamer had downloadable expansion packs long before DLC was around, and I think everyone who played games on pc long enough would prefer have expansion packs. I think at least 50% of the stuff in xbox market place should have been free, and yes I think DLC is out of control.

Avatar image for da_bomb123
da_bomb123

178

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 da_bomb123
Member since 2004 • 178 Posts

I miss the old days when games just came as they were and DLC was called Expansion packs. k0r3aN_pR1d3

QFT

Avatar image for slabber44
slabber44

985

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#40 slabber44
Member since 2004 • 985 Posts

Depends how you look at it. I personally only get DLC if I'm intrested in it. I like having the option to extend or add to my game if I so choose. There's alot out there that I have passed on, and a few I have purchased. You can say what you want, but DLC is here to stay so you might as well deal with it. It's your choice- buy or ignore!

I look at it as the developers might not have had the time to do all they wanted to do with the schedule they have to keep with publishers. So they throw out a DLC to add that content. Then you have the option to buy it or pass on it. Is it out of control? I don't think so. It's just a new avenue to extend and add to their product and make a little money.

Avatar image for luv2dance1984
luv2dance1984

44

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 luv2dance1984
Member since 2004 • 44 Posts

Depends how you look at it. I personally only get DLC if I'm intrested in it. I like having the option to extend or add to my game if I so choose. There's alot out there that I have passed on, and a few I have purchased. You can say what you want, but DLC is here to stay so you might as well deal with it. It's your choice- buy or ignore!

I look at it as the developers might not have had the time to do all they wanted to do with the schedule they have to keep with publishers. So they throw out a DLC to add that content. Then you have the option to buy it or pass on it. Is it out of control? I don't think so. It's just a new avenue to extend and add to their product and make a little money.

slabber44

I think you have missed the point completely, no one here says they were forced to buy DLCs, just like every consumer product, its buy or ignore. but what you have to keep in mind is what if developers take out some contents from a game and sell them as DLCs? and Where is line drawn? and how is it changing PC gaming? What it will do to mods and expansion packs. Will they support user created content if they want to make a few bucks themselves?

Avatar image for Cdscottie
Cdscottie

1872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#42 Cdscottie
Member since 2004 • 1872 Posts
Take the news about CoD:MW2. They removed dedicated servers that means no user created maps and no mods. What does this mean? IW has the ability to now charge for maps and other features that could be supplied by outside sources. Do you still feel that it isn't out of control when developers are even locking down their games so they can sell products later on?