View Full Version : What´s your take on DLC?
I watched bonus round, invisible walls and epic battle axe and everywhere they discussed how publishers want to make more money out of their games and one option is DLC.
Whats your take on DLC guys? Do you download DLC to every game you have? Or do you buy only specific DLC? Or you dont buy DLC at all?
I have few rules with the DLC:
1. I dont buy costume packs, its such a waste of money, it doesnt enhance your gaming experience + it could have been in the original game release which leads me to number 2
2. I dont buy DLC that was clearly on the disc but locked(versus of re5)or it could have been there but they just took it out for the sake of making money(latest AC2 DLC). That way, i feel like i was befert and i dont support that kind of treatment with customers.
3. I also dont buy map packs, just because im not that big of a multiplayer gamer.
4. I buy only content that feels like its a real bonus to the game(lost in nightmares and desperate escape or little big planet mgs4 pack).
Also, it really saddens me that many games could have been a lot bigger, if only they had left the original content there. Lets say assasins creed 2 has about 11 hours of playtime. With the addon, it has, lets say 13. That could influence the ratings of the game and some gamers would see the game as a long, not medium long game and i dont have a clue how much they cut off the game just in sake of DLC. It game could have gameplay time of epic proportions(mgs4, re4)
Well by now everyone knows my views on DLC lol, but sum exceptions can be made if its like extra levels, I'm not really a multi-player myself so maps are no good, costume packs nah not really. The only thing I have ever downloaded from Xbox live was the Lost in Nightmares Trailer to show my mate how it was looking.
Usually my answer would be NO to DLC period, but sum things are worth downloading, I won't just download one level of RE5 it would have to be both at the same time, going online is a real pain for me. I didn't buy Gears of War 2 GotY Ed. because there was only 1 extra campaign level which of course had to be downloaded, no thanks!
Sum things are worth DLCing. But Most aren't. ;)
thezombiemessia
24-02-10, 13:45
I only really take what enhances the game for me.
For instance, there's a tonne of DLC for Dead Space, but I haven't bothered with any of it because it's only new weapons and armour.
I prefer my DLC to add to the storyline in some way. Assassin's Creed 2 with its 2 missing Genetic Memories, Prince of Persia with the Epilogue, Lost In Nightmares and Desperate Escape for RE5.
All of those enhance the storyline, plus other games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and (kind of) Borderlands, with extra quests to expand on the Universe.
If the DLC doesn't offer me that, I'm rarely interested.
[quote=thezombiemessia;614381]For instance, there's a tonne of DLC for Dead Space, but I haven't bothered with any of it because it's only new weapons and armour.quote]
Really new weapons and armour? I LIKE weapons and armour :D,
had the Red 9 been available 4 DL 4 RE5 I'd went for that. I love Dead Space crackin game. :thumb: Couple of extra levels wouldn't have gone amiss 4 Dead Space.
Pretty much what TZM said, stuff like weapons and armour aren't worth it (horse armour-itis).
2. I dont buy DLC that was clearly on the disc but locked(versus of re5)
I don't get this view, you don't own anything on the disc anyhow, you never ever have, even back from the old cartridge and cassette tape days.
or it could have been there but they just took it out for the sake of making money(latest AC2 DLC).Haven't heard of this, source?
1. I dont buy costume packs, its such a waste of money, it doesnt enhance your gaming experience + it could have been in the original game release
3. I also dont buy map packs, just because im not that big of a multiplayer gamer.
4. I buy only content that feels like its a real bonus to the game(lost in nightmares and desperate escape or little big planet mgs4 pack).Ironically, both are map and costume packs.
I'm old-school.
I buy a game, and then I play the game. If I want something else, I'll buy another game - on disc.
If I want to spend my MS points, I'll buy a full game. this could change, but I really really don't like buying software that I don't actually have a hard copy of. The exceptions are the Wii points I got (ostensibly just for Megaman 9), and the 8,400 microsoft points I got for a total of £6,
Don't understand the "hardcopy" argument either - it's digital data on a disc vs digital data on hard-drive. What's the difference again? (Apart from better read HD speeds of course ;) ) Of course, space considerations aside, but even then there's the analogue to just how much stuff you can horde at home anyhow.
I don't get this view, you don't own anything on the disc anyhow, you never ever have, even back from the old cartridge and cassette tape days.I think the point is, it's there on the disc when you buy it, but then they want to charge you extra to unlock it. They've decided arbitrarily that the game is worth £x and that this that and the other is worth an extra £x.
While people may never have owned the actual code any more than I own the rights to any book I've ever read, I own the actual physical media. This doesn't happen with anything else I can think of, and especially to long time gamers, it's an alien concept, hence the understandable reluctance.
If you bought a cake, but you had to pay the extra to unlock the last mouthful, you wouldn't be happy, right? Yes, but you don't own the recipe.
Don't understand the "hardcopy" argument either - it's digital data on a disc vs digital data on hard-drive. What's the difference again? (Apart from better read HD speeds of course ;) ) Of course, space considerations aside, but even then there's the analogue to just how much stuff you can horde at home anyhow.
If I want to sell my games on Ebay, I don't lose my hard drive.
I don't get this view, you don't own anything on the disc anyhow, you never ever have, even back from the old cartridge and cassette tape days.
But the content was clearly there, you just had to buy something like a key to unlock it, thats pretty cheap if you ask me. They could have just unlocked it in the first place.
Haven't heard of this, source?
There´s no source but im pretty sure it is made that way, i just think it is. Some publishers have this trend, to cut some content from the original game to sale it later, less work, more money.
Ironically, both are map and costume packs.
I couldnt care about the costumes less, i dunno what costumes you get in re5 DLC packs but both are additions to the campaign. Talking about map packs, i mean multiplayer map packs, addition to a campaign isnt a map pack. About the LBP pack, i meant LBP pack with one costume, paintinator and a new campaign with 4 or 5 levels and one bonus level(which i care for, i dont care for the costume).
I think the point is, it's there on the disc when you buy it, but then they want to charge you extra to unlock it.
Yes, and it's a flawed point.
They've decided arbitrarily that the game is worth £x and that this that and the other is worth an extra £x.Arbitrarily? Development budgets disagree.
While people may never have owned the actual code any more than I own the rights to any book I've ever read, I own the actual physical media.Again, so what? You own the disc yes, but you don't own everything on it.
This doesn't happen with anything else I can think of, and especially to long time gamers, it's an alien concept, hence the understandable reluctance.Long time games, in my experience on this subject on forums, have less problems than the recent generations who seem to think they practically own everything just because they slapped the money down. Also, when did precedent become a certain necessity?
If you bought a cake, but you had to pay the extra to unlock the last mouthful, you wouldn't be happy, right? Yes, but you don't own the recipe.But that analogy doesn't work at all. You'd either be buying a full cake, a slice or x number of slices. Or a mouthful.
But the content was clearly there, you just had to buy something like a key to unlock it, thats pretty cheap if you ask me. They could have just unlocked it in the first place.
You're still missing the point: just because it's on the disc doesn't mean you are meant to have it. Like Ten has told us in the past, all projects in development have their own budgets and projections. It could be on the disc simply to ease a potential DLC customer the burden of downloading a huge file in the future.
There´s no source but im pretty sure it is made that way, i just think it is. Some publishers have this trend, to cut some content from the original game to sale it later, less work, more money.Let's not assume things then.
I couldnt care about the costumes less, i dunno what costumes you get in re5 DLC packs but both are additions to the campaign. Talking about map packs, i mean multiplayer map packs, addition to a campaign isnt a map pack.They're sill "map packs" when it comes down to it.
If I want to sell my games on Ebay, I don't lose my hard drive.
That's a fair point.
Don't get me wrong I get what you guys are saying, but it's just the usual stuff you see in these topics that's more akin to pitchforks, fire and a morbid sense of customer entitlement against a new technology.
Yes, and it's a flawed point.
Flawed how? It's not on the disc? They don't want to charge to unlock it?
Arbitrarily? Development budgets disagree.
Perhaps I mispoke on that point. What I mean is that they say "you can have these burnout cars for free, but we've decided that these 4 cars will cost £x". Is that a fair cost ratio? No. Then again, a new mission pack could extend the life of the game by several hours. Is that a fair cost ratio? Perhaps it is.
Again, so what? You own the disc yes, but you don't own everything on it.
The point is, people assume they do. Because they've always been pretty much free to use whatever content on whatever physical media since papyrus.
Long time games, in my experience on this subject on forums, have less problems than the recent generations who seem to think they practically own everything just because they slapped the money down. Also, when did precedent become a certain necessity?
I don't understand your point here. I meant to say, if it's new and people don't understand it, they won't like paying more money for something they think they own the right to. Precedent matters because it has never happened before, and is therefore a new concept.
But that analogy doesn't work at all. You'd either be buying a full cake, a slice or x number of slices. Or a mouthful.
It does work because if you swap the word cake for game, mouthful for level and recipe for code, this becomes exactly what people think happens.
You're still missing the point: just because it's on the disc doesn't mean you are meant to have it. Like Ten has told us in the past, all projects in development have their own budgets and projections. It could be on the disc simply to ease a potential DLC customer the burden of downloading a huge file in the future.
What kind of burden is that anyway? The only burden is the lockdown of the content that is on the disc already. Beeing thankful to developers for putting the content on the disc, so when i pay them for it, i dont need to download it, hence its already there, is just silly.
Take for instance god of war I(in god of war collection). In bonus features, you have TONS of videos, special costumes, bonus levels(god challenges) for free. Would it be fair for gamers if they just put a lock on that content and required us to buy it, even when its on the disc? No. Gamers should pay only for content that was made after the game, not for content gamers should have when bought the game. If they put content on the disc, i dont see a problem making it available for gamers right away.
Let's not assume things then.
Of course developers wont say that they rip off gamers with a cut out content from the original game, but you just see the difference between cut out DLC like AC2 DLC and Team fortress 2 DLC. You just see it, AC
DLC which is released right now is on the original DVD and if not, it was completed before releasing the game, that cant be denied. Its just cheap tactics.
They're silly "map packs" when it comes down to it.
Thats only a matter of opinion. I had great time with my friend, playing trough LBP mgs4 campaign for instance.
What kind of burden is that anyway? The only burden is the lockdown of the content that is on the disc already. Beeing thankful to developers for putting the content on the disc, so when i pay them for it, i dont need to download it, hence its already there, is just silly.
Would it not be a relief not to have to download a 1GB dlc for example?
Gamers should pay only for content that was made after the game, not for content gamers should have when bought the game. If they put content on the disc, i dont see a problem making it available for gamers right away.You see this is the thing that you aren't getting. Even Tenebra has posted before that different projects in development have their own budgets. The morbid sense of customer entitlement you are displaying here is blinding you.
You claim you should get it for free simply because it was made at the same time? Even though it was made on it's own projections and budget restrictions (and often than not, team members)? That is quite demanding, no?
Most DLC is created so that when it's released it can be released close to the game's initial release. Xbox live has a six month wait time, so most developer's finish their DLC and submit it long before the game's release so it can get out on a timely fashion.
Answer me this, take a hypothetical DLC that ISN'T on the disc, but comes out one week after the main game. Do you feel ripped off also? No? Why not? Because it isn't on the disc? But surely it was made at the same time, right?
Thats only a matter of opinion. I had great time with my friend, playing trough LBP mgs4 campaign for instance.Sorry, that was suppose to be still not silly. I own that pack too.
SILENTKILLER
24-02-10, 15:48
Well i get DLC mostly for games like COD, map packs r great ^^ Also, i get DLC for games i really like, RE5 for example. Some DLC like in Assassins Creed 2 i didnt buy becus theres no gamerscore for finishing it, and paying 4€ for a 20-30 min DLC - no way. If the DLC is for free, ill get it, if its not free, i think about it.
Would it not be a relief not to have to download a 1GB dlc for example?
You claim you should get it for free simply because it was made at the same time? Even though it was made on it's own projections and budget restrictions (and often than not, team members)? That is quite demanding, no?
Most DLC is created so that when it's released it can be released close to the game's initial release. Xbox live has a six month wait time, so most developer's finish their DLC and submit it long before the game's release so it can get out on a timely fashion.
Answer me this, take a hypothetical DLC that ISN'T on the disc, but comes out one week after the main game. Do you feel ripped off also? No? Why not? Because it isn't on the disc? But surely it was made at the same time, right?
Ok, i see what you mean. I didnt know about the waiting line on xbox live so let me answer your question.
It depends on the type of DLC. If the DLC could have been clearly on the disc as a normal part of the game, lets say a level, or it is on the disc already, i would feel ripped off. For instance, re5 bonus campaigns arent the type of things i would expect to be available as soon as i buy the game, because in re5, you just have one campaign, its not like they are adding levels to it for chris or sheva. Those 2 campaigns are a fair DLC from developers.
On the other hand, versus mode or AC2 dlc could easily be there for free, if they released a proper DLC, i dont know, a level where you play as Altair, something that you can call a bonus, that would be proper DLC.
I would feel ripped off if i saw its a really cheap DLC, like a "lost level"(i mean a standart level, not like the Altair example i said) released a week after the game. If it was a map pack after almost a year the game has had been released, i would say: Okay, i believe they didnt have those maps done till the released of the game, thats fair.
I just feel like the campaign should be already completed and the DLC should be only bonuses. And by bonuses, i mean something like a bonus campaign in re5.
That's the problem again, why should you feel ripped off? Just because both were made at the same time is a poor reason. Like Tenebra said, DLC have their own development time, it matters not that the actual time is parallel with the development of the 'real game'.
The DLC development needs to budget and and produce under the digital delivery system (generally), which factors different costs and overheads (servers bandwidth, use of Live and PSN costs) than a retail game disc.
If 'Lost in Nightmares' came out three days after the release of RE5 would you feel ripped off? You shouldn't, it would have been made on it's own development cycle.
If 'Lost in Nightmares' came out three days after the release of RE5 would you feel ripped off?
Now knowing there is acctualy a line on PSN and xbox live, then no, i wouldnt.
If someone released a map pack 3 days after the release of a game? Yes, i would.
If I like the game and like the look of the DLC I will buy it.
Even if it is to continue a games story.
At the end of the day different parts of the game have separate budgets regardless when they are released.
Like the Resi 5 Multiplayer had a separate budget. Yes in essions the maps and characters were already in the game but the Multiplayer net code was not which is what they were working on when the game released.
MP was never part of the original budget hence the price as anther budget have been put aside for that later.
AC 2 no idea did not like the first game not to botherd about the 2nd.
But many games end with a open ending even when their is no DLC planned and people do not moan. So why not extend the game through DLC.?
As for it being free. It cost to make the DLC cost's to distribute and advertise the DLC so why should it be free?
If you spend hours making a cakes in a shop you would want to be paid for it wouldn't you?
Now knowing there is acctualy a line on PSN and xbox live, then no, i wouldnt.
If someone released a map pack 3 days after the release of a game? Yes, i would.
I'm not following your logic, why would you be ripped off if it was a 'map pack' (I assume you mean MP maps only)
I'm not following your logic, why would you be ripped off if it was a 'map pack' (I assume you mean MP maps only)
Like i said, if it was released 3 days after the game was released, i would feel ripped off, those maps were finished before the game and its not like they put so much effort in the like in a new campaign.
But if a map pack was released half a year after the game, i wouldnt feel ripped off, its pretty possible they worked on they after the game was released.
A good example of ripping off is the planned bioshock 2 MP DLC, which includes few new maps, increased level cap and 2 new skins, just few weeks after the games release, seriously, why wasnt that on the disc?
:blink: Once again, because regardless that they were made at the same time they have their own budgets --- I give up.
If their was no such thing as DLC the content for Bio Shock 2 and 99% of games with extra content out their would not have the extra content even on disc as it was not part of the original budget.
DLC is big business and most DLC if not all of them have their own budget for this and needs to be paid for some how.
If their was no such thing as DLC the content for Bio Shock 2 and 99% of games with extra content out their would not have the extra content even on disc as it was not part of the original budget.
DLC is big business and most DLC if not all of them have their own budget for this and needs to be paid for some how.
This is what i cant completely agree with you and you just helped me explain my whole point which took my about 5 posts to figure out :D
If there was no such thing as DLC content, im 100 percent sure that some games would have the DLC included already, instead of the need of buying it later. Im not saying every game, but some games. If there wasnt DLC, some companies would like to pack their games with as much content as possible, maybe some of them would find extra budget to improve their content, like with DLC these days. In the old days, you couldnt upgrade your game with new maps, skins or levels, so developers packed their games with as much content as possible.
On the other hand, if DLC didnt exist, i have to agree, many games would have less content if there wasnt for the additional DLC. But i hope you guys now get my point why im not such a fan of DLC and i pick it carefully.
This is what i cant completely agree with you and you just helped me explain my whole point which took my about 5 posts to figure out :D
If there was no such thing as DLC content, im 100 percent sure that some games would have the DLC included already, instead of the need of buying it later. Im not saying every game, but some games. If there wasnt DLC, some companies would like to pack their games with as much content as possible, maybe some of them would find extra budget to improve their content, like with DLC these days. In the old days, you couldnt upgrade your game with new maps, skins or levels, so developers packed their games with as much content as possible.
On the other hand, if DLC didnt exist, i have to agree, many games would have less content if there wasnt for the additional DLC. But i hope you guys now get my point why im not such a fan of DLC and i pick it carefully.
That has rarely happened to be honest. Even in the past.
True but with the lack off online games were often played and forgotten with the exception of a few. Now publishers can track which of their games are being played thanks to PSN, XBL PC and they want their games up their thats why a lot of DLC come.
I disagree with your opinion on that.
I have used colours as some of you text is muddle up a bit so you know which part I am replying to.:)
thezombiemessia
24-02-10, 21:44
Regarding the AC2 DLC:
The developers did mention in several interviews that the 2 genetic memory sequences that are now available for DLC were originally meant to be included in the full game.
Because of time constraints and budget costs, they had to remove them, but they left room in the coding for future expansion.
The extra few months after release gave the team time to work on the DLC, and also gave them the money to polish them and get them ready for release.
The extra money they earn from the DLC will also help the team work on AC3, and the direct sequel to AC2.
Regarding RE5 Versus Mode:
Think about what you got in Versus Mode.
Think about it really hard.
What was new content?
The maps? No. The characters? No. The weapons? No. The enemies? No. The AI? No.
So what was new? The background Image? Yes. The meny layout? Yes. Specific coding on how to rank up scores, damage, etc? Yes.
What was new was very little. But this was still stuff that was worked on after the game was initially released.
This is why the download was so small. Not because you were downloading a key to unlock the content, but because you were downloading the extra coding that could re-organise the already existing content into new content.
This has been explained multiple times, and is mostly ignored...lets see if it isn't again...
Regarding "It could have been included on the disc":
From the initial development process, everything for the game is decided then and there. The 2 or 3 bits of DLC for Mass Effect 1 were announced before the game was even released, yet no-one complained about them as they were released long after the release of the full game.
People still wait in anticipationg for the L4D DLC, despite it being announced around the same time as L4D was.
Most (if not all) DLC is thought of during the early phase of production, meaning that it all could have been on the disc going by the arguments put forward by the anti-DLC people.
But developers need extra budgetting, and account for this with their DLC release schedule.
Yes, Criterion released alot of free DLC for aradise...but that was entirely down to good advertising, not because they had budget to spare. They knew their loyal fans would eventually purchase the final pieces of DLC for a nominal fee that would eventually pay off the budget used to create all previous DLC.
Developers need money. DLC offers developers the chance to earn that money, and continue to earn that money long after the release of the initial project.
I'm all for publishers getting the money rather than the retailer.
However, DLC is relatively new. If it ever gets to the point where you have to keep paying to get to the end of the game, I'd definitely be out.
As it is, no game I've played has inspired me to buy DLC for it. One of the exceptions I might make is if it expanded the story. But I would not pay for content that deliberately left me on a cliffhanger so it could sell me the end, as that's not a complete game.
However, expansion packs are old, Doom wads have been and gone.... but I truely believe expansion packs were more of an afterthought than games these days.
Best case scenario: DLC turns into a real money maker, competitive market, DLC gets really worthwhile. If every game has DLC, the spcial ones will shine.
thezombiemessia
24-02-10, 22:06
I've not seen a single game that requires you to download the ending...
Even the latest PoP, despite having an Epilogue DLC, has an end to it. You aren't required to download the Epilogue just to get the full story, the Epiogue just expands upon the story.
No game has had anything coming even remotely close to what you're talking about...
Hmmm, i see TZM. If you say that most DLC isnt a cut off of the original content, but unfinished content... it just changed my view on DLC. Come to think of it, yeah, it makes sence.
I watched god of war I documentary about making the game, and there was this level, which was based on climbing the mountain of pandoras temple. They said they took down the level because they felt it wasnt really that good, it was also unfinished. If they released that as DLC, that would be awesome.
I may reconsider my view on that type of DLC like AC2, but what about MP maps? How do we know if they make like 8 maps, take 3 of them for DLC and release a game with 5 maps, saying its enough?
I've not seen a single game that requires you to download the ending...
Even the latest PoP, despite having an Epilogue DLC, has an end to it. You aren't required to download the Epilogue just to get the full story, the Epiogue just expands upon the story.
No game has had anything coming even remotely close to what you're talking about...
That's where the "IF" comes in :p
Speaking of Expansion Packs, sorry DLCs, I see Borderlands game will be releasing their 2 DLCs on disk later in the year "Borderlands Expansion: The Zombie Island of Dr Ned / Mad Moxxi's Underdome Riot (Xbox 360)" April 9th. Found it at Amazon uk
Hint Hint!
I don't buy much DLC, mostly because I devote my money to physical media. But when I do it's only when I feel that it's worth the money. I don't buy maps for online games, nor would I buy anything that's doesn't add to the experience.