Is DLC bad for gaming?

So what do you guys think? I for one believe in the grand scheme of things it is bad for gaming, but not all DLC released now are only made to milk consumers, as some of it is reasonably priced and offers a good amount of content..

DLC can be good and bad.

It's good if it's worth the money (kind of like expansion packs). The mindset of good DLC is that the dev is supporting their product post release.

It's bad if you are charged $15 for a few multiplayer maps. Or horse armor. :| The mindset of bad DLC is milkage.

I wish some of the older 360 games I still play had DLC. You know you dont have to pay for the DLC if you dont want to, its a choice, and its nice having it.

my knee-jerk reaction was to vote "Yes", but there's been some good DLC released for Forza 3 and Mass Effect 2. So I ended up answering "It depends".shaggygrosser

yea when you look at it in the short term, it depends on the value/price. but when you look at it in the long term, I think it will be bad for gaming because alot of thise good deals on DLC will disappear and most of it will be overpriced/not worth it..especially if the COD map packs sell well(which they are almost certain to do) and other companies will follow the path activision laid down and milk the consumers

DLC can be good and bad.

It's good if it's worth the money (kind of like expansion packs). The mindset of good DLC is that the dev is supporting their product post release.

It's bad if you are charged $15 for a few multiplayer maps. Or horse armor. :| The mindset of bad DLC is milkage.

organic_machine

The only right DLC/ARC, expansion packs have and should always be the standard for extending the game.

It depends.

Sometimes there's a huge demand for a certain feature that the developers never thought of. In that case, it's a great idea.

But it's being abused. Content should not be witheld from the game, and it's happening way too much now. The way it's going we're soon going to reach the day where you pay full price for a game, and then have to pay an additional fee to play the last chapter.

[QUOTE="shaggygrosser"]my knee-jerk reaction was to vote "Yes", but there's been some good DLC released for Forza 3 and Mass Effect 2. So I ended up answering "It depends".BlancoBX

yea when you look at it in the short term, it depends on the value/price. but when you look at it in the long term, I think it will be bad for gaming because alot of thise good deals on DLC will disappear and most of it will be overpriced/not worth it..especially if the COD map packs sell well(which they are almost certain to do) and other companies will follow the path activision laid down and milk the consumers

Obviously it depends on the content and pricing. Nothing is so black and white.

I hate DLC, the second i buy a game i expect all the features i paid for....

DLC is rarely worth paying for, I hate having 2 hours of content and nothing more, it's not enough to satisfy me. That and most DLC is crap, I prefer a full blown expansion.

It depends. The Versus DLC for RE5 was a shame. Howver those recently released are outstanding.

.

BioWare has been doing a great job with ME2. I think it's the exemple to be fallowed.

The two GTA expansions were proof that DLC isn't bad by any means. Still...you do get overpriced/pointless items though.Ravensmash

I actually totally disagree...I think the two GTA expansions are proof that DLC content is bad...with those 2 expansion packs, the game now has as much content as San Andreas and that game was on the PS2. Obviously SA didnt have multiple playable characters and different story arcs like those two episodes have but it had way more other content than GTAIV has...Rockstar putting out a game that has significantly less content than its older versions just proves my point that DLC is bad in the long run..imo

DLC is rarely worth paying for, I hate having 2 hours of content and nothing more, it's not enough to satisfy me. That and most DLC is crap, I prefer a full blown expansion.

cyborg100000

DLC was born as a way to extend a game (sales wise) , it was meant to pick up new players that did not buy the game the first round. DLC has turned into a bad trick by the developers where they hide the DLC data onto the disk you purchased. DLC these days (most of it) is basically a probe to see how much the consumer will spend, like after a few months and sales on MW2 map pack DLC begin to fall, they will drop the price to make another push.It's general business to make as much profit as possible.

In a way i'm fine with that as I make the choice about if it's worth it or not, but these companies that we the consumer fund very rarely put out free DLC as a way to say thank you for making our game huge.ND put out some free DLC in terms of a new map for UC2 and I thanked them for that by buying the map pack for $5.99.

I'm scared about what kind of new ideas companies might have for DLC next gen.

DLC was born as a way to extend a game (sales wise) , it was meant to pick up new players that did not buy the game the first round. DLC has turned into a bad trick by the developers where they hide the DLC data onto the disk you purchased. DLC these days (most of it) is basically a probe to see how much the consumer will spend, like after a few months and sales on MW2 map pack DLC begin to fall, they will drop the price to make another push.It's general business to make as much profit as possible.

In a way i'm fine with that as I make the choice about if it's worth it or not, but these companies that we the consumer fund very rarely put out free DLC as a way to say thank you for making our game huge.ND put out some free DLC in terms of a new map for UC2and I thanked them for that by buying the map pack for $5.99.

I'm scared about what kind of new ideas companies might have for DLC next gen.

akira2465

yea I know what you mean, if DLC thats overpriced continues to be popular this gen, whats to stop companies from flat out leaving huge pieces of the game out in favor of charging an extra 15 dollars afterwards?

If the DLC is too much for the content they are giving you, then I find it to be bad. Otherwise, I have no problem with them.

It's more bad than good.

Good: Sometimes, well made DLC can give you about 8-12 hours more content for a low price. It can also extend a game's length or its content if it is done right. If it is made and priced correctly, the customer should not feel ripped off in the end.

Bad: As of right now, there is a lot of worthless DLC and expensive DLC being released. Many devs are even announcing DLC BEFORE the game is released. There may be only 1-2 good reasons for announcing DLC early (maybe something episodic), but if it is announced before the release date, it needs to be put on the disc and not locked away until an unlock code is purchased (Resident Evil 5 and Bioshock 2 are the biggest culprits of locking ridiculous DLC on the disc). DLC is causing features and items that should have been unlocks to become $5 DLC.

DLC would not be awful if many people did not spend their money on the worthless DLC.

I hate paid DLC with a fiery passion now :evil:

I thought the Cerberus Network with a new purchase of Mass Effect 2 was the fair solution for everybody. EA curbs its loss from used game sales and the consumer gets an incentive. Then they announced the first paid content that could have a serious impact on the games story and character development.

The game you buy should be the final content. I'm sick of publishers dangling the golden carrot, it feels like your being held to ransom and don't have the full experience that was intended.

DLC can be good and bad.

It's good if it's worth the money (kind of like expansion packs). The mindset of good DLC is that the dev is supporting their product post release.

It's bad if you are charged $15 for a few multiplayer maps. Or horse armor. :| The mindset of bad DLC is milkage.

organic_machine

Completely agree.

Not all DLC released now are only made to milk consumers, as some of it is reasonably priced and offers a good amount of content..

BlancoBX

That's my reasoning too but thinking that way can often lead to a backlash, much like liking games like Halo in System Wars.

The main factor dividing good DLC from bad, is how complete the game was on release. Mass Effect 2 is a full 40-55 hr RPG (depending on side mission exploration etc...) that is a complete story on its own as well as well as a continuation of a trilogy. It has everything you'd need in the package for a very satisfying game. Force Unleashed was a hearty 12-15 hr action adventure game so the new mission levels that releases afterwards is exactly what its meant to be. Bonus content added to extend the life of the game. Forza 3 has 400+ cars already included. In this case DLC is a great way to add new cars that were manufactured only after the games launch.

One really frustrating issue with DLC is content released on the same day as the disc, but seperately. However going back to ME2 and FM3, devs have shown an inventive way of implenting this as an incentive to buy new and steer gamers away from the used after market. Having content that can be accessed for free when you buy new from the store is a positive incentive, rather than some other measures which penalize gamers for buying used. This is perfectly acceptable where that Day 1 DLC is not charged for, only there to encourage gamers returning revenue to the devs, as they all want, and which most of us here support.

On the topic of devs "stripping out content that should have been there already", I don't know, but most of these complaints smack of tin foil hat propoganda. Like I said, when the DLC is day 1 and being charged for, I can understand, but I also hear this when its an extra mission released months later. Its all too easy to speculate the conspiracy that this was all deliberate and planned ahead, but the fact is, we don't know what was planned in the original game design, from script to plot, to level design. Just as often, we hear this about a game that was already 12+ hrs to begin with, and after the DLC is released, they cry "it should have already been in the game". Just too... "convenient" to claim it after the fact.

you cant argue dlc is bad for gaming. stupid people who throw money at things without thinking about it are bad for gaming. dlc is at worst entirely neutral and what we make of it, and at best a fantastic way to extend the lifespan of the game (look at burnout paradise) for FREE.

Yes! IMO it allows the devs to milk you more then it should by leaving out things that otherwise should be in the game from the start. The whole online thing is bad period. It allows devs to bring a half-*** game out thinking "We'll just patch it later, lets make the money now."

Look, back in the day when games came out they were great because you got what was given to you and that's it. It built up an anticipation for the next game because they added everything that wasn't put in the first. Which resulted inbetter sales and an even better game. Also they gave you time to enjoy that game too, unlike these bums now. They bring out a sequel every year andthingslike that. I swear man I can see it now with the way these people are with this DLC crap is a bad idea from the start. In the future you're gonna start seeing games like Street Fighter with 6 characters from the start and all the rest DLC, I'm telling you it's gonna happen. I've been watching this DLC crap for a long time and I noticed shorter and shorter games and more and more expensive DLC.

I don't mind it unless it releases right after the game hits the shelves. It makes me feel as if they are squeezing every dollar out of us, even if they are being sincere. I also found out the hard way, that if your LIve acct. is suspended due to non pymt., you will have limited access to some DLC. That hurts!

Reasonably priced DLC that is not locked on the disk is great for gaming.

People who say "yes" don't know what they are talking about. Essentially DLC is a good thing, not only does it give you more of something you love, but you are not forced to buy it.

Also, it provides extra income for the devs, so they can afford to continue producing the games that are steadily rising in development costs.

That said, there is a wrong and right way to go about DLC, as with anything else. Creating content and locking it on the retail disc, is the WRONG WAY to do DLC. Still though, you arent forced to buy it, but since you purchased the disc, in my opinion it should be illegal to not have access to everything on the disc.

I like when DLC is like expansion packs, adding a fair amount of new and high quality (but non-essential for a "full experience") content to the game for a reasonable price.

I absolutely HATE map packs, costume packs, "new" gameplay modes that are standard in most games and should've been included in the game in the first place, Avatar Items, and other obvious rip-offs.

The very existence of DLC is bad because it allows developers to exploit the system. There may be good DLC but theres still that possibility. And we all know which companies do it. Theyre the ones we buy the most games from.

ANYONE who supports DLC is contributing to the destruction of quality games. You can flame me all you want and hand out money to these publishers/developers for map packs but the truth is the truth. You guys are responsible for Oblivion horse armor, RE5 versus mode, on disc skins, DLC unlock keys, BC2 VIP codes, EA Skate DLC cheats, Assassins Creed 2 missing chapter DLC, Dragon Age Origins item slot DLC, on disc Burnout cars. I can go on and on.

And the worst thing is, you never know what content a developer might have left out purposely to sell as DLC. That is the main reason DLC is bad. The only reasonable DLC is DLC large enough to fit on a disc and be an expansion pack, but then it would cease to be downloadable content.

And it pisses me off when people say "DLC adds value" or "dont buy it if you dont think its worth it." Thats a very childish and passive way of thinking and doesnt solve the problems DLC brings.

People who say "yes" don't know what they are talking about. Essentially DLC is a good thing, not only does it give you more of something you love, but you are not forced to buy it.

Also, it provides extra income for the devs, so they can afford to continue producing the games that are steadily rising in development costs.

That said, there is a wrong and right way to go about DLC, as with anything else. Creating content and locking it on the retail disc, is the WRONG WAY to do DLC. Still though, you arent forced to buy it, but since you purchased the disc, in my opinion it should be illegal to not have access to everything on the disc.

moistsandwich

I think your explanation is spot on.

Bad DLC is also the reason that there will NEVER be mods on a Microsoft console, no matter how similar to PC's the consoles get.General_X

I don't think we'll see mods on any console with their closed platform and all, though there can be exceptions.

[QUOTE="General_X"]Bad DLC is also the reason that there will NEVER be mods on a Microsoft console, no matter how similar to PC's the consoles get.Gundamforce

I don't think we'll see mods on any console with their closed platform and all.

BioWare has been doing a great job with ME2. I think it's the exemple to be fallowed.

padaporra

What did I miss?

O RLY? Unfortunately that's the only console game to do it so far, also unfortunately it was UT3.General_X

Well i guess that's why i said there are exceptions, (I knew this is possible from the get go. I know a friend that did Halo 2 xbox mods). However Sony or Nintendo or many other developers won't be jumping on this bandwagon for the same reason Microsoft does. They want their monies too.

It's bad for gaming, hands-down. It's gotten to the point where devs have DLC already on the disc, it's just that you need to pay an extra fee to "unlock" it. It seems that gone are the days of paying $60 for a game. With DLC, it's an ever-growing amount.

It can go both ways, but mostly a good thing. You are getting more from the developers, but you could be caught in a web of bad value, and could result in diminished quality in future games since developers will try to hold some content to charge for it later as DLC.

DLC is bad if it's announced before the game is out. If that happens then that means the game is not going to be the final product and thus you're buying an incomplete game.

DLC is good if it's announced after the game is released. This shows that there is more to the already complete game and thus the developers are giving you something extra.

Those are my two cents.