The Game Genie grants you three wishes...

[Laddy]

1. Baldur's Gate III. Continues the story of the game but uses 5th Edition rules.
2. Final Fantasy XVI is an unapologetic turn-based RPG.
3. World of Warcraft adds a Bard class.

[Mirage]

DLC is necessary because...

Game prices were on the rise for awhile, but then hit an industry "cap" at $50-$70 (console). The games released today cost more to develop than ever and let's not forget inflation (console games have been at that $50-$70 mark for, what seems like, 20 years). Developers needed to find ways to recoup development, turn a profit, without selling a retail copy for $100+. DLC makes sense, you can get the game on the cheap and if you like it, purchase the DLC as it is released (sweet). What if you don't like the game? Had you shelled out $120, you'd be twice as pissed. With DLC, you get to "invest" in those you like, and "cut your losses" with those you don't. DLC also allows the developer to release the game earlier and begin recouping those costs, to put more time and money into developing it further (DLC). Without DLC, you'd either end up with a half assed version, or wait an extra year+ for a game that will cost you twice as much.


Don't get me started on freaking Skylanders, my son has every game/figure up to Swap Force, and most of Trap Team (he's "outgrown" it).

Except of course that there are still good and seemingly complete games that retail for 60 bucks that don't have another 40 bucks of DLC within the first 6 months.

I'm fine with DLC showing up eventually, because that's how it always has been. Expansion packs served this same purpose before the internet became a viable distribution method.

Shameless cash-grabs such as on-disc locked content and day one DLC, or DLC that up until this generation would almost always be part of the base game is just flicking the customers the finger, showing us that they have no real interest in making a good game, only making money. Of course, all companies want to make money, but when it becomes the sole driving factor, it really shows in the quality of the games.

At that point, you could start asking why they are even making games in the first place, and in a way, Konami did in fact ask themselves just that. Most of their revenue is from gambling machines, not triple-A games, so it's no real surprise that they just went ahead and cut back on their game development.

[Vasher]

Except of course that there are still good and seemingly complete games that retail for 60 bucks that don't have another 40 bucks of DLC within the first 6 months.

This does not contradict what I said. The sales from the initial release allow them to recoup some/all/more than their development costs, so that they can develop DLC and make the game profitable. It also allows them to see if the additional effort will pay off. If the game isn't well received, it isn't very likely that there will be "big ticket" DLC 6 months later. Similar to console sales (last I heard, Sony, Microsoft, & Nintendo lose money per console, making it up on titles). If the game is a hit, then more time and money is spent making/finishing additional content. I think this is a good thing.

I'm fine with DLC showing up eventually, because that's how it always has been. Expansion packs served this same purpose before the internet became a viable distribution method.

First, it hasn't always been this way, there was a time that after the initial purchase, there was nothing more to add. Inflation demands that retail console game prices should have increased, but they haven't (thank you DLC). Second, how is it any different if the DLC is available right away, or 6 months, a year, down the road? If the developer has to charge for that extra content (because developing it wasn't free) in order to make the game profitable and they are smart enough to sell it separately so that you can have the opportunity of purchasing the title for $60 (instead of $90-$100+), which allows you to then decide on your own if that content is worth it to you, then they are doing you a service. It matters not if that extra content is released tomorrow, or next year (for a game I really like, I'd prefer tomorrow). If you get a game for $60, love it, and find out there is a bunch of great content you can add for $20-$40, that's a win (better than not having good content to add to your current favorite).

Shameless cash-grabs such as on-disc locked content and day one DLC, or DLC that up until this generation would almost always be part of the base game is just flicking the customers the finger, showing us that they have no real interest in making a good game, only making money. Of course, all companies want to make money, but when it becomes the sole driving factor, it really shows in the quality of the games.

The irony of your last statement is that the more popular/better a game is, the more likely it is to have DLC.

There's no denying that there are crap games and crap DLC, but that is a benefit of the DLC to the industry, not a detriment. If the game isn't any good, don't get the DLC. Less out of pocket initially. Game rental? Those would increase w/o DLC, so to even test a game out, your spending more per title/rental. Like the game, but don't see the DLC as worth while, don't get it. Would you be happier if a bunch of worthless content were included in the initial release of a game that you like and they forced you to pay for it up front? $85 for the title, but you get 7 costume variations for your main character.

At that point, you could start asking why they are even making games in the first place, and in a way, Konami did in fact ask themselves just that. Most of their revenue is from gambling machines, not triple-A games, so it's no real surprise that they just went ahead and cut back on their game development.

If a company is making crap games and can't release "valuable" DLC, then they won't turn a profit, and will cut back on games or stop making them all together. Again, without the income generated by DLC, the top tier, grand scale games would not be profitable, too much goes into making/marketing them. If we are asking for the practice of DLC to be eliminated from the scene, then we need to prepare for more crap games, fewer game releases annually, and to shell out $100+ per title (or an increase in rentals).

[Mirage]

Expansion packs have existed for a very long time, at least a decade before DLC was to be found in gamers' vocabularies. On platforms where this was possible, of course, so not on any cartridge based systems.

There's no guarantee that less DLC would mean more expensive games. Perhaps certain game developers would instead have to figure out how to manage their budgets better. Games managed to turn a profit in the past without DLC. Sure, game development costs have increased along with the demand for higher quality assets, but it's not like the customer base hasn't grown by an enormous amount either.

There are many ways to utilize the higher power of new consoles that doesn't rely so heavily on enormously improved (and therefore more expensive) assets. They could have run the games in higher resolutions, for example, or even better, higher framerates. A triple-A game with super pretty assets that slug around at a mediocre 30 fps (and in some cases even significantly below this) isn't nearly as much of a pleasure to actually play as a game that has a bit fewer polygons and texture sizes but run at a rock solid 60 fps.

The leftover RAM that wouldn't be utilized by the higher detailed textures could then be used to improve loading times. It's not a lot of fun to wait up to a minute to respawn when you die. A bit more of the game cached in RAM could improve that dramatically.

To say that the games wouldn't be profitable without extra DLC sounds like a pretty poor justification to me. There are many other ways to keep costs down while still keeping the fun up.

Even if games did become more expensive, people dealt with more expensive games in the SNES era than they do today. It's not really unreasonable to expect game prices to rise along with the general cost of living.

[Pete for President]

1: Remove pre-orders and their bonuses/incentives, season passes and all that other nonsense permanently.
2: The creative directors will be fully in charge of their studios instead of the usual CEO's and executives, so they have full freedom over what they want to create and deliver.
3: Publishers just publish. None of that demanding this and this nonsense.

Let's hope for better times