DLC: Blessing or a Curse
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
add me, PSN: ljkkjlcm9
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.
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.
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.
Coming from a developer, DLC is an absolute blessing and just opens so many doors.
"... and so I close, realizing that perhaps the ending has not yet been written."
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
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.Originally Posted by Iceglow
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.;
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 love DLC. It helps make an already good game better.
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.
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.
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.
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
Last edited by ljkkjlcm9; 01-09-2010 at 07:09 PM.
add me, PSN: ljkkjlcm9
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.
"... and so I close, realizing that perhaps the ending has not yet been written."
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
