DLC: Blessing or a Curse

[ljkkjlcm9]

How does everyone feel about DLC?

Recently I'm really starting to get annoyed with it. Dragon Age is one of the ones that annoyed me... but more notably for me is Assassin's Creed 2, where 2 of the memory sections were "corrupted" but are actually released as DLC, 1 this month and 1 next month.

I'm starting to really dislike DLC in general...

THE JACKEL

[Iceglow]

The DLC for Dragon Age Origins was all pretty much optional. I can see how Shale was meant to fit in to the storyline originally and did get released as DLC however imho thats better than the entire character being cut out of the game and since if you buy a copy new you won't have to pay for it I don't get your complaint? Warden's Keep and Return to Ostagar is not originally part of the storyline, sure they add awesome stuff such as the star metal sword weapon and the ability to utilize a party chest but it is far from essential I think the addition of content this way is in no way a bad thing especially since the Warden's keep pack was very reasonably priced at around £6 online.

I can understand annoyance at games what demand DLC to simply complete the game or to access all the games original features but to be mad at a game such as DA:O because it adds extra content and features is like saying you're mad that the games developers actually give a crap about keeping the game interesting and fun for players after release, which would simply be what I'd term as madness.

[Slothy]

For most games I could care less. At best it tends to be on the level of an expansion pack and at worst it's usually a handful of stupid costumes they try and charge $15-10 for most of the time. The only time I'm bothered by it is with map packs for multiplayer games (because these have traditionally been free in the PC world, and now they're even trying to charge for them there sometimes), and when the DLC is something that should have been in the game from the start. I'm thinking of RE5's Versus DLC in particular there. I didn't care in the sense that I wanted it because I hated RE4 and 5, but in the sense that letting companies get away with stuff like that is setting a dangerous precedent.

[LunarWeaver]

Depends on if the content increases the longevity and enjoyment of the game or doesn't. If done right, I more than welcome it.

You know what it is beforehand, so it's easy to decide if you want it or not.

[Rostum]

Coming from a developer, DLC is an absolute blessing and just opens so many doors.

:love:

[Vyk]

I don't like when they purposely keep stuff out of a game and make you pay extra for it. But if its just an extra down the road I'm all for it. I rarely get them anyway, but the option is nice

[NeoCracker]

The DLC for Dragon Age Origins was all pretty much optional. I can see how Shale was meant to fit in to the storyline originally and did get released as DLC however imho thats better than the entire character being cut out of the game and since if you buy a copy new you won't have to pay for it I don't get your complaint? Warden's Keep and Return to Ostagar is not originally part of the storyline, sure they add awesome stuff such as the star metal sword weapon and the ability to utilize a party chest but it is far from essential I think the addition of content this way is in no way a bad thing especially since the Warden's keep pack was very reasonably priced at around £6 online.

I can understand annoyance at games what demand DLC to simply complete the game or to access all the games original features but to be mad at a game such as DA:O because it adds extra content and features is like saying you're mad that the games developers actually give a crap about keeping the game interesting and fun for players after release, which would simply be what I'd term as madness.

That really isn't so much of an issue as it is that DA:O very directly advertised it's DLC in the game itself. It's like it went out of its way to make you feel like you were missing out unless you got it.

On a whole though, I do quite like DLC to an extent. While it offers a lot ot expand on games, it also gives Developers an excuse withold something from the game for no reason other then to make it DLC, so I guess DLC is a mixed bag of good and bad, though I do think on a whole it's good.;

[Yeargdribble]

If gamers would drop their entitlement complex they would realize that DLC is a fantastic win-win for both them and the studios. I've probably said this all before, but here goes.

Games cost more to make now than they once did, yet relative to their production cost, the cost per unit is lower. The developers have to get paid somehow. Either we can start paying 70, 80, 100 bucks per title, or we can pay 50-60 and get downloadable DLC.

If your options were to pay 100 bucks or skip the game all together it would be a harder call to make. You are given the option to pay 50-60 bucks for a game that is usually incredibly solid on its own. If you love the experience and want more then you have the option to pay for more. In the end with many games you may pay over 100 bucks, but at least you get the option to not spend it all in one go.

This increased likelihood that you'll pick up the game is good for you and for the devs. Even if a good deal of the content was preplanned, you are not entitled to s**t. Just because they made a lot of content doesn't mean you're entitled to all of it for whatever price you personally deem is fair.

Nobody forced gamers hands into paying for horse armor in Oblivion, but everyone raised a stink about it. If you don't like it, don't pay for it. If it's not worth if for you don't pay for it. But you are not entitled free content from the sweat of the brows of dozens of talented people who work ridiculous hours to make not only the base game but the extra content afterward.

[G13]

I love DLC. It helps make an already good game better.

[Slothy]

Nobody forced gamers hands into paying for horse armor in Oblivion, but everyone raised a stink about it. If you don't like it, don't pay for it.

That's all well and good but I don't think anyone had a problem with the not paying for it if you don't like it part. I think the problem people had with that was two fold. For one, relative to the cost of the game a set of horse armour was incredibly over priced, which is actually one of the reasons that I argue costume packs shouldn't be sold for $2-$3. If I'm going to pay approximately five percent of the price of a full game for a DLC pack, it damn well better have more to offer than a costume or two that don't alter or add to the game in any substantial way. The second is that by offering horse armour before anything else at an absurd price, it seemed as though Bethesda was forgoing any substantial DLC release (such as Knights of the Nine or the Shivering Isles) in favour of trying to nickle and dime their fans and get every dollar they could out of DLC that took some 3D modeler and texture artist half an hour to cook up.

I agree that a lot of gamers need to lose the entitlement complex they seem to have, but a lot of developers also need to stop being lazy and treating their fans like a group of morons who can't understand the value of their money.

[NorthernChaosGod]

Wasn't there a big stink about some company releasing DLC for stuff that was already on disc, just not available for use? If I'm remembering correctly, that's bull:bou::bou::bou::bou:.

Secondly, I'm starting to feel like it gives developers an excuse to not give as much content on disc before DLC was prevalent. I love the idea of DLC, it keeps me going back and playing games that would otherwise have been shelved, but it just feels like it's being abused.

A specific case that pissed me off was the DLC for Gears of War 2. They released a number of map packs before releasing the DLC with the extra campaign levels which also contained new maps, the deal though was that if you didn't buy the other map packs it came with all the levels at a discounted price. It really pissed me off because the new levels didn't even come up that much in online play.

[ljkkjlcm9]

Well my entire point was that DLC is a plus and a minus. Dragon Age Origins is one of my examples of this because of Shale and Warden's Keep. I should not be prompted by someone in game, the first time I reach camp, to buy DLC. It literally should be add on stuff, that you can't even notice isn't there otherwise. Return to Ostagar, I see as a good DLC.

What I'm getting annoyed with, essentially, is a game being announced, and before it's even out, they've created DLC for it. Even if they released DLC a week later, I'd feel less annoyed by that, than knowing there is DLC waiting for me as soon as I buy the game. This is why gamer's feel they're literally leaving parts out of the game.

And then of course my big negative was Assassin's Creed 2, were it was blatantly obviously left out of the game. They even showed that it was left out, and referenced it in game. Now the prices on them aren't steep, but still, it's an annoyance. (they were planned, but cut out due to "time constraints)

THE JACKAL

[Rostum]

If gamers would drop their entitlement complex they would realize that DLC is a fantastic win-win for both them and the studios. I've probably said this all before, but here goes.

Games cost more to make now than they once did, yet relative to their production cost, the cost per unit is lower. The developers have to get paid somehow. Either we can start paying 70, 80, 100 bucks per title, or we can pay 50-60 and get downloadable DLC.

If your options were to pay 100 bucks or skip the game all together it would be a harder call to make. You are given the option to pay 50-60 bucks for a game that is usually incredibly solid on its own. If you love the experience and want more then you have the option to pay for more. In the end with many games you may pay over 100 bucks, but at least you get the option to not spend it all in one go.

This increased likelihood that you'll pick up the game is good for you and for the devs. Even if a good deal of the content was preplanned, you are not entitled to s**t. Just because they made a lot of content doesn't mean you're entitled to all of it for whatever price you personally deem is fair.

Nobody forced gamers hands into paying for horse armor in Oblivion, but everyone raised a stink about it. If you don't like it, don't pay for it. If it's not worth if for you don't pay for it. But you are not entitled free content from the sweat of the brows of dozens of talented people who work ridiculous hours to make not only the base game but the extra content afterward.

I'd also like to add, and I can't speak for every company out there because they all have their own agendas, but for the most part they have budgets and time constraints to keep in mind. I know when I was working with a developer, they had pleanty of new game mechanics they wanted to put in and I had already created the art assets for them, and the code base was mostly there but they decided to release it in DLC format because of their budget constraints and the need to get the product out as time was running out.

There are a lot more things to consider, especially for bigger developers like Activision and EA, but this is how I see it - Developers have a lot of great ideas and a lot of content that they just don't have the budget or time to impliment (e.g. create assets, code, user testing, quality assurance, etc. etc.) and they need money to keep the project afloat. But they have a solid title already! So why not release that and then keep developing and release everything else they had in mind? It's great, imo.

Edit: Of course, there are also bad ways to impliment it. So perhaps it's not a question of whether DLC in general is good or bad, but what kind of implimentation people like more.

[Iceglow]

I agree with Omecle and Yearg entirely, I could post a wall of text that would take an hour to write but they've pretty much made my points here. DLC is a huge step forwards in gaming terms, it allows us to have so much more replay and life value in a game. I'm generally against things such as costume packs for street fighter iv for example they're not a good use of dlc but... someone somewhere will just have to buy them and they're going to be the happiest person in the world because they did, so it's not for you move on for some people that simple £1.50 costume pack will make the world of difference at the same point the games dev's are making more money which in turn allows them to then focus on producing more content of substance and value or even another game entirely.

Ok so Levi Dryden in DA:O is in your camp but he doesn't spawn a "no backing out" conversation he doesn't grab you like characters do when you re-enter camp because they've been busy falling in love with you, you have to go over to him and speak to him so it's not forcing a prompt to buy DLC down your throat the minute you enter camp for the first time is it? You chose to speak to him you forced it on yourself, Bioware has nothing to answer for that for. Also if you were wondering if the Warden's Keep pack is worth it? The answer is yes, definitely is. I doubt it was originally intended to be a part of the game because the entire thing is a side quest not even a quest of great importance really but it gives you a full suit of armour, an entirely new area to investigate and explore, 4 new talents to unlock, 2 new shops selling unique or valuble gear, a party chest which gives you storage in the keep once the DLC is completed and much much more it can hugely affect how characters interact with you. So the pack took me 2 or so hours to do? 2 hours of solid gaming for £5 yes please.

[Slothy]

You chose to speak to him you forced it on yourself, Bioware has nothing to answer for that for.

I haven't played DA:O, but let's be fair here, a new player isn't going to know what the character says before they talk to them. Saying they forced in game advertising of the DLC on themselves is stupid. Bioware knows they're going to talk to this guy eventually. I can see the argument that you might not want to see this stuff advertised in game. If you're not interested in the DLC then you certainly don't want to see it, and if you are a big fan of the game then you probably know about it already, or will go looking for more information on the game.

Personally, I'm just not a big fan of developers making you feel like you're missing out just because you haven't given them more money, while you play their game. Especially since some people who aren't as well informed might mistake the DLC for being required. I'm sure it's not meant to be, but it strikes me as fairly underhanded.

[Yeargdribble]

Wasn't there a big stink about some company releasing DLC for stuff that was already on disc, just not available for use? If I'm remembering correctly, that's bull:bou::bou::bou::bou:.


I think Beautiful Katamari was one of a handful of games that have done this. I do at least think this is relatively shady. While I fully support DLC, I'll admit that there are many way to implement it very poorly. This is one of them. Companies also need to feel out what amount of content is worth what monetary compensation. Gouging players makes them unhappy with DLC as a whole.

DLC should not be a requirement to play or finish a game. DLC should not give a competitive edge in games with an online mode. While it's really just a distribution semantics argument, in the interest of not pissing off the people who buy your games, DLC probably shouldn't be on the disc where you're just paying for a password to unlock it.

Keep in mind that we vote with our wallets and publishers pay attention to this. Don't cave and pay ridiculous prices for ridiculously small amounts of content and there will be a point where the price settles (and I think it has) and in generally any company charging too much for said amount of content will immediately throw up red flags.

[Bolivar]

This has been done to death, DLC is terrible when implemented like guns in bad company and levels of katmari, great in games like Red Alert 3 and Fallout 3. The Metal Gear Solid 4 pack for Little Big Planet was awesome, but the weekly costumes and themes are maybe a little too cheaply done, or maybe it's just convenient?

IMO, I'd like to see more expansion packs as opposed to microtransactions. Give me 10 or so new costumes/units/characters, more levels or a mini-campaign, a new game mode and grow the multiplayer map selection by a good percentage, and then I'm all down for it. I think that would attract more people to buy them, but of course there's always the argument of breaking it down - letting people pick and choose if they want this or that character, skin, and which map pack their friends have. I would love to see what the breakdown is for projections on how it would sell chipped apart as opposed to bundled together, I'm assuming their models suggest it's better the way it is with all the microtransactions. But you could say PC's figured it would be better as a full expansion pack before consoles started doing it, but they were very much dependent on retail still back then. Still, I don't think people started doing it like crazy in the advent of steam. We all bitched and moaned about how cumbersome it was at first, but there was a crapload of free content on there every week. Another discussion.

So my only concern is over time it'll cheapen the gaming experiences we buy.

[Skyblade]

I dislike DLC simply because I find it tedious and worthwhile. Nevermind that I have to pay more for it, I don't really care about it. It's just problematical on a couple of levels. I don't usually play with my consoles hooked up to the internet, and I am loathe to hook them up just to download a minor piece of DLC. Which brings me to the other negative of DLC: it is all minor, and it has killed major gameplay updates. Since DLC took off, expansion packs have been pretty much dead, despite the fact that the DLCs rarely if ever offer the amount of content we used to get via game expansions. I would rather pay a larger price for a more complete and coherent update than pay a lot of little prices for minor stuff that's just tacked on. When was the last time you saw DLC that was on par with, say The Frozen Throne expansion for WCIII? A boatload of new units, entire new play mechanics, several new storylines, and all fitting together into a new, expanded plot. I've never seen that in a DLC. Since they are almost always viewed as "optional" by designers and gamers, there is never substantial content added, and never any true expansion of the story.

On their own, I don't care one way or the other. But the rise of DLC is not worth the fall of expansions, IMO.

[Rostum]

On their own, I don't care one way or the other. But the rise of DLC is not worth the fall of expansions, IMO.

Get used to it, cupcake.

[Slothy]

When was the last time you saw DLC that was on par with, say The Frozen Throne expansion for WCIII? A boatload of new units, entire new play mechanics, several new storylines, and all fitting together into a new, expanded plot. I've never seen that in a DLC. Since they are almost always viewed as "optional" by designers and gamers, there is never substantial content added, and never any true expansion of the story.

Only Blizzard ever made expansions that were more sequel than optional. I've almost never seen an expansion that wasn't optional in all of my years of playing games. And that said, if you haven't noticed, DLC is how expansions are released these days, and many companies have seen DLC as a new way of doing that. Bethesda does it a lot, and so have other titles like Warhawk off the top of my head. The thing you need to keep in mind is that a lot of games never had expansions. Ever. But now consoles aren't left out in the cold when they do come out (usually anyway. I feel bad for anyone who bought The Orange Box on a console).

[Quindiana Jones]

DLC in Oblivion is a curse because it causes your game to crash and delete all your saves.

[Momiji]

It depends. Most of the time I'm not too fond of it. I don't particularly enjoy paying extra for content that should have been on the disc to begin with. However, there are exceptions. Take Mushihimesama Futari, for example. Its 'Black Label' mode was released as DLC for $10. I ended up buying it because I found it to be a worthwhile price, as there are only 150 Black Label PCBs in existence, and they don't usually sell for under $1000. Therefore, I found that to be a worthwhile investment. Should it have already been on the disc to begin with? Well, yeah. In fact, on the main menu, there's an unselectable 'Black Label' mode option in plain sight that you can't select until you pay for the DLC. I already paid $120 for the game brand new, so I kind of figured 'what's another $10?'

Also, let's not forget the DLC of entire games. I love the concept of being able to buy older games for $5-15 and being able to store them all on a hard drive to be played at any time. However, I'd still kind of like to have hard copies at the same time.

I suppose that my biggest complaint about DLC is that (aside from the case of the 360 (and PS3? I dunno)) if your system fries, say goodbye to all of that stuff you downloaded and all of the money you spent.

Therefore, I think DLC is a blessing and a curse.

[GhandiOwnsYou]

I support DLC in most cases. Little Big Planet, the Skate series, and Prince of Persia in particular i think have done it very well. They all pretty much exemplify what DLC should be, a way to extend the playtime of a game that you really enjoyed. Skate pleased me quite a bit. It was a full featured game, there was nothing that was lacking level wise. But IF you wanted to play some new areas, you could pony up for an extra plaza or competition to skate.

Then you've got games like Prince of Persia, one of my personal favorite DLC's. I loved the game to death, to the point where I was honestly sad to have beaten it, knowing it was going to take a few years to see a sequel. Luck would have it though, a little ways later, you get this little mini episode that tacks just a few extra hours of new material to play through. Aptly named, Epilogue.

Little Big Planet shows off unselfish DLC. Someone buys the DLC, makes a level with it, and posts it online. You can still play it! There isn't any "sorry, you didn't pay, you can't play with this." You can still enjoy the DLC, you just can't keep it. it's like... Dlc rental I guess.

However, pre-planned DLC, DLC that makes you feel left out for not buying it, or storyline centric DLC is garbage. If the game tries to guilt or force you to buy DLC, or gives an unfair advantage to people who buy the DLC, it's bad form. But the fault for this lies solely on the developer, not in the DLC itself.

[Slothy]

I suppose that my biggest complaint about DLC is that (aside from the case of the 360 (and PS3? I dunno)) if your system fries, say goodbye to all of that stuff you downloaded and all of the money you spent.

I can't speak for the 360, but for the PS3 and on Steam, anything you pay to download is tied to your account, not your system. You can re-download it at anytime if you want.

[Yeargdribble]

Steam is just done so perfectly. Once you buy it, you don't own it in any physical form, but you have something much better. You own the right to it infinitely. I've even bought games I already own in box form on Steam just for the ease of it. I can download those games on any computer I want through Steam and have them automatically updated without any hassle of digging for patches like in the days of yore.

Sorry about the derail regarding my boner for Steam.

[Momiji]

I suppose that my biggest complaint about DLC is that (aside from the case of the 360 (and PS3? I dunno)) if your system fries, say goodbye to all of that stuff you downloaded and all of the money you spent.

I can't speak for the 360, but for the PS3 and on Steam, anything you pay to download is tied to your account, not your system. You can re-download it at anytime if you want.

Yeah, it's the same for the 360 as well-- though due to licensing issues or some :bou::bou::bou::bou: like that, you have to be connected to Live to make the game work if it's not on the system you originally bought it on-- it's happened to me before within the ~11 times (not exaggerating) I've sent my console(s) in for repairs over the past 2 years.

For the Wii and DSi, then-- if either of those get messed up, it seems like everything you bought is gone-- unless someone can counterclaim that too.

[Iceglow]

I suppose that my biggest complaint about DLC is that (aside from the case of the 360 (and PS3? I dunno)) if your system fries, say goodbye to all of that stuff you downloaded and all of the money you spent.

I can't speak for the 360, but for the PS3 and on Steam, anything you pay to download is tied to your account, not your system. You can re-download it at anytime if you want.

Yeah, it's the same for the 360 as well-- though due to licensing issues or some :bou::bou::bou::bou: like that, you have to be connected to Live to make the game work if it's not on the system you originally bought it on-- it's happened to me before within the ~11 times (not exaggerating) I've sent my console(s) in for repairs over the past 2 years.

For the Wii and DSi, then-- if either of those get messed up, it seems like everything you bought is gone-- unless someone can counterclaim that too.

Yes, the DLC is continually available for you to download and delete on the 360 too. And yes, there is a small issue of having to take the console on LIVE to get the DLC re-liscenced to the new machine if you need a replacement however that should be a one off incident really if I recall correctly, once you've hooked up to XBL and microsoft re-liscences the dlc data it's fine.

[Momiji]

From what I've heard, you can only re-license once a year though-- which is kind of pointless when it's been sent in approximately 5-6 times in the last year.

[Iceglow]

From what I've heard, you can only re-license once a year though-- which is kind of pointless when it's been sent in approximately 5-6 times in the last year.

I have never heard of a limit on the number of times in a year the DLCs, DRM can be updated however if you do ever encounter problems with the Digital Rights Management and your DLC just call XBL customer support, their job is basically to make you happy, generally they have codes they can enter to sort things out. The biggest issue you ever have is if you buy a second hand xbox and it's banned because Microsoft can be real douches about that. Also Mommiji, can I ask what the hell in gods name are you doing to go through so many xbox 360 consoles? I'm still using my first one the old 20gb I brought time ago.

[Slothy]

Also Mommiji, can I ask what the hell in gods name are you doing to go through so many xbox 360 consoles? I'm still using my first one the old 20gb I brought time ago.

Getting off topic, but it's called Microsoft poorly designing a console and then replacing broken ones with refurbished ones because actually giving you a console that stands a chance of working for more than a year or two to replace your broken one would cost too much. But hey, at least you get a nifty three year warranty for when it almost inevitably breaks again.

[Momiji]

Also Mommiji, can I ask what the hell in gods name are you doing to go through so many xbox 360 consoles? I'm still using my first one the old 20gb I brought time ago.

Getting off topic, but it's called Microsoft poorly designing a console and then replacing broken ones with refurbished ones because actually giving you a console that stands a chance of working for more than a year or two to replace your broken one would cost too much. But hey, at least you get a nifty three year warranty for when it almost inevitably breaks again.

Nope, just a three-month warranty since the issue isn't the RRoD. Conventiently, almost too conveniently, they break down again within said three months.

The problem is always, always, always an error when it comes to reading discs. The system will turn on and take me straight to the dashboard, as usual-- but the discs will not read. You can open the tray, close it, and it says it's reading, and then it'll just go straight back to 'Open Tray' again. You can repeat this for over an hour and it might possibly work, but that's not good enough. My NES is over 20 years old, and it works as if it was brand new. I take very good care of my consoles, and I have never, ever been so dissatisfied with a video game console in my life.


There's no obvious reason as to why this happens, either. Over time, my dad and I have a small collection of 360 consoles in the house-- 4 in all. There's our first console-- an Elite--purchased two years ago. This one has been sent in 10 times now. True, my dad plays it for hours and hours every day. Then there's my first console, an Arcade model. Since there was a time where I didn't play 360 games for a long while (a few months), I didn't know it was failing. One day I happened to turn it on, and the error started. However, we couldn't send this one in since it was past its warranty. We had no choice but to just stuff it away in a closet. Then my dad got fed up with waiting for the Elite to come back fixed, so he bought a second console-- an Arcade model. He used this until the Elite came back, and then gave it to me. Then my brother got his own 360 as well. There's 4.

I rarely play games on my 360. Once I got Mushihimesama Futari last month, I've played maybe, maybe 5 hours a week. It's now got the bull:bou::bou::bou::bou: error, and I have to wait for Micro:bou::bou::bou::bou: to send me a box so they can give me another refurbished console to smurf up in three months. My brother's 360 is doing the same, but he and my dad play a significant amount more than me. The Elite has been shipped in yet again, and my dad happened to pull out the 360 that has been sitting in the closet ('I'm going to intentionally RRoD this one so I can send it in and get a guaranteed 3-year warranty!')-- believe it or not, it worked, but he refuses to shut it off now in case it messes up like all the others.

So yeah. I'd have converted to PS3dom a long time ago, but it doesn't really have any games that interest me. The 360 has pretty much all of the interesting arcade games this generation, so I've been sticking with it. I just wish Micro:bou::bou::bou::bou: would give us the kind of service we've given them.

[Slothy]

I've heard some 360 horror stories in my day, but sweet Zombie Jesus...

Even if the system was the only one with the games I wanted I'm pretty sure I would have told Microsoft to shove it and took up knitting long before I got as far as you have.

[Quindiana Jones]

Although I think Microsoft are kinda :bou::bou::bou::bou:ty, I'm gonna stand up a little for them here. My 360 broke after about a year: RRoD. I called and they told me what to do. I had to get my own box and stuff (which is kinda lame considering they said that they could send me one, but whatever) and sent it off. It returned less than two weeks later and has currently been working quite perfectly for about 18 months.

[Captain Maxx Power]

Personally I hate DLC, primarily because of what it stands for; a way of demolishing user-created content for games in favour of continued shilling for games companies too lazy to make truly original content. During my lifetime I've seen many games go from open-source projects with an encourage on user created content, to a "get in the big bucks" system that disregards the user in favour of increased profits. Yes, I get that it's good for the companies from a profit point of view, but so is overpricing oil for petrol companies. Just because something is beneficial for a company doesn't mean it's benefits trickle down into the user base, nor should we all necessarily fall in line with a "well I don't have to buy the DLC". Such reasoning is utter crap, because none of us need to buy games in the first place. Considering that it's a hobbyist pursuit to begin with justifying effectively doubling the price of a game for 1/3rd of the content (for example the entirety of the DLC for Fallout 3 combined costs more than the original game with only a fraction of the content the original game has to offer) to me seems ridiculous. Essentially the consumers are being sold mutton dressed as lamb, which we know is mutton but collectively we've decided to call it lamb, because we never get lamb that often so we should be bloody well thankful when it does come along. Well it's not lamb is it; it's mutton. Overpriced mutton.

[Momiji]

Well, I just got off the phone with my dad. He said he spent 133 minutes talking to 4 different MS associates, and was demanding for something to be done.

The result was an 'unlimited' extension of all 4 systems' warranties. Pretty neat, but I really wish it didn't have to come to this-- and who knows how long it will truly last-- the duration is still entirely up to Microsoft's decision. Microsoft is lucky they have all the games that interest me, or they'd never have my business in that department ever again.

[Slothy]

Personally I hate DLC, primarily because of what it stands for; a way of demolishing user-created content for games in favour of continued shilling for games companies too lazy to make truly original content.

Let's be perfectly fair here: with the sole exception of Little Big Planet (and even that's not the type of user created content I'm pretty sure you're getting at), user created content has never been a significant factor in console gaming, nor will it ever be in the same way it is on PC. Kind of tough to demolish something that didn't exist in the first place. You may have an argument in terms of the PC market as the lack of dedicated servers in Modern Warfare 2 demonstrates, but even then, it's a small argument as many developers and publishers not named Activision generally still support it.


nor should we all necessarily fall in line with a "well I don't have to buy the DLC". Such reasoning is utter crap, because none of us need to buy games in the first place.

The reasoning isn't utter crap. No we don't have to buy any game or it's DLC, but we like to, and more importantly, developers and publishers like it when the stuff they release sells. If you think one is trying to rip you and other consumers off then don't buy it, and tell everyone you can why you feel it isn't worth it. If enough people vote with their wallets then companies will either give up on DLC or stop trying to rip people off.

Even still, it's all about what people think the stuff is worth. The DLC for Fallout 3 might cost more than the game itself for dramatically less content, but many may simply feel that for what the original game cost they got far more than what they paid, making them more willing to pay for the DLC. And keep in mind that like any product, DLC prices tend to come down over time, so while you may not think it's worth it now, it could be half price in a year or so. Let those who actually think it's worth the release price pay it while you wait for a more reasonable price to purchase it.

[Iceglow]

Ok on the case of Fallout 3, I'd almost agree with this but here look at the maths based on the prices from my work at HMV:

Release price on 360 console: £44.99
Current price on 360 console: £19.99 in a two for £30.00 offer
Cost of each dlc package on 360 in points: 800 points each pack
Total cost of DLC packages (operation anchorage, the pitt, broken steel, point lookout and mothership zeta) in points: 4000 points
Cost of each microsoft xbl point: 500 for £4.75 I make that 105 points per £1.00 but with rounding we could say 500 points is £5 so 1 point a penny.
Cost of each package: £8.00 rounded though closer to £7.50 without the rounding
Total cost of dlc in £ sterling: £40.00 rounded, £35.00 or thereabouts not rounded.

Looking at that maths it does seem terribly expensive however consider this: Fallout 3 GOTY edition comes with a second disc containing all DLC £34.99

So if you're that deeply unhappy with the cost of the DLC buy or trade in towards a copy of the GOTY edition which comes with all of the DLC and the main game disc for essentially free with it. If you know someone interested in the Fallout 3 game without it convince them to buy the GOTY edition because you can just borrow their DLC installation disc and it'll work I know, I done it :P

[Bolivar]

From what I've heard, you can only re-license once a year though-- which is kind of pointless when it's been sent in approximately 5-6 times in the last year.

This is one thing I love about PSN, being able to share all content attached to a username on up to 5 machines.

[NorthernChaosGod]

Ok on the case of Fallout 3, I'd almost agree with this but here look at the maths based on the prices from my work at HMV:

Release price on 360 console: £44.99
Current price on 360 console: £19.99 in a two for £30.00 offer
Cost of each dlc package on 360 in points: 800 points each pack
Total cost of DLC packages (operation anchorage, the pitt, broken steel, point lookout and mothership zeta) in points: 4000 points
Cost of each microsoft xbl point: 500 for £4.75 I make that 105 points per £1.00 but with rounding we could say 500 points is £5 so 1 point a penny.
Cost of each package: £8.00 rounded though closer to £7.50 without the rounding
Total cost of dlc in £ sterling: £40.00 rounded, £35.00 or thereabouts not rounded.

Looking at that maths it does seem terribly expensive however consider this: Fallout 3 GOTY edition comes with a second disc containing all DLC £34.99

So if you're that deeply unhappy with the cost of the DLC buy or trade in towards a copy of the GOTY edition which comes with all of the DLC and the main game disc for essentially free with it. If you know someone interested in the Fallout 3 game without it convince them to buy the GOTY edition because you can just borrow their DLC installation disc and it'll work I know, I done it :P
I'm so getting GOTY edition.

[NeoCracker]

That GotY thing is a pretty bad argument in all honesty. A lot of people bought the DLC as it came out, as well as Fall Out 3. It wasn't until recently you could get that much for that price, where as originally you couldn't have done it, and instead had to pay out all the extra money for it.

And you can't really just say they should have held out and waited for that edition, cause if no one bought the first release of FO3 or any of it's expansions, that edition wouldn't exists, so someone is paying out a but load of money.

I am still in favor of DLC however, though they need to work on the pricing of it.

[Shoeberto]

I think Fallout 3 did DLC the best because each part was like a mini expansion pack, priced appropriately. When you add it all together it's like getting a full expansion for about the price of one. As a PC gamer, I'm fully used to this idea.

Some games do it really poorly though. However I think it's mostly a result of it being a new market and both business people and developers still trying to work out the kinks on how to approach it.

[Slothy]

And you can't really just say they should have held out and waited for that edition, cause if no one bought the first release of FO3 or any of it's expansions, that edition wouldn't exists, so someone is paying out a but load of money.

Of course someone's going to pay out a buttload of money for this stuff as it comes out, but if you're concerned about value there's no reason you can't wait for the GOTY edition (which given Bethesda's history we all knew was coming in a year anyway). Keep in mind too that if no one was buying the DLC, they'd just lower the price anyway. It's not like they'll pull what's out there entirely.

[NorthernChaosGod]

And you can't really just say they should have held out and waited for that edition, cause if no one bought the first release of FO3 or any of it's expansions, that edition wouldn't exists, so someone is paying out a but load of money.

Of course someone's going to pay out a buttload of money for this stuff as it comes out, but if you're concerned about value there's no reason you can't wait for the GOTY edition (which given Bethesda's history we all knew was coming in a year anyway). Keep in mind too that if no one was buying the DLC, they'd just lower the price anyway. It's not like they'll pull what's out there entirely.

I think he's arguing from a general sense and not just about him specifically, which makes sense; you're getting people paying inflated prices for things.

[NeoCracker]

And you can't really just say they should have held out and waited for that edition, cause if no one bought the first release of FO3 or any of it's expansions, that edition wouldn't exists, so someone is paying out a but load of money.

Of course someone's going to pay out a buttload of money for this stuff as it comes out, but if you're concerned about value there's no reason you can't wait for the GOTY edition (which given Bethesda's history we all knew was coming in a year anyway). Keep in mind too that if no one was buying the DLC, they'd just lower the price anyway. It's not like they'll pull what's out there entirely.

I think he's arguing from a general sense and not just about him specifically, which makes sense; you're getting people paying inflated prices for things.

Yeah. This. :p

[Slothy]

I think he's arguing from a general sense and not just about him specifically, which makes sense; you're getting people paying inflated prices for things.

Even still, the price is only inflated if a person thinks it's inflated. Obviously a lot of people think they get their money's worth from this stuff whether it costs more than the original game for less or not.

[VexNet]

I love DLC. It helps make an already good game better.

pretty much how I feel.

think about those old games you had that you wish you could of added more too but couldn't, well now you can.

[Skyblade]

I love DLC. It helps make an already good game better.

pretty much how I feel.

think about those old games you had that you wish you could of added more too but couldn't, well now you can.

Except that all those old games are never going to be added to. No matter how much I hope for it, I'm never going to see an official map editor for Master of Orion 2. And, even if they were releasing DLC for older games, DLC is never that awesome.

[Iceglow]

I love DLC. It helps make an already good game better.

pretty much how I feel.

think about those old games you had that you wish you could of added more too but couldn't, well now you can.

Except that all those old games are never going to be added to. No matter how much I hope for it, I'm never going to see an official map editor for Master of Orion 2. And, even if they were releasing DLC for older games, DLC is never that awesome.

You need to remember there are constraints on what DLC can do to a games base code. It is for this reason that Super Street Fighter 4 is being released as a game and not as a dlc patch for the original Street Fighter 4 game. The base code of the game can be manipulated to an extent but the DLC cannot completely overwrite the base code. Therefore in older games, should the base code not offer the option of expanding to include features like map editors then well sorry that is just how it goes.

[Skyblade]

True. But that was not quite what I meant. Most new games these days don't need DLC. Unless things are specifically held back for DLC, the games are generally complete and finished. DLC should be more than just tacked on random stuff, or levels specifically designed and held back for DLC. DLC, done right, would be like giving a map editor to MoO2. It would be taking a game that is already awesome on its own, and adding in a feature that fans of the game have been hoping for somewhere in their hearts and waiting for it to appear. One or two extra characters, or an extra weapon, are not worth the effort, and extra levels too often feel either as though they were always around, but held back to milk the extra money out of people, or just tacked on without any work to integrate them into the game as a whole.

Oh, and I did get an unofficial map editor for MoO2. It's not perfect by a long shot, but it is still pretty awesome.

[NorthernChaosGod]

I think he's arguing from a general sense and not just about him specifically, which makes sense; you're getting people paying inflated prices for things.

Even still, the price is only inflated if a person thinks it's inflated. Obviously a lot of people think they get their money's worth from this stuff whether it costs more than the original game for less or not.

If you're getting less content for the same price of more than the original game, that is by definition an inflated price. Perception doesn't change that.

[Slothy]

Even still, the price is only inflated if a person thinks it's inflated. Obviously a lot of people think they get their money's worth from this stuff whether it costs more than the original game for less or not.

If you're getting less content for the same price of more than the original game, that is by definition an inflated price. Perception doesn't change that.

Unless you think they undercharged for the amount of content that was in the original game. I'm sure a lot of people feel Fallout 3 had way more than $60 worth of content. In fact, I can pretty much guarentee a lot of people think that because there are a lot of people who think the DLC was well worth the price.

Seriously, we're talking about putting a value on something as abstract as how much fun can be had in a game. Since you really can't quantify the amount of fun and content in a game, it's value can only be based on perception.

[Nifleheim7]

It depends.
There's DLC done right (Valkyria Chronicles) and there's DLC done wrong (Tomb Raider Underworld.)

Basically it's done wrong when the developers blatantly cut out content from the main game only to sell it later,or when they change the end of the game by making the DLC the "real ending" which you have to buy if you want to complete the experience.

[NorthernChaosGod]

Unless you think they undercharged for the amount of content that was in the original game. I'm sure a lot of people feel Fallout 3 had way more than $60 worth of content. In fact, I can pretty much guarentee a lot of people think that because there are a lot of people who think the DLC was well worth the price.

Seriously, we're talking about putting a value on something as abstract as how much fun can be had in a game. Since you really can't quantify the amount of fun and content in a game, it's value can only be based on perception.

You can't undervalue a game, every new game comes out at the same price point and they all have varying degrees of content. New games are all $60.

[Markus. D]

I like it when it's additional content.

I also like it when it's cosmetic and completely optional :D!

I DON'T like it when it is used to unlock the further section of the game you just payed a good AU$100 for.

[Slothy]

You can't undervalue a game, every new game comes out at the same price point and they all have varying degrees of content. New games are all $60.

Wow...

I don't mean to sound rude, maybe I wasn't explaining my point well enough or something, but I'm not sure my point could have been missed anymore completely.

I'll use an example to try and clarify what I'm talking about. I'll use the Orange Box as an example. When it came out, it included HL2, HL2 episodes 1 & 2, Portal and TF2. Literally 5 games for about $45 on the PC. Now it's literal dollar value was $45 but if you ask me, the value I got out of the package (in terms of how much fun I had and how much I've played all of those titles) was worth far more than $45. In fact, I would have paid $45 for any one of those games alone.

Which is the point I'm getting at. If someone feels they got far more entertainment value than just their $60 worth from a game like Fallout 3 in terms of how much fun they had and how much play time they got out of it, they're going to think that DLC with less content but more expensive than the original game in total is more fairly priced than someone like me who played through once and has no desire to ever play Fallout 3 again.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make my point than that, so if I'm still not clear enough then I give up.

[NorthernChaosGod]

I understand the point, it's just stupid. How does that justify overpaying for DLC?

"Oh, I got a deal on this game, I owe Bethesda."

What, don't use coupons or sales at all?

[Skyblade]

I understand the point, it's just stupid. How does that justify overpaying for DLC?

"Oh, I got a deal on this game, I owe Bethesda."

What, don't use coupons or sales at all?

You are still missing the point.

Let's use a simple breakdown using a non-existent game.

You buy a game for 40 dollars. The game is totally awesome, you love it, and would have actually been willing to pay 80 dollars for it, because it is just that good.

Now they release DLC for it. The DLC has half the content as the original game, but costs the same 40 dollars. Since the value of the original game to you was 80 dollars, getting half the content for half of the price you value the game at is a perfectly fair trade.

You get a deal on the first game, and pay a reasonable price for the DLC. That's the way you view it. If you feel the price is unreasonable, you don't pay it.

[NorthernChaosGod]

No, I understood the logic behind it completely, it's just stupid.

I would never feel that way ever, if anything it'd make me feel more ripped off than my argument is stating now. If you're get so much entertainment for your $40 for the game itself, why don't you get the same value for your money on the DLC?

And how about the next game? What if it's not nearly as good but you still payed $40 for it? Everyone complains when a follow up isn't as good as the predecessor.

If a company is packing in that much awesome per dollar, they should continue to do so.

[Iceglow]

I think this is getting really long winded here lets just sum up?

DLC, blessing or curse?

Well DLC is neither a blessing or a curse, that implies that there is good and evil involved and since it is an object. Objects have no sense of good or evil, objects just are the concept of good and evil right and wrong is entirely human in itself and thats a whole different conversation there which should be held in EoEo to prevent offense to anyone. It is the players who choose what DLC to download and what DLC not to download who see it's worth or if it is a good thing to them or a bad thing to them. That is ultimately like music, films and books what games base their sales on, a matter of personal opinion. If I were to ask all of you to post not your favourite game ever but "the best game in the world without question" in here regardless of whether you liked it more than your favourite or not I bet I'd have a long list by this evening and a huge argument as well.

To summarise, whether DLC is worth it or not is a matter of opinion, no one can surmise what is worth it to the player or not. Some might love Street Fighter IV so much they won't care about shelling out for everything, or AC06 which by far and away has the most dlc available on the 360 (allowing people to change the behaviour of the planes and the stats of them to any of the past AC titles) Others will dabble with a pack here or a pack there and some will say it isn't worth it at all.

I find it interesting that on the Bioware forums for DA: Origins (which I skim from time to time) there is a massive thread about this same subject or rather the subject is paying for the DLC for DA: Origins and why the dev's are charging for things the players thought should be free ect. The main thing I found interesting to note was a post by one of the Bioware Dev team behind DA:O saying how the data for the game was finalised in late 08 because they wished originally to ship the pc copy on the first quarter of 09 but held back in the end so that they could release all 3 formats at the same time. Because of the finalising of the games data they had apart from the console teams a good deal of time to work on expanding and adding to the game for post release development. (in fact, going on release dates of now I'd say they had a good 18 months to do this) This is why they had a lot of DLC ready to be released so soon after the release date of the game. Taking in to account the "un finalizing" of the game content would likely have jepoardized development all together as the funding publisher (EA) would have had a product they could say was almost ready to go out on the shelves and start making money to being nowhere near finished again something which can kill a game in development as a failed or aborted product, had EA pulled out of the publishing role who would have risked picking up the project? EA is one of the biggest names out there in the games industry, (heck EA even do normal board games I found out over christmas which surprised me a little but what the hey we're talking computer games here) If they drop a project as a failure other publishers tend to take note.

As for charging for DLC or not well as the dev who wrote the post on the bioware forums said and Yearg has said too in this thread "Some people have this false sense of a right of entitlement to dlc for free" which is true, just because they paid for the original product once does that mean these people can get refills for free forever? Lets put this in to another context, I buy a printer, I use it to print a lot of things and the ink runs dry and the paper that came with the printer runs out. Just because I originally brought a printer with paper and ink does not mean the company I brought it from has to give me paper and ink for free forever though the company will advertise and tell me when I buy the printer before I even use it that they sell the refills, the printer will tell me what refills it needs way before I get to the point where I feel the need to get them. The refills are much like DLC in this regard, it will not necessarily free and it will be advertised to me many times, when I purchase the game that it is there, this is called marketing we see it in every shop we go in from the lay out of a grocery store where as you go round you're enticed to buy more (and yeah it's true, ever wondered why preserves/jelly/peanut butter ect is next to the bakery section?) to the assistant at a computer store offering you microsoft office with your new laptop and a laptop bag in cases such as the DA:O DLC the advertising is subtle, it's there and they do it in a way that most people aren't going to care about because it doesn't glaringly stick out like a sore thumb it's the kind of subtle you see in grocery stores when they place offer items near the tills so people impulsively buy something even if they don't need to buy it. I respect good marketing seeing as I work in an industry built on it, marketing that makes me think "hey I wanna buy this" is rare and if Bioware found a marketing tech that worked on me well I commend them. In the end if people want to keep playing the same game because they like it but also wish to have new experiences in that game outside of player challenges ect then they too have to pay for the new experiences.

[/wall of text]

[NorthernChaosGod]

That's an awful analogy. DLC is extra game content, it is not necessary for the full operation of the game.

It is entirely different than the relationship between a printer and paper/ink.

[Levian]

Megaman 9 definitely did it wrong. DLC got released a month after launch, obviously made before launch, and included stuff that should've been released with the original game, like the ability to slide.

Blue toad murder files did it right! releasing the games in episodes. I spent a little money to check if it was worth anything and then decided that it was, and now I'm willing to pay for the other episodes as well.

[VeloZer0]

Let's use a simple breakdown using a non-existent game.

You buy a game for 40 dollars. The game is totally awesome, you love it, and would have actually been willing to pay 80 dollars for it, because it is just that good.

Now they release DLC for it. The DLC has half the content as the original game, but costs the same 40 dollars. Since the value of the original game to you was 80 dollars, getting half the content for half of the price you value the game at is a perfectly fair trade.

You get a deal on the first game, and pay a reasonable price for the DLC. That's the way you view it. If you feel the price is unreasonable, you don't pay it.


No, I understood the logic behind it completely, it's just stupid.

I would never feel that way ever, if anything it'd make me feel more ripped off than my argument is stating now. If you're get so much entertainment for your $40 for the game itself, why don't you get the same value for your money on the DLC?

And how about the next game? What if it's not nearly as good but you still payed $40 for it? Everyone complains when a follow up isn't as good as the predecessor.

If a company is packing in that much awesome per dollar, they should continue to do so.

But look at the flipside, what else are you going to do if you don't buy the DLC? Probably buy another game.

If I have the choice between buying DLC worth $40 to me at $40, or buying a new game worth $40 to me at $40, why should it make any difference if the game I originally bought was worth 80$ to me or $40.

Using your argument the DLC would be completely worthwhile if you paid $80 for the original game, but a rip off if you got a deal and paid $40 for the game in the first place. And I can't fathom how you think $120 for game+DLC is more worthwhile than $80 for the same.

You can't compare the entertainment:dollar ratio of the DLC to the existing game, only to any possible future other purchases.

[NorthernChaosGod]

Actually, I'd probably go gamble it away, but that's besides the point.

Anyways, the game and the DLC are all part of one entity, why shouldn't the DLC be held to the standards of the game? Let's use the example of Fallout 3. Plenty of people love the game, let's say you do too. Then you download the DLC and it sucks. You're disappointed because it's not as good as the game.

So why shouldn't the DLC yield the same value as the game?

[Iceglow]

That's an awful analogy. DLC is extra game content, it is not necessary for the full operation of the game.

It is entirely different than the relationship between a printer and paper/ink.

Yes it's an awful analogy, but it is an analogy. My analogies are generally better than that one which admittedly was somewhat of a stretch but it was written just before a shift at work and before my girlfriend went to Poland, therefore I think we can agree I had plenty of distractions at the time of writing. It still stands however, you could buy a new printer for the cost of 2 new ink cartridges and a skein of paper, considering most places will have offers on their printers.

[NorthernChaosGod]

I'm sure it's all part of the plan that they get you with the cheap printer and just make the real money on the ink and paper, like movie theaters do with concessions prices.

[Slothy]

Actually, I'd probably go gamble it away, but that's besides the point.

Anyways, the game and the DLC are all part of one entity, why shouldn't the DLC be held to the standards of the game? Let's use the example of Fallout 3. Plenty of people love the game, let's say you do too. Then you download the DLC and it sucks. You're disappointed because it's not as good as the game.

So why shouldn't the DLC yield the same value as the game?

Not liking DLC because it sucks and not liking it because you didn't feel like you got your money's worth aren't the same thing, but both are very subjective.

[VeloZer0]

There is no reason it shouldn't yeild the same value as the game, but there is nothing to say it has to either. I view DLC as esentialy a 'new' game you are purchasing. The DLC and the game are not one entity, they are completely different products. (In a transactions sense)

It is like saying if Company A makes and awesome game that you play for 200 hours, you will never buy a another game from them that isn't worth 200 hours or over. Using your philosophy you will shut yourself out of the new game market fairly quickly.

[ljkkjlcm9]

So when Mass Effect 2 is released there is DLC along with it that is completely free. Is anyone else confuse by this? As in, on release day, there will be DLC for the game that is released along side it. Makes me think that companies are actually being forced to release at a certain point without releasing everything they want.

THE JACKEL

[VeloZer0]

There is no doubt, some games WILL be shipped uncompleted to make the deadline and then patched with DLC. Such thinks will only erode consumer confidence and in the end publishers * hopefully* will see it is a bad idea, but it will happen. Heck, just look at the state of the MMO industry.

[Iceglow]

So when Mass Effect 2 is released there is DLC along with it that is completely free. Is anyone else confuse by this? As in, on release day, there will be DLC for the game that is released along side it. Makes me think that companies are actually being forced to release at a certain point without releasing everything they want.

THE JACKAL

This can actually be due to the publishers as well as the games development team. This happened with Dragon Age Origins which ironically is made by Bioware as well. With Dragon Age the given explanation was that the game was originally going to ship on PC first back in spring 09 this caused the team to announce to EA they were finalized in terms of game content back in 08 when they announced that EA would have constantly have pushed the team to see it finished so they could begin making money on it, considering the console team wasn't quite ready to ship their products the pc team continued working on the game content but knew the content could not be put in to the game prior to release because doing so would undo the finalizing of the content something in dev terms is a bad thing, it can lead to publishers walking away, dropping a project.

There is however another reason very plausible for free DLC with the game when brought new. The reason is simply the pre-owned market. A lot of gamers buy games only on the pre-owned markets which means the developers and publishers see nothing from that sale, the company who sold it sees everything profit wise. In including the DLC codes they can then say "well we gave those who showed us some loyalty by buying the game new codes for this for free. If you brought the game Pre-owned you've gotta pay for the DLC" The ammount they can charge for the DLC is variable, though in DA: O Shale is 1600 points on the xbla.


There is no doubt, some games WILL be shipped uncompleted to make the deadline and then patched with DLC. Such thinks will only erode consumer confidence and in the end publishers * hopefully* will see it is a bad idea, but it will happen. Heck, just look at the state of the MMO industry.

Publishers will do whatever makes them the most money at the end of the day, always have, always will. I'd be very surprised to find anyone at the top ranks of EA or Bethesda or any other publishing companies who truly gives a :bou::bou::bou::bou: about games and probably drop dead to find out that someone in the higher ups of these companies cared more about the games than the money. Most of the top people in these companies will be simply business executives who like making money and are very good at doing so whilst employing a good team of people who keep them briefed on what each product is about so that if they are ever asked a question about an actual product they can answer it to some capacity.

[I Don't Need A Name]

I just wait until a Game Of The Year edition is out.
Otherwise, it depends how much I love the game as to whether I will buy the DLC.

[Depression Moon]

DLC was okay for me. I haven't really bought any. I just bought the Pirates of the Caribbean Pack and MGS pack for LBP. All the others I received were free and there's nothing like free DLC. Capcom could've done better for DLC though.