-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Let's talk about DLC and why it's not bad
- Thread starter Kingsora
- Start date
NullPointer
Member
I love, love, love DLC.
Bethesda game DLC. Borderlands DLC. GTA story DLC. GRAW/Killzone:Shadowfall Co-op mode DLC.
They all add to the game or expand it. They were all there for the player who loved the core game and wanted more. Love it. Give me more. In fact, for a world as big and as detailed as you get in something like GTA V, there's no end to the amount of stories you can tell in that location, and gameplay scenarios that can be explored. Putting out these huge open worlds and then only using them on one small campaign feels like such a waste of potential.
Season Passes are a different beast. That's being asked to put money up front with very few details, with the upside only existing for those who can predict the future, or mitigated for those who don't care if they actually end up losing money because the sum total of the DLC didn't live up to their expectations.
Map Packs are in a weird area in that its fair to charge for maps since they represent significant content, but charging for them splits the community up, which sucks.
Bethesda game DLC. Borderlands DLC. GTA story DLC. GRAW/Killzone:Shadowfall Co-op mode DLC.
They all add to the game or expand it. They were all there for the player who loved the core game and wanted more. Love it. Give me more. In fact, for a world as big and as detailed as you get in something like GTA V, there's no end to the amount of stories you can tell in that location, and gameplay scenarios that can be explored. Putting out these huge open worlds and then only using them on one small campaign feels like such a waste of potential.
Season Passes are a different beast. That's being asked to put money up front with very few details, with the upside only existing for those who can predict the future, or mitigated for those who don't care if they actually end up losing money because the sum total of the DLC didn't live up to their expectations.
Map Packs are in a weird area in that its fair to charge for maps since they represent significant content, but charging for them splits the community up, which sucks.
WrenchNinja
Member
Kingsora
Would rather have no penis than have to show his to a medical professional
Ok other example. Would gamers not complain if Battlefront introduced a cool new vehicle for two dollars? Yes they would.
But if Rocket League does it games don't complain, it's a great addition then.
Just giving an example that gamers don't complain about DLC only when it splits the community.
Poodle Cannon
Member
The problem is when they're maps that can only be played by purchasing them. It fragments the community and that's what I don't like. I'd settle for cosmetic based DLC over that model any day. Some games like COD do both and it makes me sad.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
The one DLC practice I don't like on principle are the Multiplayer Map/Fighting Game update. It creates a divide between the Haves and the Have Nots. Sure, if you love SF4 and play it hundreds of hours, of course you'll buy the next $20-40 dollar expansion with new stages/characters/balance changes. But what if you only play one character and have no interest in the new ones? You gotta buy it anyway. Its the latest version, it has the new balance changes, you're gonna be left behind with all the other poor people.
And I get it! In multiplayer games, maps or characters ARE the content! That's the stuff you want to create to extend the life of your game! But it creates that schism.
Luckily, this is starting to change in some of my favorite franchises. Halo 5 will have free maps and modes; its DLC largely driven by cosmetic items(which you can earn in the game as well). Street Fighter V will be one $60 purchase, and you can either buy the new characters individually or you can earn them in-game. Along with all the cosmetics and stuff too, obviously. So if I only play one character and have no interest in the new ones, I can just keep playing it without having to shell out money for the update. Everybody playing Halo 5 and Street Fighter V will be playing together after that initial purchase. No community splits and mandatory paid content updates.
Or, you can go the other way and just make it stupid cheap. Mario Kart 8 added SIXTEEN stages, several karts, several characters, and you can get them all for what, $12? Not many people complained about that.
And I get it! In multiplayer games, maps or characters ARE the content! That's the stuff you want to create to extend the life of your game! But it creates that schism.
Luckily, this is starting to change in some of my favorite franchises. Halo 5 will have free maps and modes; its DLC largely driven by cosmetic items(which you can earn in the game as well). Street Fighter V will be one $60 purchase, and you can either buy the new characters individually or you can earn them in-game. Along with all the cosmetics and stuff too, obviously. So if I only play one character and have no interest in the new ones, I can just keep playing it without having to shell out money for the update. Everybody playing Halo 5 and Street Fighter V will be playing together after that initial purchase. No community splits and mandatory paid content updates.
Or, you can go the other way and just make it stupid cheap. Mario Kart 8 added SIXTEEN stages, several karts, several characters, and you can get them all for what, $12? Not many people complained about that.
CountAntonius
Member
Why is that a good thing and 4 new multiplayer maps for Star Wars: Battlefront is a bad thing?
Is it because Rocket League isnt made by Activision or EA?
Because in Rocket League all new maps are released for free and only new cosmetics and cars are paid for.
If battlefront released a new skin for an existing vehicle you mean. Rocket League cars all perform pretty much the same.
Kingsora
Would rather have no penis than have to show his to a medical professional
While I agree that cosmetic items are better in comparison with paying for maps. Will those cosmetic items generate just as much money as new maps? I doubt it. Especially if it's also unlockable in-game if you don't want to pay. Less money is also gonna mean less new maps/stages/characters
Coffee Dog
Banned
What do you think of unlockable alternate costumes/characters/cheat codes, previously free rewards, basically dying off once they were able to become DLC?
Moon_frogger
Member
Not always bad. You should have put an always in that thread title. Let's be honest, very often it is terrible and abused in ridiculous ways. I think most of us are aware of the difference. You don't see anybody here boycotting witcher 3 or bloodborne over their upcoming expansions.
I normally never bother with DLC, preferring to wait until the game gets a GOTY edition before I pick it up (Arkham City comes to mind; was going to get it at launch but with it having a lot of DLC, figured I could wait a year and get the full package at a better price).
Considering I just started playing Skylanders with Swap-Force, I feel that they bring up a way DLC should be handled; it having pricing changing with the market.
I got the Dark Edition of Swap Force for 16 bucks and five extra Skylanders from Spyro's Adventure, Giants and Swap-Force for 24 bucks.....and when all of that came out, it would have costed me 100 bucks for the Dark Edition of Swap Force and getting the characters at full price would have costed 50-70 bucks instead of 24.
But that is what makes the game so great to me; you COULD pay a lot of money for the new Skylanders (15 bucks), or you could just grab a few used ones ranging from 3$-18$ per character. That is what makes it a great deal and considering Skylanders could be considered DLC (with characters being the fee you pay for unlocking new people to play as), it fits within this discussion.
If publishers and developers had that mentality and gradually lowed the cost of DLC over time, people would be far less likely to despise it, as they could just pick it up when it gets cheaper with time.
Considering I just started playing Skylanders with Swap-Force, I feel that they bring up a way DLC should be handled; it having pricing changing with the market.
I got the Dark Edition of Swap Force for 16 bucks and five extra Skylanders from Spyro's Adventure, Giants and Swap-Force for 24 bucks.....and when all of that came out, it would have costed me 100 bucks for the Dark Edition of Swap Force and getting the characters at full price would have costed 50-70 bucks instead of 24.
But that is what makes the game so great to me; you COULD pay a lot of money for the new Skylanders (15 bucks), or you could just grab a few used ones ranging from 3$-18$ per character. That is what makes it a great deal and considering Skylanders could be considered DLC (with characters being the fee you pay for unlocking new people to play as), it fits within this discussion.
If publishers and developers had that mentality and gradually lowed the cost of DLC over time, people would be far less likely to despise it, as they could just pick it up when it gets cheaper with time.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I agree that maps or fighting game characters are huge attractions...you can make a LOT of money in cosmetics, man. You give people that "oh you can unlock in the game, too" but throw them up on the store? Valve and its content creators make dumb money on that shit. And it allows them to put out free maps/weapons/updates for everybody, including people who don't give a damn about the cosmetic DLC.
They might complain. It doesn't mean that they're complaining legitimately. I think it turns on whether the cool vehicle is cosmetic or confers a gameplay advantage. The latter is a problem.
Even if only the former, it is still lame. Cosmetic changes used to be unlocks in full-priced games.
Personally, my major gripe with DLC is how it affects my experience. I don't like to be constantly sold things as I'm engaging in an escapist activity. I don't want to think about my budget as I slay dragons, or shoot lasers, or whatever. The thing is, I don't mind subscription fees. Once you sign up, you're not sold anything again.
AmuroChan
Member
Why is that a good thing and 4 new multiplayer maps for Star Wars: Battlefront is a bad thing?
Is it because Rocket League isnt made by Activision or EA?
No, because Rocket League is a small downloadable title that many people got for free on PS+. People would absolutely complain if Rocket League was a $60 game and then they charge you for every new map/car pack.
Dreams-Visions
Member
You want my opinion? I'd prefer content locked on disc to NOT BE LOCKED ON DISC just so they can try to sell it to me later.
I'd prefer to have a game with enough maps and features at launch to NOT feel like I need DLC to justify continuing to play it.
I'd rather have no DLC at all than DLC that splits a community in half.
Yep. Lots of developers do it including Valve, Hi-Rez Studios and Frontier Developments are doing so and have done so for years. You supplement income with digital cosmetics. Weapon skins, flags, outfits, call-signs, whatever.
AmuroChan
Member
That's not an example. You're making baseless generalization in order to suit your argument.
cantthink9
Banned
I do believe DLC should be cheaper. $30 season pass for sure, 50 is a little high. Besides for that im all for DLC if its good quality.
DLC can be great, but most of the time it suffers from a serious pricing problem. Back in the day, #30+ expansion packs would be a lot of new content, almost a new games worth. But now you get $15 dollars for a few maps. I think if most DLC was priced half of what greedy publishers try to get away with, they would make more money with significantly more sales, and gamers would be happier in general about the whole practice.
As it is now, DLC schemes like PvZ, ME3, and upcoming Halo 5 are the best approach for multiplayer centric titles. Give substantial content for free and supplement it with cosmetic stuff that is low priced and not designed to take advantage of "whales." THis will keep players interested and invested. For single player titles, I think Witcher 3, Borderlands 2, and Fallout 3/NV are good models: deliver substantial expansions at a fair price.
IMO the worst offenders of bad DLC are Ubisoft, Warner Bros, and most of all Activision (CoD and Destiny offer abominable value while splitting multiplayer communities by making vanilla players locked out of primary playlists).
As it is now, DLC schemes like PvZ, ME3, and upcoming Halo 5 are the best approach for multiplayer centric titles. Give substantial content for free and supplement it with cosmetic stuff that is low priced and not designed to take advantage of "whales." THis will keep players interested and invested. For single player titles, I think Witcher 3, Borderlands 2, and Fallout 3/NV are good models: deliver substantial expansions at a fair price.
IMO the worst offenders of bad DLC are Ubisoft, Warner Bros, and most of all Activision (CoD and Destiny offer abominable value while splitting multiplayer communities by making vanilla players locked out of primary playlists).
MrCunningham
Member
DLC is not bad but it has been abused to the point where it has became a bad word.
The theory behind it is supposed to be not bad.
When a game is almost done, what do the artists do for the 6-8 months before gold release? Usually this period is the bug squashing phase.
They still draw stuff, but how can a company turn their idle work before shipping into something useful? It still has to pay for their work despite not having input near release. Execs could lay them off since they are technically not doing anything productive.
Enter DLC.
Artists can add skins/recolorings of certain assets to characters, and the company can sell those through microtransactions right after the game ships. That way, artists can still keep their jobs or at least have some of their work have meaning in a business sense.
When a game is almost done, what do the artists do for the 6-8 months before gold release? Usually this period is the bug squashing phase.
They still draw stuff, but how can a company turn their idle work before shipping into something useful? It still has to pay for their work despite not having input near release. Execs could lay them off since they are technically not doing anything productive.
Enter DLC.
Artists can add skins/recolorings of certain assets to characters, and the company can sell those through microtransactions right after the game ships. That way, artists can still keep their jobs or at least have some of their work have meaning in a business sense.
I think for me it mostly depends on the kind of game it is.
I think minor DLC in big games that feel like it was always meant to be there is really shitty, I don't think a huge RPG or something should have like a fucking weapon or set of armor that makes you pay for it.
However huge expansion packs like stuff you would get in Morrowind, Shivering Isles or even the Skyrim expansions are fantastic.
Morrowind had a cool thing for where you could download Adamantium armor in an official plugin that made certain merchants sell it, but the armor featured heavily in the Tribunal expansion and was considered to be a part of that, it was like having a taste of the expansion.
However for fighting games and stuff, endless small DLC like outfits is perfect.
I think minor DLC in big games that feel like it was always meant to be there is really shitty, I don't think a huge RPG or something should have like a fucking weapon or set of armor that makes you pay for it.
However huge expansion packs like stuff you would get in Morrowind, Shivering Isles or even the Skyrim expansions are fantastic.
Morrowind had a cool thing for where you could download Adamantium armor in an official plugin that made certain merchants sell it, but the armor featured heavily in the Tribunal expansion and was considered to be a part of that, it was like having a taste of the expansion.
However for fighting games and stuff, endless small DLC like outfits is perfect.
MichaelFassbender
Member
Just being honest, though. Tired of the new system of a drip without any sort of payoff.
spootime
Member
As has been said 100 times in this thread, paid multiplayer DLC that segments your community is a terrible idea and honestly seems outdated in 2015. If you want to make money on your game post launch that's fine but do it through cosmetic microtransactions or another similar system.
Honestly there are enough multiplayer games out there these days with no post launch, player base splitting DLC (Halo, Dota, CSGO, Tf2, Titanfall), that I honestly am probably never going to buy another multiplayer game that asks me to purchase maps individually. I think more people are starting to think of paid map dlc as absurd as well. My roommate for example was planning on purchasing Battlefront for the PC recently. When I told him of the $50 dollar season pass he giggled a little bit and said "well, never mind then."
Not to mention the idea of asking for $50 bucks up front with the consumer having zero idea of the quantity or quality of future DLC...
For single player games this is a lot different obviously. Substantive story driven DLC is great imo.
Honestly there are enough multiplayer games out there these days with no post launch, player base splitting DLC (Halo, Dota, CSGO, Tf2, Titanfall), that I honestly am probably never going to buy another multiplayer game that asks me to purchase maps individually. I think more people are starting to think of paid map dlc as absurd as well. My roommate for example was planning on purchasing Battlefront for the PC recently. When I told him of the $50 dollar season pass he giggled a little bit and said "well, never mind then."
Not to mention the idea of asking for $50 bucks up front with the consumer having zero idea of the quantity or quality of future DLC...
For single player games this is a lot different obviously. Substantive story driven DLC is great imo.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Some DLC is really good. I like additional story content and additional characters and game modes. Like the Dead Rising 3 Arcade Remix DLC. That stuff is great.
DLC for online shooters is bad when it breaks up the community. That's the worst. Day 1 map DLC for shooters is the absolute worst.
DLC for online shooters is bad when it breaks up the community. That's the worst. Day 1 map DLC for shooters is the absolute worst.
nailbombxx
Member
Most of it is a joke. Take Fall Out 4 for example, game hasn't came out yet, but there are already talks of a $30 season pass comprised of who the fuck knows.
What I mean is that when upcoming games are advertised for their DLC, when the release dates of the DLC are close enough to the release date of the actual game, it just seems to me is that the game itself is being rolled out in fragments rather than as a whole.
Then there are games like the latest Dead or Alive that seems just as much as a platform to costume microtransactions as it is a fighting game.
There are good ways to do it, think Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma. Both are big singular expansions that were announced and released months after most people have played through the games.
What I mean is that when upcoming games are advertised for their DLC, when the release dates of the DLC are close enough to the release date of the actual game, it just seems to me is that the game itself is being rolled out in fragments rather than as a whole.
Then there are games like the latest Dead or Alive that seems just as much as a platform to costume microtransactions as it is a fighting game.
There are good ways to do it, think Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma. Both are big singular expansions that were announced and released months after most people have played through the games.
ShinMaruku
Member
DLC the concept is not bad, but however the way they announced the way they are handled is problematic to some people.
The real issue however is nobody trusts the companies and that is for good reason IF the consumer was sensible, however a sensible consumer does not exist in proper numbers to make the 'hand of the market' bollocks work.
The real issue however is nobody trusts the companies and that is for good reason IF the consumer was sensible, however a sensible consumer does not exist in proper numbers to make the 'hand of the market' bollocks work.
IISANDERII
Member
"Please buy our Season Pass because we don't know if our game is good enough to hold your attention for that long. We'll even offer you a discount."
Aztechnology
Member
If it splits the community like map packs and the like often do I'm not a fan. Battlefront for example could make all the maps and new game modes free and maybe introduce new cards and aesthetic items. Other people having a wider variety of weapons is far better than restricting game modes and maps.
Chairmanchuck
Member
I think one problem about seasonpasses/DLC-pieces is the pricing.
Lets take a look at Darksiders 2. The 3 missions you got were all about 20 minutes to half an hour long, so all in all you spend 1 hour to 1:30h to finish all the missions. And they wanted 20 or 25$ for the seasonpass IIRC.
Seems the same is happening with the Arkham Knight Seasonpass right now, where the missions are short as hell and they want 40$ for the whole seasonpass.
Even the Alien Isolation missions are a joke. The two "movie" missions are 10 minutes long and they wanted 5$ for one mission, didnt they? (cant check the prices right now).
Lets take a look at Darksiders 2. The 3 missions you got were all about 20 minutes to half an hour long, so all in all you spend 1 hour to 1:30h to finish all the missions. And they wanted 20 or 25$ for the seasonpass IIRC.
Seems the same is happening with the Arkham Knight Seasonpass right now, where the missions are short as hell and they want 40$ for the whole seasonpass.
Even the Alien Isolation missions are a joke. The two "movie" missions are 10 minutes long and they wanted 5$ for one mission, didnt they? (cant check the prices right now).
DAROCK2300
Member
DLC maps destroys matchmaking and usually splits up the community.
JinjoUnchained
Member
Title sounds like Salt N Pepa. Let's talk about DLC, let's talk about you and me.
On topic, it depends on how it's handled. Personally I think its ok if the base game is a complete product and the dlc is add on content. Mario Kart 8 is a good example.
On topic, it depends on how it's handled. Personally I think its ok if the base game is a complete product and the dlc is add on content. Mario Kart 8 is a good example.
Nintendoga
Member
I think most devs are taking too much of an advantage of the concept of DLC, but I don't mind it as long as it's not on disc-DLC or DLC that was purposely held back during game development just to be DLC.
I'm not fond of Season Passes either.
I'm not fond of Season Passes either.
Darkspineslayer
Member
It's not DLC I have a problem with. It's the asking me to drop $80 on the game, then on total faith, asking me to drop another $50 for content to be named later.
Preorder culture is the problem, not DLC. DLC made services like Rock Band possible. It's a great idea on paper. Execution has shown it to be easily abused and I don't buy DLC without knowing exactly what I'm getting.
Preorder culture is the problem, not DLC. DLC made services like Rock Band possible. It's a great idea on paper. Execution has shown it to be easily abused and I don't buy DLC without knowing exactly what I'm getting.
Captain Hero
The Spoiler Soldier
I'm afraid one day you will have to pay for DLC to pass the first checkpoint !
then I will be waiting for u to say " its really bad "
then I will be waiting for u to say " its really bad "
Zen_Arcade
Banned
They would because this would possibly be putting people who bought it at a competitive advantage over the people who didn't. If you put a vehicle in that is significantly better then any vehicle provided in the base game, you're essentially letting people pay money to have a leg up in certain game modes.
Rocket League doesn't have this problem. Because all car DLC are actually skins, and every single car in the game functions the same.
There is a right way and a wrong way to do DLC. I don't mind paying for extra multiplayer maps if I really like a game, but it has obvious flaws when you relate it to the overall design of the game. Same with adding things like new vehicles or game play mechanics.
the only problem with DLC is that people buy it instead of buying OTHER GAMES, which would both give them more happiness and lead to better games for everyone. But DLC is vastly easier to sell a much smaller amount of "content" per dollar because of people's irrational attachment to the familiar, desire for completeness, etc.
Kingsora
Would rather have no penis than have to show his to a medical professional
When that happens, I'll come back and admit it
I all see a lot of reactions, cosmetic is ok, other things are not. While I agree I rather have that maps and other crucial stuff are free and only cosmetic things are DLC. I just don't think many developers/publishers will earn that much money with it (yes I know that their are examples like TF2).
I for one would not be interested in paying for things like that and let's be honest a lot of people wouldn't. I think the reason why a lot of gamers say that cosmetic is ok, is because in hat case they never have to pay while they still get their free stuff. Again, I agree that this would be better for the gamer, but would it also be interesting for the developer to generate enough income to keep supporting the game? For some games yes, but absolutely not for the most games.
My current favourite Wii U game is a dlc,
.
The problem is that even good games usually have bad dlc but it's the developers/publishers fault. It's like two completely different philosophies / approaches: "we will make a great game that everybody wants to play and the press will praise it, then we will release whatever crap/shit we can think of as dlc for it"
Even Nintendo, after nailing it with Luigi U and MK8 addons, made that mistake with Smash - while the added stages and characters may be good/great, the pricing is ridiculous.
Super Luigi U obviously
The problem is that even good games usually have bad dlc but it's the developers/publishers fault. It's like two completely different philosophies / approaches: "we will make a great game that everybody wants to play and the press will praise it, then we will release whatever crap/shit we can think of as dlc for it"
Even Nintendo, after nailing it with Luigi U and MK8 addons, made that mistake with Smash - while the added stages and characters may be good/great, the pricing is ridiculous.
Pyramid head
Banned
This was my experuence with Activision's Cybertron games.
Play one match.
Don't have the map pack?
Kicked to the menu.
Repeat.
Traded the game in once I realised getting into more than one consecutive match wasn't going to be happening too often.
Shuggananas
Banned
ftfy OP
Some DLC practices are fucking scum incarnate
paperspace
Member
I can't from the top of my head mention one piece of DLC that is worth the money. Can someone remind me?
but expansion packs are dlc :|
scoobidoo112
Member
Might as well have called it that.
In my opinion, DLC has gotten out of hand, often contains clearly cut content, is sometimes distributed through anti-consumer practices and never seems to go on sale. I dislike it and outside of Steam sales and complete editions I refuse to buy it. I refuse to spend 110$ on a game at launch, when I can buy 20 good games for that price on Steam.
(Exceptions seem to be TES, Fallout, GTAIV, Dishonored and Bioshock Infinite, to name a few. That's good DLC, at a decent price, AFTER the game was out.)
Expansion packs: Yes.
Everything that until now was free (costumes), content from previous games that is now sold as DLC (like some FPS maps), day-one DLC & on-disc DLC, content blatantly removed from the game to sell it separately as DLC (Mass Effect 3 and Javik, I'm looking at you), DLC which effectively prevent you from playing the multiplayer mode if you don't buy it, minor updates/additions released as DLC, blatant cheat codes that are now charged (Tales of Vesperia is a major offender), overpriced DLC for something very minor (vanity items), season pass, games which are advertising their DLC so much that it becomes invasive (Fable 3): No.
There are so much abuse and scum practices when it comes to DLC that I can't accept, and as a result I never buy any DLC, with some rare exceptions for DLC which actually are expansion packs (ie. something worthy to be called an expansion, with a lot of content, and released several months or a year after the game's initial release). For the rest, no matter what, I never buy them out of principle. And if a game combine too much of the practices I listed above, I simply do not buy it, even if I was interested in the game prior (some examples include Mass Effect 3 and Assassin's Creed games, though other factors led me to that decision for those particular games). Also, Ubisoft is so notoriously known for their bad DLC practices that I no longer buy any of their games.
So, no, not all DLC are bad, but most of them are, and overall we, the consumers, are on the losing side.
Everything that until now was free (costumes), content from previous games that is now sold as DLC (like some FPS maps), day-one DLC & on-disc DLC, content blatantly removed from the game to sell it separately as DLC (Mass Effect 3 and Javik, I'm looking at you), DLC which effectively prevent you from playing the multiplayer mode if you don't buy it, minor updates/additions released as DLC, blatant cheat codes that are now charged (Tales of Vesperia is a major offender), overpriced DLC for something very minor (vanity items), season pass, games which are advertising their DLC so much that it becomes invasive (Fable 3): No.
There are so much abuse and scum practices when it comes to DLC that I can't accept, and as a result I never buy any DLC, with some rare exceptions for DLC which actually are expansion packs (ie. something worthy to be called an expansion, with a lot of content, and released several months or a year after the game's initial release). For the rest, no matter what, I never buy them out of principle. And if a game combine too much of the practices I listed above, I simply do not buy it, even if I was interested in the game prior (some examples include Mass Effect 3 and Assassin's Creed games, though other factors led me to that decision for those particular games). Also, Ubisoft is so notoriously known for their bad DLC practices that I no longer buy any of their games.
So, no, not all DLC are bad, but most of them are, and overall we, the consumers, are on the losing side.