DLC Is Bad For Gaming

DLC is bad for gaming because developers are allowed to leave content out and just charge us a month later for it as DLC. Developers probably dont even spend time post-release to develop the DLC. 90% of DLC is a rip off. The GTA 4 and Fallout 3 DLC people love to use in defense of DLC are actually expansion packs in downloadable form and should not be placed in the same category as the other $2 skin / $5 map pack DLC. Small time DLC used to be free as on disc unlockables. Why allow greedy developers/publishers to milk us?

Agree or disagree?

I like DLC from Valve.

DLC is bad for gaming because developers are allowed to leave content out and just charge us a month later for it as DLC. Developers probably dont even spend time post-release to develop the DLC. 90% of DLC is a rip off. The GTA 4 and Fallout 3 DLC people love to use in defense of DLC are actually expansion packs in downloadable form and should not be placed in the same category as the other $2 skin / $5 map pack DLC. Small time DLC used to be free as on disc unlockables. Why allow greedy developers/publishers to milk us?

Agree or disagree?

erglesmergle

stuff like $2 skin a rip-off? definitely

that said they get away with it anyways, the whole DLC thing is even worse in MMO's

map packs are even more problematic anyways, it divides the userbase and if a game doesn't have that big of a population it means under-populated maps you paid money for... massive rip-off there (i'm looking at you... Killzone 2)

that said i've liked the "expansions" to GTA4 and ME2 so far, but that's it

I like DLC from Valve.

gameofthering

Yeah because it's free! :)

The only time DLC becomes stupid is when it affects your enjoyment of the game. I.E map packs and you being locked out of playing in certain rooms.

DLC like content packs late in a games life time is fantastic.

DLC like those EA downloads before that unlocked cheat mode and stuff like that, terrible.

So yeah, upsides and downsides.

I'm also extremely cynical regarding this business. If there is a way for them to get away with cutting content from a game and charging for it, I fully expect them to do just that. With most DLC there's simply no way of telling if it's a-ok or not.

Take Dead Rising: Case Zero Day DLC for instance. Would this chunk of the game have been included on the disc? Did they cut away the introduction? Or was it something they started working on seperately that wouldn't have existed if this alternate revenue stream didn't? Is it a ripoff or is it a cool "mini-game"? You don't know, never will. That's how publishers would get away with ripping you off, and why I'm always

I hear a lot about this dlc that should've been on the disc, and that's not really a valid complaint, even in the case of DLC that is available the first week. The reasoning seems to be that since it was already done before the game went on sale, it should've been part of the game. See it's not like they make all the content, then the day before the games release they make all the discs up and leave some content off just to make money.

What really happens is the development team makes the game, tests it, finalizes it and then the manufacturing and distribution side of things takes over. They start putting the game on disc, making the packaging, and getting the game ready for retail. If they anticipate high sales, they need to build up a substantial stock. Meanwhile, the development team are done. They're sitting around. Some of them may already have moved on to other projects, some may not have an immediate game to move on to. So they start making up extra content. They may make up some simple reskins or maps or something and have it done before the game hits the shelves, but it's not like they can stop the production and get that added to all the discs that are already packed and shipped, and if they did, it would just mean delays.

They may be able to come up with endless ways to add to a game, but at some point they have to cut it off and say ok, this is the retail game, anything we work on after this will go to DLC. In the past, when they reached that cut-off point, that was it. Any further ideas had to just be scrapped, or saved for a sequel, because there wasn't any way to distribute add-on content (for consoles), and even if they could distribute it, there was no way to add it to the game's disc or cart. They advent of online services and stores, and the standardization of HDD on consoles means that now, they can easily distribute add-on content, and the game can be patched via game data on the HDD, so just because the game is shipped doesn't mean they can't still add more to it. Either you want it, and you buy it, or you don't want it, and you don't have to buy it. If you want to say a particular DLC is a rip-off because a map pack should be $5 and not $15, fine, but saying it's a rip off because it should've been on the disc is faulty logic.

DLC from good companies is fine. They make a great game full of content that was meant to be in it, then down the line they develop more. There's also Bioware, who do the same, but also lock aspects but give it away as free DLC with the purchase of a new game so they don't miss out on retail stores ripping them off with preowned titles. Then there are companies that are trying to exploit DLC, keeping content that could have been released with the game locked up & try to sell it once the customer has already bought the game.

My favourite game this year is DLC. Ultimate team for FIFA 10.

there is the argument that once a game is released (especially multiplayer games) publishers/devs don't see any more revenue and yet still need to maintain the servers and whatnot. DLC arguably (but most often not) is used to help keep game alive as well as give devs/pubs money off of games that get played everyday. Some dlc is good, most is bad. I agree though it seems its just to get more money from uswhile delivering less content out of the box

Disagree. As long as it's optional I really don't see any issues.

*snip*ianuilliam

Disagree. As long as it's optional I really don't see any issues.

Puckhog04

Oh and to answer the question, I think it's both good and bad. Mostly bad, because I'm cynical.

I'm also extremely cynical regarding this business. If there is a way for them to get away with cutting content from a game and charging for it, I fully expect them to do just that. With most DLC there's simply no way of telling if it's a-ok or not.

Take Dead Rising: Case Zero Day DLC for instance. Would this chunk of the game have been included on the disc? Did they cut away the introduction? Or was it something they started working on seperately that wouldn't have existed if this alternate revenue stream didn't? Is it a ripoff or is it a cool "mini-game"? You don't know, never will. That's how publishers would get away with ripping you off, and why I'm always

InsaneBasura

Exactly why I hate DLC. You will never know the truth. And developers/publishers are given the chance to do it.

If there was a 100% sure way to prove that developers developed the content AFTER the games release and DID NOT have that idea before release, I would be 100% happy about the existence of DLC.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]*snip*InsaneBasura

Disagree. As long as it's optional I really don't see any issues.

Puckhog04

Oh and to answer the question, I think it's both good and bad. Mostly bad, because I'm cynical.

It's always optional. You have the choice of whether or not to buy it. It's not required to play the game.

The only time DLC becomes stupid is when it affects your enjoyment of the game. I.E map packs and you being locked out of playing in certain rooms.

Espada12

Exactly, i could not believe it when i saw the DLC selling elf in DA:O, im fine with dlc when it adds to the enjoyment of the game but it shouldn't be litterally pushed up in your face

Don't like it, don't buy it. There's precious little "must have" DLC that I could see the reasoning behind calling a "rip off". Most "rip off" DLC you'd never need to buy and generally sells very little to begin with.Skittles_McGee

But the fact that developers charge us for must have DLC should be enough to make the entire DLC system bad. Terrorists can use guns at airports to hijack planes. Solution? Ban all people from carrying guns at airports. Same idea.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]*snip*InsaneBasura

Just to clarify for both of you, the point of feature and content lock is Alpha, not Gold.

[QUOTE="InsaneBasura"]

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
If they effectively take content out of the game it's not really optional.

Oh and to answer the question, I think it's both good and bad. Mostly bad, because I'm cynical.

Puckhog04

It's always optional. You have the choice of whether or not to buy it. It's not required to play the game.

What about the Assassins Creed 2 "missing chapters"? They literally skipped chapters and ASKED you to pay for them.

Youd be pissed if you bought a book and found out chapter 2 was missing and you couldnt get a refund. Chapter 2 is optional, but WTF?????

[QUOTE="Puckhog04"]

[QUOTE="InsaneBasura"]

It's always optional. You have the choice of whether or not to buy it. It's not required to play the game.

erglesmergle

What about the Assassins Creed 2 "missing chapters"? They literally skipped chapters and ASKED you to pay for them.

Youd be pissed if you bought a book and found out chapter 2 was missing and you couldnt get a refund. Chapter 2 is optional, but WTF?????

I understand what you're saying. While that is unethical on their side of business, it's optional stuff still. I didn't pay for it and still got the story in AC2 perfectly fine.

I like DLC from Valve.

gameofthering

Well I wouldn't normally consider that DLC but now that you mention it... (also, Valve isn't the only company that releases free content after release, there are plenty others)

DLC announced before the Game is even out is a No-No.

That's when you know that they're not giving you the full product.

DLC is bad for gaming because developers are allowed to leave content out and just charge us a month later for it as DLC. Developers probably dont even spend time post-release to develop the DLC. 90% of DLC is a rip off. The GTA 4 and Fallout 3 DLC people love to use in defense of DLC are actually expansion packs in downloadable form and should not be placed in the same category as the other $2 skin / $5 map pack DLC. Small time DLC used to be free as on disc unlockables. Why allow greedy developers/publishers to milk us?

Agree or disagree?

erglesmergle

Not inherently, but yes, the way a lot of developers/publishers do it is pretty bad.

That's why I almost never buy DLC. I'm not missing out on anything 99.5% of the time, anyway.

DLC will only get worse as game costs rise, and I believe it very will could be the cause of a second video game crash. It's probably only a matter of time until every game is like those Korean MMOs where you have to pay real world money for everything.

I like DLC from Valve.

gameofthering

its not DLC

its content patches, its supposed to be free

i agree DLC is cancer

I don't think it's a bad thing, I think it adds replay value. If you like the game enough, you'll be willing to download DLC for it. For example, I love FIFA 10 and I bought the Ultimate Team DLC which is not only a good one but means I play the game a lot now. I think disc unlockables are wrong but there's nothing wrong with DLC, it's not like they force you to buy it.fabz_95

I have never paid a cent for DLC or Xbox Live. Can someone please congratulate me on this accomplishment?

I don't mind it if the DLC is good (Fallout DLCs, a few of the Borderlands DLC, etc). I don't like games like RE5 that had a horrible MP locked away on the disc and a month later Capcom releases an unlock for $5 and pretends like they were working on it all this time.

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

I like DLC from Valve.

Ultizer

its not DLC

its content patches, its supposed to be free

i agree DLC is cancer

DLC is a good thing, the problem is it's still going through an adaptation phase.

Disagree. Other than the ones already on the disc, poorly made, or are way over priced, DLC is great. It's just basically the same idea as those PC expansion packs back in the day (and which are still done today), only it's just in a downloadable format. For the games I really love, I buy some or all of the DLC to continue with that amazing experience. Some of my personal favorites are the ones for Bethesda and Bioware games as well as Halo and GTA, and you can't go wrong with the ones from Valve.

What about map packs? If your friend takes it, but you don't, you can easily be locked out from playing with your friend. I'd call that a potential captive audience: one where you're two hairs shy of being "forced" to buy it if you wish to play the game properly again.HuusAsking

It's still optional. You and your friend can still play, but your friend is stuck with playing the original maps and possibly the dlcs you bought as well and/or those that are free.

I hear a lot about this dlc that should've been on the disc, and that's not really a valid complaint, even in the case of DLC that is available the first week. The reasoning seems to be that since it was already done before the game went on sale, it should've been part of the game. See it's not like they make all the content, then the day before the games release they make all the discs up and leave some content off just to make money.

What really happens is the development team makes the game, tests it, finalizes it and then the manufacturing and distribution side of things takes over. They start putting the game on disc, making the packaging, and getting the game ready for retail. If they anticipate high sales, they need to build up a substantial stock. Meanwhile, the development team are done. They're sitting around. Some of them may already have moved on to other projects, some may not have an immediate game to move on to. So they start making up extra content. They may make up some simple reskins or maps or something and have it done before the game hits the shelves, but it's not like they can stop the production and get that added to all the discs that are already packed and shipped, and if they did, it would just mean delays.

They may be able to come up with endless ways to add to a game, but at some point they have to cut it off and say ok, this is the retail game, anything we work on after this will go to DLC. In the past, when they reached that cut-off point, that was it. Any further ideas had to just be scrapped, or saved for a sequel, because there wasn't any way to distribute add-on content (for consoles), and even if they could distribute it, there was no way to add it to the game's disc or cart. They advent of online services and stores, and the standardization of HDD on consoles means that now, they can easily distribute add-on content, and the game can be patched via game data on the HDD, so just because the game is shipped doesn't mean they can't still add more to it. Either you want it, and you buy it, or you don't want it, and you don't have to buy it. If you want to say a particular DLC is a rip-off because a map pack should be $5 and not $15, fine, but saying it's a rip off because it should've been on the disc is faulty logic.

ianuilliam

I agree with this post

yep it's wasting your money, but hey why stop there? if dlc is a waste then isin't buying the original game a waste also? shouldn't you be padding out your 401k or saving for your education?

people are always trying to convince me of what i need to be doing with the money i make by telling me something is a rip off or that it's going to cause armageddon, social breakdown and abortions.

even if i am getting ripped off so what? dlc is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the ripoffs that i encounter everyday.

yep it's wasting your money, but hey why stop there? if dlc is a waste then isin't buying the original game a waste also? shouldn't you be padding out your 401k or saving for your education?

people are always trying to convince me of what i need to be doing with the money i make by telling me something is a rip off or that it's going to cause armageddon, social breakdown and abortions.

even if i am getting ripped off so what? dlc is a drop in the bucket when it comes to the ripoffs that i encounter everyday.

Riverwolf007

uhhhh...wait. what???

DLC is what you make of it. Sure, some DLC is better than others, but it's up to you, the consumer, to decide what you want to pay for. I think companies are learning that if they do same week DLC it doesn't turn out so well. Some DLC has been fantastic though, and I would much rather be able to download expansions and things like that instead of waiting quietly for the developers to pop out a whole new game.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

I hear a lot about this dlc that should've been on the disc, and that's not really a valid complaint, even in the case of DLC that is available the first week. The reasoning seems to be that since it was already done before the game went on sale, it should've been part of the game. See it's not like they make all the content, then the day before the games release they make all the discs up and leave some content off just to make money.

What really happens is the development team makes the game, tests it, finalizes it and then the manufacturing and distribution side of things takes over. They start putting the game on disc, making the packaging, and getting the game ready for retail. If they anticipate high sales, they need to build up a substantial stock. Meanwhile, the development team are done. They're sitting around. Some of them may already have moved on to other projects, some may not have an immediate game to move on to. So they start making up extra content. They may make up some simple reskins or maps or something and have it done before the game hits the shelves, but it's not like they can stop the production and get that added to all the discs that are already packed and shipped, and if they did, it would just mean delays.

They may be able to come up with endless ways to add to a game, but at some point they have to cut it off and say ok, this is the retail game, anything we work on after this will go to DLC. In the past, when they reached that cut-off point, that was it. Any further ideas had to just be scrapped, or saved for a sequel, because there wasn't any way to distribute add-on content (for consoles), and even if they could distribute it, there was no way to add it to the game's disc or cart. They advent of online services and stores, and the standardization of HDD on consoles means that now, they can easily distribute add-on content, and the game can be patched via game data on the HDD, so just because the game is shipped doesn't mean they can't still add more to it. Either you want it, and you buy it, or you don't want it, and you don't have to buy it. If you want to say a particular DLC is a rip-off because a map pack should be $5 and not $15, fine, but saying it's a rip off because it should've been on the disc is faulty logic.

GTSaiyanjin2

I agree with this post