-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How did DLC become the worst value in gaming?
- Thread starter Owzers
- Start date
Neuromancer
Member
It's probably like those free MMOs where you have 10% of the consumers buying 90% of the stuff, and somehow that ends up being profitable.
I have no problem paying money for good DLC, if I like the game and it makes it more fun. For instance I thought the Far Cry 2 Fortune's Pack was worth it, the ATV was a lot of fun to drive and the crossbow and silenced shotgun were great weapons.
I have no problem paying money for good DLC, if I like the game and it makes it more fun. For instance I thought the Far Cry 2 Fortune's Pack was worth it, the ATV was a lot of fun to drive and the crossbow and silenced shotgun were great weapons.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
It's a defacto price raise. It's easier for people to spend $60 and another $20 on DLC than to spend $80. I would like to get all the content on the disc when I buy it, but if I had to choose between that and a price hike I'd choose the 128k unlock codes.John said:
Vote with your dollars indeed. The only DLC I've bought was for Crackdown. I also plan on buying whatever they put out for Trials HD.
The only DLC I believe is actually of obvious benefit to the consumer is for games like Rock Band. Instead of waiting a full year for them to release a $60 "sequel" which will be little more than a 50 song track pack full of 25 songs I don't give a shit about, they let me play the reasonable price of $2 a song (reasonable in a sense that I would be paying a dollar for the song license on iTunes anyway) and I get the option of picking and choosing which songs I really want (don't have to wade through the crap, just get straight to the meat and potatoes). Plus, weekly updates keep me interested in the game and keep it feeling fresh.
Voting with your wallet works better( for the gamer) when you're sending a message to developers that the quality of the product is not good, therefore you are not buying. This is especially necessary in the Comic Book realm where there is only a finite number of buyers and if you keep buying a bad book, they will keep making said bad book. With DLC it varies. Developers are making somewhat quality content that gamers do WANT to play but are charging exuberant prices which lets you either:
1) Miss out on quality content or in some cases, an essential area of a game ( warden's keep storage chest, Bioware has balls to take out a storage chest from a game.)
2) Get screwed.
1) Miss out on quality content or in some cases, an essential area of a game ( warden's keep storage chest, Bioware has balls to take out a storage chest from a game.)
2) Get screwed.
Ploid 3.0
Member
This thread convinced me to not buy the next DA dlc. I only bought three dlc total (LBP xmas build material + skins, Wipeout Fury dlc, and DA warden's keep). Warden's keep was mainly to get the storage and I thought the quest would at least be a bit juicy. I'm not sure if I want any dlc ever again.
Well I for one welcome DLC as long as its done correctly. I have bought and enjoyed things like Point Lookout (Fallout 3), Metal Gear missions (LBP), Shivering Isles (Oblivion), Nazi Zombies (WAW) plus a few others. Quite a number of developers have released over priced shite as DLC but as others have said vote with your wallet.
In some cases its nice that after you have finished a game you know there could be more content to come.
In some cases its nice that after you have finished a game you know there could be more content to come.
charlequin
Banned
Sunflower said:
Well, I guess I was distinguishing between "not buying overpriced DLC so as to not be a sap" (which I highly encourage) and "expecting your lack of purchase to accomplish anything as the phrase 'vote with your wallet' might suggest," which I think is basically inaccurate.
If overpriced DLC was going to die off the backs of people's disinterest in buying it, it would have done so already. At this point it's pretty much crystal clear that there's a 10% chunk of console gamers who are ruining it for everyone.
With so many great games out, I rarely have enough time to even play through them. My backlog is disgusting.
99% of the time I don't buy DLC, I only do it if the game is seriously that good and I want to put more time into it.
But the majority of DLC is crap, $2.50 for a cheat code or new costume.
99% of the time I don't buy DLC, I only do it if the game is seriously that good and I want to put more time into it.
But the majority of DLC is crap, $2.50 for a cheat code or new costume.
Phoenix Fang
Banned
sillymonkey321 said:
What I don't get is why DLC for old games like Perfect Dark Zero, Kameo and PGR 3 still cost the same amount as when they were first release. I stopped buying DLC a long time ago.
This is why once gaming goes download only, I will quit buying consoles.
Zeouterlimits
Member
Expansion packs that are still dlc, fantastic dlc.Macmanus said:
Mass Effect, Fallout, Halo, Bioshock, Crackdown, Oblivion, GTAIV, Fable 2, Burnout Paradise + more all have fantastic dlc.
Borderlands' DLC model I am pretty comfortable with, as I was with Fallout 3. Sure, they can/will add up to a lot, but all the content adds up too. Plus, most of my points come from sales anyway, so I'm likely only paying 2/3rds or so of what is asked.
I prefer the newer DLC model, when done right, to the classic expansion model. With expansions, you got a ton of content and improvements at the same time, but often a year+ later, after you put down the game. DLC allows for a much slower roll, revisiting a game you like every few months over the same course of time, with the end product being similar. The only real problem I has is that most of the time expansions have one unifying theme, while DLC usually has a separate theme for every pack. This means you never explore anything through DLC nearly as deep as with an expansion.
Things like map packs, car packs and track packs are generally overpriced and aren't great value propositions. That being said, if it's for a game I genuinely enjoy and I think that they will increase my enjoyment of the game, I've no problem purchasing it. I wish every game could have the level of free post-release support as TF2, but it's simply not going to happen. The best thing that anyone can do is determine which items of DLC are worth it to them individually, and go from there.
I prefer the newer DLC model, when done right, to the classic expansion model. With expansions, you got a ton of content and improvements at the same time, but often a year+ later, after you put down the game. DLC allows for a much slower roll, revisiting a game you like every few months over the same course of time, with the end product being similar. The only real problem I has is that most of the time expansions have one unifying theme, while DLC usually has a separate theme for every pack. This means you never explore anything through DLC nearly as deep as with an expansion.
Things like map packs, car packs and track packs are generally overpriced and aren't great value propositions. That being said, if it's for a game I genuinely enjoy and I think that they will increase my enjoyment of the game, I've no problem purchasing it. I wish every game could have the level of free post-release support as TF2, but it's simply not going to happen. The best thing that anyone can do is determine which items of DLC are worth it to them individually, and go from there.
DoomGyver
Member
The only DLC I bought this year was the Fallen Star pack for Warhawk back in april. Don't blame me gaf. Blame the people who bought all the PS3 premium avatar bundles and even double dipped (look in this weeks ps store thread), blame the people who buy horse armor, blame the people who change their name on XBL every week for $10.
Those are the people to blame. They get raped by overpriced DLC and run back for more willingly. It's makes me sick to see people throw away their money on things they'll use once.
I also wonder how many people who rent games buy the DLC so they can get all the trophies/achievements.
Those are the people to blame. They get raped by overpriced DLC and run back for more willingly. It's makes me sick to see people throw away their money on things they'll use once.
I also wonder how many people who rent games buy the DLC so they can get all the trophies/achievements.
I played through Dragon Age without ever getting Shale because I didn't know it was free. Was pissed off afterwards when I found out. I signed in and got my pre-order perk and everything, I just didn't look at the DLC menu because I knew I wasn't buying anything - I don't understand why they didn't make it auto-download.
speculawyer
Member
The GTA IV DLC provides a great value . . . high quality and lots of it.
Unfortunately for R*, it seems many people were not interested in more missions in Liberty City.
Unfortunately for R*, it seems many people were not interested in more missions in Liberty City.
brain_stew
Member
kodt said:
Well you can get a better storage chest by using a simple mod that was released a day or two after the title itself did. Its the price you pay for a subsidised closed platform.
sillymonkey321 said:
There's nothing wrong with the GTA approach, in fact its precisely how DLC should be done. Its basically just bringing the old PC expansion packs into the modern area and is a great way to deliver extra content to a game. You'll find plenty of PC gamers, usually the sort that strongly oppose DLC in principal, back DLC like this. Its how something like Sins delivered a nice meaty expansion for $10 that extended the main game by a good amount and helped keep an older game alive. You just can't sell something like that at retail for $10 and expect to make a return but DD makes it possible, and its exploiting DLC whilst still giving your customers a fair deal.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Draft said:
I think it's no coincidence this is the generation I built myself a new PC, and got back into PC gaming. Sure it was for other reasons as well, but it's not an accident it happened during the generation when I had to shell out $400 for a 360 and then $50 for live.
brain_stew
Member
sillymonkey321 said:
Not really, but you make your bed then you're going to have to lie in it. The console market as a whole decided that was the market price and by buying into a closed platform you've left yourself with no alternatives if your preferences for stuff like this doesn't align with the general population. £40 a year online and £40+ games + an effective extra subscription for multiplayer games through map packs was just too expensive an anti-consumer for me, that's why I jumped ship to an open platform instead. Everyone else still has that option if they don't like where console gaming is heading as well.
Is it shitty? For sure? Are there alternatives? Absolutely.
Diablohead
Member
Microsoft doesn't help any either, Gears content which was going to be free was not allowed due to MS, Valve updates ending up at 560 allards instead of free, etc.
I only buy worth while DLC but that is also due to my 20gig launch day hdd limits, I have to keep removing things before I buy more so I just don't buy.
I only buy worth while DLC but that is also due to my 20gig launch day hdd limits, I have to keep removing things before I buy more so I just don't buy.
pr0cs said:
Let's say I offer to help you move your large furniture on Saturday, and then I end up needing to rush to my mother's side in the hospital on Saturday because she's having surgery. I end up not being able to help.
That's totally understandable. Things like that happen, and friends don't get angry about that kind of thing.
Now, let's imagine that I knew my mother was going in to surgery on Saturday, and was just telling you I'd help out because it sounds generous, knowing full well I'd never actually have to act on that generosity. This would -- legitimately, I believe -- anger some people.
That's the basic principle: people don't like feeling tricked, even if the ultimate result is identical. I think it's apparent that some people feel like the concept of DLC is that it's content created after the game has been released, to add to the product the developer's worked on originally. When this isn't the case, people feel tricked.
I'm not saying these people are necessarily correct: one could argue that their understanding of what DLC is or should be is flawed. I'm just trying to explain where the thought process originates.
BlazeHedgehog
Member
A lot of DLC is so cheap, who cares how much content you get for it? Am I right?
It's perfect impulse-buy territory. All those years ago, before the 360 launched, J. Allard was saying as much - about the millions being spent on ringtones and cell phone wallpapers and how they were going to tap in to that with game DLC.
If the prices on game DLC come down, the prices for everything under that also have to come down, because it's all about "perceived value". Premium themes, avatar clothes, all of that. Microsoft isn't going to do that.
It's stupid, but you better get used to it.
Philthy
Member
Chrange said:
I suppose you're missing the whole Steam holiday sale going on. I've bought about 10 or so games at $2-5 each that are all rated pretty highly. Hell, I got Mass Effect for $5 a month back. Rome Total War, Medieval 2 Gold, Torchlight was $10, GTA4 is like $7 shit man... Games are so cheap now. They have deals like this every week or every few weeks even off holidays.
Who wants to pay that much for DLC? That stuff should all be like .25 or .50 a pop. I bet the volume of sales from that alone would make more profit than pricing that stupid shit at current prices. There has been nothing "micro" about microtransactions.
Yeah but what percentage of gamers actually buy DLC? I can only imagine it's tiny. They would reach a much larger audience with appropriate prices.Sega1991 said:
A lot of DLC is so cheap, who cares how much content you get for it? Am I right?
It's perfect impulse-buy territory. All those years ago, before the 360 launched, J. Allard was saying as much - about the millions being spent on ringtones and cell phone wallpapers and how they were going to tap in to that with game DLC.
If the prices on game DLC come down, the prices for everything under that also have to come down, because it's all about "perceived value". Premium themes, avatar clothes, all of that. Microsoft isn't going to do that.
It's stupid, but you better get used to it.
Pretty much. People can complain that you're acting all elitist, but if you decide that comfy couch+50" hdtv is worth getting five-and-ten-dollar-billed every time you get a new texture swap, then you've made your decision. I personally don't give a shit what someone's valuation is of their particular playstyle. Just don't bitch about it later. I chose to pay a bit more up front so I could get cheap-as-hell games and free mods later.brain_stew said:
Psychotext
Member
Redlynx are showing how it should be done with the Big Pack.
Other examples that come to mind are the burnout paradise DLC (not the stupid cars) and the GTA IV DLC.
Other examples that come to mind are the burnout paradise DLC (not the stupid cars) and the GTA IV DLC.
Philthy said:
Same can be said for people who buy their console points during sales (or pricing SNAFUs).
Yes, laugh at my avatar w/ the lighsaber and Imperial insignia t-shirt. They cost me next to nothing because I absolutely raped that Amazon pricing error where you could get 1600 point codes for $0.20. Haven't paid for 360 DLC since.
charlequin said:
Absolutely agree with this.
Consider the example of Street Fighter II. SFII had an extremely fervent following when it was first released in arcades. Subsequent iterations of the same title (SFII Turbo, Super SFII, Super SFII Turbo) made apparent an interesting strategy: they weren't trying to expand Street Fighter's appeal to new consumers. Obviously, speeding the game up and adding a few characters to the same basic game design isn't going to convince people who didn't like the original SFII to suddenly like it.
Instead, Capcom increased revenue a different way. Rather than try to expand the appeal of the game (Which would require significant redesign and would be significantly more expensive), Capcom figured out how to get the really fervent fans to buy the game again and again with small updates. Put differently, Capcom increased revenue by making the fervent few spend more, rather than expanding the number of consumers buying their products.
The same basic principle applies here: Bethesda cannot, as an example, get uninterested players to buy DLC for Oblivion. First, anyone who does not own Oblivion is already uninterested, which represents the vast majority of PS3/360/PC users, let alone the vast majority of consumers. Second, of the people who purchased Oblivion, many will have not finished it (making subsequent playthroughs irrelevant), or did finish it but didn't enjoy it, and so forth. What you're left with is a group of people who bought Oblivion, finished Oblivion, and thoroughly enjoyed Oblivion. Even for cheap DLC, this is likely the entirety of the audience which a Publisher has within its reach. All other consumers are basically never, ever going to buy DLC.
Similar to Capcom's SFII strategy, DLC represents another way for companies to increase revenue not by expanding their consumer base, but by getting the dedicated consumers they already have to spend more.
As Charlequin stated, these consumers are usually highly flexible with pricing. That's the whole point: they love the product so much they'll spend a great deal to get it. Therefore, there is very little incentive to drop the price of DLC. In fact, I expect pressure goes in the opposite direction, as companies explore just how much these dedicated few will pay before the demand really does fall off.
I only buy DLC for games that I truly liked enough to finish and still desire more. That is rare enough that I have no problem supporting the developers for making a great game. The only thing I've kinda regretted is the SFIV costumes as they were super overpriced for what they were, even after I held out to buy the all in one pack. I just pretend that buying those costumes led to the development of SSFIV and feel a little better.
I truly believe that the number of games that are shipped short on content yet good enough that DLC that completes the experience is a rare enough thing thing that I never really feel like I'm truly getting cheated by anything I'd actually buy.
I'm betting that market research shows that people that are willing to buy digital content at all are not pricessensitive enough to make cutting the price in even half (and it sounds like this thread is trying to argue for more reductions more like $5-10 addons reduced to $1-2) worth while at all. They are not going to sell 5 or 6 times as much to break even, so they milk the niche.
I truly believe that the number of games that are shipped short on content yet good enough that DLC that completes the experience is a rare enough thing thing that I never really feel like I'm truly getting cheated by anything I'd actually buy.
I'm betting that market research shows that people that are willing to buy digital content at all are not pricessensitive enough to make cutting the price in even half (and it sounds like this thread is trying to argue for more reductions more like $5-10 addons reduced to $1-2) worth while at all. They are not going to sell 5 or 6 times as much to break even, so they milk the niche.
Metalic Sand
who is Emo-Beas?
alr1ghtstart said:
Yup, There is a guy on my list who buys a new suit just about every week.
Diablohead
Member
I have a few friends with star wars or the buy-able halo gear but I never see them swap over to another often if at all, I brought the forza racing suit as well my inner racing whore came to light that day, but that's as far as I will go for buying clothing. Rest of my random goodies were or are free.Metalic Sand said:
Although most DLC is not very attractively priced at release date, i love seeing "complete" editions of games show up in stores at very attractive prices... the Fallout 3 GOTY edition is an example of this. Now i'm considering just delaying most of my purchases by six months - not because of price, but because of content.
Also, i don't trust publishers to support DLC adequately 10, 15 years from now. I want to physically own my purchases. So i guess with the OP, most DLC definitely isn't good value (at release).
Also, i don't trust publishers to support DLC adequately 10, 15 years from now. I want to physically own my purchases. So i guess with the OP, most DLC definitely isn't good value (at release).
My last post was long. Let me consolidate it for clarity:
Some products -- in any industry -- sell only to the most ardent consumers. These products are often terrible values, because ardent consumers accept extreme price elasticity. They'll pay way more than might otherwise be suitable because they love the product so much.
DLC is like that. Take a game like Oblivion: again, who is the market for DLC for Oblivion? Anyone who doesn't own the game is automatically out, which is 90% of the gaming market (And an even larger percent of the market at large): then, of the 10% remaining, only a fraction will have finished the game, which is a defacto requirement for any substantive DLC; lastly, only a fraction of that fraction will have enjoyed the game so much that they want more.
DLC sells to that small subset of people. Lowering prices isn't going to change that. Thus, companies wisely exploit those who would spend virtually anything, knowing that lowering prices wouldn't convert any of the unbelievers.
You want a similar gaming related example? Consider collectors editions. They often are 10 dollars extra for a cloth map, or something else ridiculous. No one would possibly suggest that a collector's edition is going to convince people who don't want Game [X] to suddenly buy Game [X], now that it costs 10 dollars more. But it does convince the people who really, really like the game to spend more on it.
Some products -- in any industry -- sell only to the most ardent consumers. These products are often terrible values, because ardent consumers accept extreme price elasticity. They'll pay way more than might otherwise be suitable because they love the product so much.
DLC is like that. Take a game like Oblivion: again, who is the market for DLC for Oblivion? Anyone who doesn't own the game is automatically out, which is 90% of the gaming market (And an even larger percent of the market at large): then, of the 10% remaining, only a fraction will have finished the game, which is a defacto requirement for any substantive DLC; lastly, only a fraction of that fraction will have enjoyed the game so much that they want more.
DLC sells to that small subset of people. Lowering prices isn't going to change that. Thus, companies wisely exploit those who would spend virtually anything, knowing that lowering prices wouldn't convert any of the unbelievers.
You want a similar gaming related example? Consider collectors editions. They often are 10 dollars extra for a cloth map, or something else ridiculous. No one would possibly suggest that a collector's edition is going to convince people who don't want Game [X] to suddenly buy Game [X], now that it costs 10 dollars more. But it does convince the people who really, really like the game to spend more on it.
personally I liked the fallout 3 DLC and I think those packs are the only DLC I've ever bought, but I should have waited for the GOTY edition instead.
yes I even liked anchorage when I found out you can get unlimited ammo and items that never degrade in condition that you could transfer out of the simulation via exploit.
What it comes down to is that it costs a certain amount of money to create new content. Some content can require the efforts of a dozen salaried employees. In order to make money from that content, you have to look at how many people will buy it - which will generally be a very small subset of your playerbase, and price isn't usually the deal breaker. So you charge a little more to sell to a lot fewer people to make a profit that makes the entire effort worth while.
My problem is when DLC is used as a way to control the secondary market. Purposely holding back content as day-one free DLC to screw people who buy the game used. Yeah, if you buy the game new, the content is free, but what happens five years from now? Can you still buy the game new? Are the DLC servers still running? Will the DLC work properly on a partly backwards compatible Xbox 720 or whatever?
I like how Bethesda does it. Generally good value for the money and then collect everything up in a disc based version for people who worry about how DLC will work in the future. Just wish the Oblivion GotY edition included all the DLC rather than just Knights of the Nine.
My problem is when DLC is used as a way to control the secondary market. Purposely holding back content as day-one free DLC to screw people who buy the game used. Yeah, if you buy the game new, the content is free, but what happens five years from now? Can you still buy the game new? Are the DLC servers still running? Will the DLC work properly on a partly backwards compatible Xbox 720 or whatever?
I like how Bethesda does it. Generally good value for the money and then collect everything up in a disc based version for people who worry about how DLC will work in the future. Just wish the Oblivion GotY edition included all the DLC rather than just Knights of the Nine.
To Far Away Times
Member
I've only bought DLC if it is similar to an expansion pack. I don't mind paying a little extra for some extra stuff that is added on later; something like Shivering Isles or Zombie Island.