DLC: Blessing or a Curse

[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.

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 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 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.