The concept of DLC is a good thing, but companies have abused it so much. Look at an example like Evolve: barely anything to do in the game at launch (for a launch price, mind you) and nearly everything that was promised in the game was available as DLC instead. I don't blame gamers for having trust issues when it comes to DLC.
It's getting to the point where players have to do research to find out if the inclusion of DLC in a game means that the original is utterly lacking in content.
@battlestreak said:
If the content was intended to release in the base game. You can't really expect all of the extra maps and DLC to be included in the base game.
I don't agree with the thought that DLC is ruining gaming. Why? Because you have a choice. I don't get why people make such a huge deal over DLC. Microtransactions? That's a different story. But, DLC, extra content, isn't ruining gaming, because you have a choice. Spend your money on extra maps and maybe a side mission or two, or put it towards another game or anything else. The point is, you aren't forced to buy DLC, and most of the time, the DLC isn't anything that you absolutely need to have to enjoy the game.
I don't like DLC either. If I had a choice, I would choose no DLC in a heartbeat. If they made that content free. I would rather have that content there if I want, for a price, rather than not having that option at all.
The problem is when companies try to pull the wool over players eyes by deliberately misinforming them about what is and isn't included in the game. If a player buys a game for $60 at launch, they expect a full working game with a reasonable amount of content. But what they sometimes get is a broken, incomplete game with nothing to do in it unless you fork over some more cash to buy the DLC.
Game companies are trying to force you into seeing that there is no choice-- if you don't buy the DLC, then you will have wasted money on a $60 game at launch that didn't deliver what was promised. If you do buy the DLC, you will have spent more money than you were planning to, or rather, more money than you should have.
Why do people say this is ruining gaming? Because if this becomes a larger and larger trend, then AAA gaming companies will intentionally release incomplete games. We're not talking missing maps or one or two side missions; we're talking sections of gameplay, story, etc. that severely downsizes the original game to the point where, if you want to play what was originally advertised, you HAVE to buy the DLC, and if you don't, you wasted money. It's a lose/lose situation. And companies are companies-they will do whatever they can to turn a higher profit. Unless they have very strong ethical principles, or they see that this practice is losing them money, companies will most likely continue to butcher games this way because it's a way to get more money out of the customer.
Imagine if every major company out there intentionally cut away or blocked off main content from the game until you forked over more money. If everyone in this situation thought, "oh well, I don't have to pay for DLC, it's my choice," then everyone would constantly be playing through incomplete games with very little to offer them before tossing them away or selling them back or what have you. It amounts to terrible gaming experiences and wasted money, while people who do buy the DLC get cheated out of more money than they should have.
When gamers talk about his as being a problem, they are not talking about small DLC like extra maps or missions-- those are perfectly fine. It's the clear abuse of the system that they are worried about, and the abuse will only grow if we gamers don't let publishers know that this is not okay.
Log in to comment