DLCs Today
- Thread starter Jay
- Start date
- Status
Dave
Staff member
I hate this graphic as much as I hate the one that shows the internet pricing structure that looks like my cable pricing structure. The reason I hate it is because it's almost assuredly the way that it will be in the future and there's not much we can do about it due to the politicians kowtowing to every big business interest without a second thought as to the welfare of their REAL constituents.
Add on the fact that these games tend to be rolled out ASAP without complete testing and are filled with bugs that need to be fixed in a shitload of patches or third party apps and you have a gaming industry that is seriously lacking.
Add on the fact that these games tend to be rolled out ASAP without complete testing and are filled with bugs that need to be fixed in a shitload of patches or third party apps and you have a gaming industry that is seriously lacking.
True, but if the download is of a substantial size then it can be forgiven. For instance, the DLC cases for L.A. Noire are pretty hefty. Considering the game is already 3 discs long on the 360... it hardly seems like cut content.
Basically, you can tell from the size of the file if it's true DLC or if it's just cut content. If it's more than a few megs, it's usually true DLC.
That graphic needs to take into account prices on games. I can remember paying $100 for SF2 for SNES back in 1991 - which calculated for inflation is $158 today. And game development costs certainly haven't gone down any. A $60 game now would have cost $37 back in 1991, and there were no games that cheap, anywhere.
I don't mind DLCs that have been created after a game is gone gold, I'll gladly pay full price for ME2 DLC Shadow Broker but far less than say Dragon Age's extra character Sebastien who may or may not be available depending who and where and when you buy the game. There are far too many intangibles and the people who lose out are the normal gamers who don't need to get involved in these shenangigans. Those who win are fanbois with money and the companies in the end win as they squeeze profit on chunks of actual game data they extracted from the original masterpiece and pretty much held it hostage for those who want the full experience of their product.
This is the equivalent of going out and buying a McDonald's Big Mac Trio and go, "Hey, pay 1$ to get all the extra dessings, mustard, ketchup, tomatoes bro... I got it all but yeah, you need to pay extra for that."
Fuck off.
This is the equivalent of going out and buying a McDonald's Big Mac Trio and go, "Hey, pay 1$ to get all the extra dessings, mustard, ketchup, tomatoes bro... I got it all but yeah, you need to pay extra for that."
Fuck off.
Paying for games is for squares.
Have you ever thought about the whole concept of DLC? I did earlier today when I posted this thread and it got me on a roll all day. Most DLCs, in my honest opinion is utter BS beyond those who are worked on far after the release date of the game such as Shadow Broker or GTA's Gay Tony's with significant effort that provides true and undeniable value. I gladly payed 10$ for Shadow Broker after I finished it.
First and foremost, let's talk about what DLC is actually stands for. DLC stands for "Down Loadable Content" and basically the idea behind DLC is that you can take a game and after it is released keep releasing incremental improvements or upgrades for it to add content to the game and your player base. For example, if I go out right now and buy Portal 2 (as if), I can go home and download new maps for it that aren't included with the game. The different is now they purposely provide short games or content that was ready to go on release day and asking for more money from you.
Right off the bat this notion to me is ridiculous. Why should I have to pay money for something that should have been included to begin with? I should receive as much content as humanly possible as a proud supporter of the game on release day. Except designers now purposely leave out maps, weapons, modes etc... that they previously would have added into the game simply because they can wait a few weeks and release these upgrades for extra money. The worst part it works.
Why do I have to pay full price for the game when people will buy it a year later and get a GOTY edition while I have to pay even more than release price to get chunks of the Mona Lisa they purposely left out? One of the main selling points of a game should be its content. I'm not getting it on release day.
Essentially designers are now half-assing their games just so that they can release DLC and make a quick buck in the future. A perfect example of this is Mass Effect and Dragon Age. I'm not bitching on Bioware, though they should get a solid punch in the face, there are other companies doing this now.
These are just a few of the reasons that I hate DLC. In concept, DLC is a great thing as it allows designers to keep upgrading and enhancing the experience of a game that they support. However, in execution, all DLC is, is a reason for designers to leave out things they originally intended to put in just so that they can make a little extra cash on it.
First and foremost, let's talk about what DLC is actually stands for. DLC stands for "Down Loadable Content" and basically the idea behind DLC is that you can take a game and after it is released keep releasing incremental improvements or upgrades for it to add content to the game and your player base. For example, if I go out right now and buy Portal 2 (as if), I can go home and download new maps for it that aren't included with the game. The different is now they purposely provide short games or content that was ready to go on release day and asking for more money from you.
Right off the bat this notion to me is ridiculous. Why should I have to pay money for something that should have been included to begin with? I should receive as much content as humanly possible as a proud supporter of the game on release day. Except designers now purposely leave out maps, weapons, modes etc... that they previously would have added into the game simply because they can wait a few weeks and release these upgrades for extra money. The worst part it works.
Why do I have to pay full price for the game when people will buy it a year later and get a GOTY edition while I have to pay even more than release price to get chunks of the Mona Lisa they purposely left out? One of the main selling points of a game should be its content. I'm not getting it on release day.
Essentially designers are now half-assing their games just so that they can release DLC and make a quick buck in the future. A perfect example of this is Mass Effect and Dragon Age. I'm not bitching on Bioware, though they should get a solid punch in the face, there are other companies doing this now.
These are just a few of the reasons that I hate DLC. In concept, DLC is a great thing as it allows designers to keep upgrading and enhancing the experience of a game that they support. However, in execution, all DLC is, is a reason for designers to leave out things they originally intended to put in just so that they can make a little extra cash on it.
C
Chibibar
Fallout 3 DLC are pretty cool with added features. I did buy 2 but couldn't afford the others. Later I bought GOTY edition with my tax money 
TF2 is the classic example of good DLC. No addition payment is required for all the goodies. Another example would be something like expansions for Company of Heroes or Civilization IV (not V, though - that's more of the typical shady B.S.). It can be done right. Companies just don't always have the incentive to do so, knowing that a legion of morons will buy the game day 1 and shell out more cash for things that should have been included.
Honestly, if I think the game without DLC is worth the price, I'll buy it. If I think the DLC is worth the extra price, I'll buy that. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
PS - I almost never buy the DLC.
PS - I almost never buy the DLC.
J
Jiarn
This is exactly why I don't buy a game till it's <$20 as a GOTY edition. Well that and I can't afford it. 
This. I remember back when PS2 came out, paying $50 for 3 hour games. Ridiculous. I'll gladly pay for extra stuff if I want it for a huge game like Dragon Age, or even just a good-sized game like L.A. Noire which is really damn fun. I gotta look up what the gist is on Rockstar's package for that, whether it's less money to buy the pass or just buy bits of DLC, because that's a game I'll happily get more of.
figmentPez
Staff member
I was really disappointed with Magicka's DLC. For half the price of the original game I was expecting a lot more than what I got. The DLC since then has just been a sad joke.
This, exactly.
Dead Island announces "Special Edition" with "Bloodbath Arena" DLC already included. DLC to be available "shortly after release" to people who buy the standard version for roughly $10.
See, this is the kinda shit that people hate. You've obviously finished that content. You could include it in the game, make your customers happy, and boost sales with a reputation for being a high-value game with tons of content. Instead, you want to nickel-and-dime your customers.
Bah.
See, this is the kinda shit that people hate. You've obviously finished that content. You could include it in the game, make your customers happy, and boost sales with a reputation for being a high-value game with tons of content. Instead, you want to nickel-and-dime your customers.
Bah.
Except that special edition costs no extra and is available for anyone who preorders from Gamestop. Your getting the DLC for free if your certain you want the game ahead of time. This isn't as bad as it could be... yes people who can't/won't buy from Gamestop (or who want to wait) have to buy the DLC for an extra charge but this seems more like an incentive to buy early than the company trying to gouge it's customers.
I'm talking about the fact that they already have the first DLC done before the game is released. And the fact that it is being held up as a separate item rather than included. That alone is obnoxious.
Also, "no extra charge to 'early' preorder customers at GameStop for a limited time and while supplies last" sounds an awful lot like most people will have to pay extra for this.
Also, "no extra charge to 'early' preorder customers at GameStop for a limited time and while supplies last" sounds an awful lot like most people will have to pay extra for this.
So unless I "PREORDER" (something that infuriates me to no end and that I refuse to be party to) a game before knowing anything besides the carefully PR'd preview info I get to pay extra for shit that was included with the first run of the game.
Awful.
I will not buy this game.
Speaking as someone who used to be in that business... no, the review will NOT be up before the launch date. Reviewers are usually prohibited from releasing reviews until the day of the launch to give everyone a fair shot in getting it out around the same time. If you don't honor the agreement, they stop sending you stuff. However, sometimes sites get exclusive early review rights but that's pretty rare.
Sadly, it's necessary to stop a lot of complaints. There used to be a lot of accusations about favoritism from the community, where it would sometimes seem like some sites/magazines would get their stuff sooner than others, especially ones that had given the company high review scores in the past. So now they do this to give everyone a somewhat level playing field.
That being said, they usually have the game a week or more in advance. The review should be up before you go to buy it.
Sadly, it's necessary to stop a lot of complaints. There used to be a lot of accusations about favoritism from the community, where it would sometimes seem like some sites/magazines would get their stuff sooner than others, especially ones that had given the company high review scores in the past. So now they do this to give everyone a somewhat level playing field.
That being said, they usually have the game a week or more in advance. The review should be up before you go to buy it.
- Status