Support NeoGAF

[XiaNaphryz]

I never understood "Standalone DLC". If it's standalone, why is it DLC?

If it's only available through download, the term still applies. I'm guessing you're asking why is it not considered like any other digital only downloadable game as opposed to standalone DLC, my guess is the publishers don't want people to misconstrue it as a "full" game.

 

[CosmicQueso]

What people say they will do and what they actually do are often two very different things.

 

[Mendoza]

When Artorias of The Abyss came out.

Spoiler

when it's cut content

Really? I was under the assumption that in this case, "cut content" meant that it was cut way early in the dev process.

I had no problem with it because it was some of the best content in the game. Artorias is an example of 'good DLC'.

I'm going to have to go with horse armor as well. That was the point in which they realized that we'd pay for anything.

 

[Boss Doggie]

If it's only available through download, the term still applies. I'm guessing you're asking why is it not considered like any other digital only downloadable game as opposed to standalone DLC, my guess is the publishers don't want people to misconstrue it as a "full" game.

Yeah that's what I mean, what makes it different from other download games.

And that's really low for publishers. Just because it's a download game doesn't mean it can't be "full".

 

[Boombloxer]

Because meaningful DLC is better than no DLC.

I really, really like some DLC that's come out over the past few years. Burial at Sea 1 + 2. The Last of Us: Left Behind. Dragon Age II's additional content.

It's nice having more of a game you like, when it doesn't feel like that content is being held ransom.

All of ME3 content, From Ashes, Leviathan and Citadel especially.
Exinction Mode for CoD:Ghosts

There's other games I would've bought a lot more from if they released it.

 

[randomengine]

Nope you're still wrong. Read the words Downloadable Content out loud to yourself a few times. See any key words jumping out? Yes that word downloadable covers any content for a game that is downloadable. So large or small, as long as you can download it, it's DLC. That means all those tiny DLC pieces and huge "expansion pack" like DLC packs are all DLC now.

What are you chatting about with this "I know because I was there" shit as well. It was like 10 years ago DLC became a thing dude, do you think we're all kids and can't remember how things went down? You're acting like DLC is something that started with the last generation, but it didn't.

This is 1984. First they get everyone to adopt their language. That is the first step in their victory. OMG, it has already begun. It is worse than I feared.

Edit: Oh and also under your definition all videogames can now be DLC in their entirely. We cannot distinguish between games, expansions, and DLC because by your definition they are all DLC. Oh and so are films, television episodes and desktop wallpapers. This is why that definition is bullshit.

 

[eighty(one)]

My issue with DLC is that content that used to be included in games (unlockabale costumes, characters, modes, weapons, etc), has been cut and parceled out for additional cost.

I have no issue with meaty expansion sets, that add levels and such to the core of a game; I have issues with the first point(s) I noted.

 

[outunderthestars]

My issue with DLC is that content that used to be included in games (unlockabale costumes, characters, modes, weapons, etc), has been cut and parceled out for additional cost.

I have no issue with meaty expansion sets, that add levels and such to the core of a game; I have issues with the first point(s) I noted.

Would you prefer the alternative of having $70- $90 video game mrsp's?

 

[randomengine]

Would you prefer the alternative of having $70- $90 video game mrsp's?

False dichotomy. There is certainly the option of free post-launch DLC. We have seen it before. We see it today.

 

[Jito]

This is 1984. First they get everyone to adopt their language. That is the first step in their victory. OMG, it has already begun. It is worse than I feared.

Edit: Oh and also under your definition all videogames can now be DLC in their entirely. We cannot distinguish between games, expansions, and DLC because by your definition they are all DLC. Oh and so are films, television episodes and desktop wallpapers. This is why that definition is bullshit.

We're obviously talking about games you pedantic arse, can't believe this is what you're resorting too to continue your defense.

 

[btags]

I have never understood the inherent hate some people have for DLC. I understand when a game is lacking content at launch or multiplayer DLC splits a community, but paid DLC is totally fine in concept. I don't expect devs to simply support a game out of good will and in fact I would like to be able to support devs that put out DLC that agrees with my interests.

Having said that, I have not bought any DLC for quite a while as nothing has really seemed worth it to me.

 

[randomengine]

We're obviously talking about games you pedantic arse, can't believe this is what you're resorting too to continue your defense.

We have to be precise when arguing over language. We simply cannot take DLC by its literal definition. I think I proved that. So if we aren't using the literal definition, we have to agree on what we mean when we mean DLC. We also have to acknowledge that words can have several different meanings. The definition of the word "DLC" I am using is an extremely precise term in an effort to distinguish it from other types of post-launch content. You may not agree with that, but once you understand the way I am using the word and other people than myself also understand that definition, it shouldn't be something to argue over.

 

[Synth]

False dichotomy. There is certainly the option of free post-launch DLC. We have seen it before. We see it today.

Post-launch content is a completely different matter though. Stuff like unlockables wouldn't have been post-launch. They were simply part of the budget.

 

[Jito]

We have to be precise when arguing over language. We simply cannot take DLC by its literal definition. I think I proved that. So if we aren't using the literal definition, we have to agree on what we mean when we mean DLC. We also have to acknowledge that words can have several different meanings. The definition of the word "DLC" I am using is an extremely precise term in an effort to distinguish it from other types of post-launch content. You may not agree with that, but once you understand the way I am using the word and other people than myself also understand that definition, it shouldn't be something to argue over.

It's like you don't want an actual discussion and just want to come across as a massive dick. More power to you dude, carry on.

 

[outunderthestars]

False dichotomy. There is certainly the option of free post-launch DLC. We have seen it before. We see it today.

We do not see it on a regular basis from AAA games.


I get it. You hate DLC. But to answer your original question: Paid DLC was supported the very moment it was offered. The market has very clearly spoken and is willing to pay for additional content.

You can keep fighting windmills all you want, but times have changed and I don't really foresee them reverting back.

 

[randomengine]

We do not see it on a regular basis from AAA games.


I get it. You hate DLC. But to answer your original question: Paid DLC was supported the very moment it was offered. The market has very clearly spoken and is willing to pay for additional content.

You can keep fighting windmills all you want, but times have changed and I don't really foresee them reverting back.

I have realized that fight was already lost, which is why I entitled the thread, "When did..." It happened, I guess I just didn't realize it until it was too late.

 

[njean777]

We have to be precise when arguing over language. We simply cannot take DLC by its literal definition. I think I proved that. So if we aren't using the literal definition, we have to agree on what we mean when we mean DLC. We also have to acknowledge that words can have several different meanings. The definition of the word "DLC" I am using is an extremely precise term in an effort to distinguish it from other types of post-launch content. You may not agree with that, but once you understand the way I am using the word and other people than myself also understand that definition, it shouldn't be something to argue over.

The problem is very few people agreed with your definition. You seem to want to make everybody agree to what you want, but not everybody is. In other words your argument is not working because very few people are agreeing with your definition, the majority are arguing against your definition.

 

[randomengine]

It's like you don't want an actual discussion and just want to come across as a massive dick. More power to you dude, carry on.

I absolutely want to discuss DLC acceptance, acceptance of singular unit, post-launch content. I certainly didn't want to get into an argument over my use of the term DLC, which my usage is valid, but may not comport with your definition. But since we both understand which form of DLC we are talking about we should be able to discuss it.

 

[randomengine]

The problem is very few people agreed with your definition. You seem to want to make everybody agree to what you want, but not everybody is. In other words your argument is not working because very few people are agreeing with your definition, the majority are arguing against your definition.

Not nobody. Several gamers in this thread understand exactly what I am talking about. It appears to be a generational thing, which is certainly understandable.

See? See? VVVVVVVVVVV

 

[Lucumo]

Never approved of it and still don't.

The only DLC I've ever bought is the final chapter of Asura's Wrath.

Same here, except I've never bought any DLC (DLC =/= expansion pack). There are enough games without that crap, so there is nothing lost for me.

 

[outunderthestars]

I have realized that fight was already lost, which is why I entitled the thread, "When did..." It happened, I guess I just didn't realize it until it was too late.

But that answer is entirely clear: when it was made available. People bought it in large enough quanitites that it became a standard business practice.

This whole thread just comes across as: I hate DLC and other people are just too stupid/young to see why it is a bad thing.

 

[randomengine]

This whole thread just comes across as: I hate DLC and other people are just too stupid to see why it is a bad thing.

Not my intention at all. I certainly don't like DLC and I am not one to hide my personal feelings, but I was just wanting to discuss the sociological and chronological elements that took part in making DLC acceptable, because if my memory serves, DLC was not well-liked upon initial inception.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

because if my memory serves, DLC was not well-liked upon initial inception.

Most likely a case of vocal minority/silent majority. If micro-transaction DLC was not well-liked overall, the business model would not have become successful. GAF and other major gaming forum communities are not representative of the market. And in many cases, it was often specific. Some DLC releases were panned, but others people were supportive of.

 

[outunderthestars]

Not my intention at all. I certainly don't like DLC and I am not one to hide my personal feelings, but I was just wanting to discuss the sociological and chronological elements that took part in making DLC acceptable, because if my memory serves, DLC was not well-liked upon initial inception.

Please provide support for your assertion that paid DLC was not well received. I don't recall people complaining in 2005 when Halo 2 received paid DLC. Outside of the horse armor jokes and Azura's Wrath, I have a hard time finding anything about widespread anger over paid DLC.

 

[PixyJunket]

"Gaming Community."

 

[Synth]

I have a hard time finding anything about widespread anger over paid DLC.

108kb

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think the distinction that the OP makes in his/her edit is totally arbitrary. It ultimately comes down the same question - is what's being presented to me worth the money being asked of it? This is the case, whether it's a large add on or a small one, whether you call it DLC or an "expansion pack" - in fact, it's the case when you buy basically anything. So why wouldn't I "support" it? I buy that which I think offers good value, and don't buy that which I don't. What right-minded person wouldn't support the purchase of something they deemed good value for money, and vice versa?

 

[Famassu]

Some of us don't live in a black & white world where all DLC is from Satan and to be burned in the deepest, fieriest depths of virtual hell. There's nothing inherently bad about DLC. There's good DLC and bad DLC, just like there are good games and bad games.

Not my intention at all. I certainly don't like DLC and I am not one to hide my personal feelings, but I was just wanting to discuss the sociological and chronological elements that took part in making DLC acceptable, because if my memory serves, DLC was not well-liked upon initial inception.

DLC got a bad start on last gen consoles with the whole horse armor shit in Oblivion, but there has never been some super widespread movement against DLC, just a whiny, bitchy minority who spread their negativity around louder than people who had nothing against well done DLC.

 

[Orayn]

Not my intention at all. I certainly don't like DLC and I am not one to hide my personal feelings, but I was just wanting to discuss the sociological and chronological elements that took part in making DLC acceptable, because if my memory serves, DLC was not well-liked upon initial inception.

It's never as simple as a uniform "People didn't like X." Which people? Where? When? How did you ascertain this? DLC has certainly been divisive at times, but not in a way that supports how you're trying to frame things.

The Halo 2 map packs were paid DLC that predated horse armor by quite a while, maybe you should support your argument by looking into how those were received.

Knights of the Nine and Shivering Isles were fairly large hybrid retail/digital expansions for Oblivion, not at all dissimilar to Bloodmoon and Tribunal for Morrowind. How about those?

Where you go wrong is treating DLC as a single homogenous thing when there's really quite a bit of variation on the price points and type of content. I'd say those things play a large role in how people react to it, not just the demographic they fit into. A wide variety of people like, dislike, and feel ambivalent toward DLC for a wide variety of reasons. It's not a matter of "omg when did this become okay"

 

[IISANDERII]

Wow, had no idea about the Witcher 3 free DLC, that's amazing. Didn't really have the game on my list but after hearing that I'll be there day 1 because i want to support practices that are not only consumer friendly, but also ones that make a genuine attempt at creating art. It's hard to feel the creativity when you've got advertisements for DLC bombarding you. Always feels like the oily salesman comes in-between the creator and the player.

I hope others support this as well and the game makes huge amounts of money, creating a watershed moment in the gaming industry where the practice of giving value becomes more profitable than fleecing your customer. I'm probably being overly optimistic, but one can dream.

 

[a.wd]

Expansion packs are not DLC, and day one DLC is just a straight fuck you to gamers.

I am not happy with it

 

[GungHo]

I never understood "Standalone DLC". If it's standalone, why is it DLC?

Marketing. They want to tie the new game to a successful franchise but they also don't want to make you think you have to have the old game to play the new game. They developers may also not want to market it as an increment to the franchise, since it was a more narrowly focused game than the real successor, Far Cry 4.

 

[Lactose_Intolerant]

realize there are tons more gamers that don't post on gaming forums. They spend money.

Universally hated on message boards, companies still make millions off of them and now add season passes and whatnot to every game.

 

[openrob]

I have only bought DLC once (sleeping dogs, PC steam sale) but basically I am thoroughly opposed to day one content sold to the user.

If DLC is available to the customer on day one, then in my eyes it is simply content cut from the game, and is a shitty way of treating the consumer base.

I understand, and appreciate DLC which is developed in the vein of 'we made this game - as best as possible - and people liked it and want more, so we went on to develop some additional content'. Hell yeah that sounds great! Think Mario Kart. If that was available day one, I would say "why are you hiding readily available content behind a paywall'.

Now DLC which means more or less fuck all in terms of time developed (like a costume or a weapon) could seem like 'oh, that's optional, you don't need to buy it'. But it's so trivial it SHOULD be included in game for free!

Long story, short. I don't support bad DLC

 

[JohnChang]

Didn't Oblivion and the horse armor start the trend?

I remember game developers like ID software used to regularly give updates and map packs as a thanks to the community who bought the game and supported them.

Bad Company 1 on 360/PS3 got a nice update which added conquest and new maps for free but maybe that was also promised, can't remember but every Battlefield game since then has been DLC addons and continually gotten worse.

Like anything in life, these things seem to roll out slowly, see how people react, people seem to be okay with it, a few vocal minority shout about it but the majority in ignorance consume and so the publishers/game makers keep adding it as its more profit for them.

Difficult to go back now It would be like Xbox Live or Playstation Network dropping fees to play online, and sometimes you'll see articles popup about why are there still fees and then Sony and Microsoft respond with sales to quell the uprising.

 

[Famassu]

Wow, had no idea about the Witcher 3 free DLC, that's amazing. Didn't really have the game on my list but after hearing that I'll be there day 1 because i want to support practices that are not only consumer friendly, but also ones that make a genuine attempt at creating art. It's hard to feel the creativity when you've got advertisements for DLC bombarding you. Always feels like the oily salesman comes in-between the creator and the player.

I hope others support this as well and the game makes huge amounts of money, creating a watershed moment in the gaming industry where the practice of giving value becomes more profitable than fleecing your customer. I'm probably being overly optimistic, but one can dream.

While it's certainly cool that Witcher 3 is going to have free DLC, people should understand that CDProjekt isn't necessarily doing this because they are just so super awesome while other publishers never do this because they are the Devil Reincarnate. They are doing it because they CAN, and they can do it because of GOG. They are basically printing money with GoG, which they can then use to offer cool shit. They only have one game they need to support, so offering some beard DLC in Witcher 3 isn't that huge of a financial burden for them. So they can take some of that GOG money without too many worries and put it towards DLC, thus giving gamers more incentive to buy their games.

It's great that they are spending their money this way, don't get me wrong, but it's also understandable if some other publishers don't offer fucktons of free content and people should understand the reasons in the background. The reason why CDProjekt offers free DLC is pretty much the same reason why Sony offers most of their maps and other similar content as free DLC now that they have PS+ making them money and why Valve can do what the fuck ever they want nowadays thanks to all that Steam money. If PS+ or Steam didn't exist, you can be certain that Sony would be a lot more hesitant giving tons of tracks in DriveClub & maps in Killzone for free and Valve would be releasing Half-Life 4's 7th dlc expansion about now if they didn't have Steam bringing in the big bucks. Of course they are cool that they are putting that PS+, GOG and Steam money to good use (Activision certainly wouldn't), but yeah, those services basically enable them to do so whereas other publishers don't have similar money-creating services, so DLCs are a bigger financial burden for them.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I've always been confused about why people think they're entitled to the entire output of an arbitrary number of developers over the course of an arbitrary amount of time, re: having a problem with day 1 DLC. You bought the game as it was presented to you because you thought the product offered was worth the money. If they simply hadn't made that day-1 DLC, would you feel like you got a better deal?

 

[Pizza]

I dislike hearing that a game coming out wont get any post-game support: whether it be DLC. updates, or whatever. I LIKE giving more money to a dev to get more content for a game I enjoyed, but when a company says "you're getting this game 6 months late with no fanfare or support" and then turn around and blame the console they half-assed it on, I dont want to support that dev.

If there were actual reasons for not supporting it (the Wii was impossible to make DLC for, for example) i'd understand. I'd rather just wait a year or so to get the "complete" edition (see Arkham Armored Edition) if they dont plan on supporting the initial release.

If microsoft came out and said "we want to make Halo 5 a complete game at launch, so dont expect dlc" i'd be happy knowing 100% of the effort went into the product im buying. If they then said, months later "surprise! Here's dlc!" (like mario kart 8) I'd be excited!

I dislike the nickle-and-diming approach that modern dlc seems to be heading (for the most part, nintendo is taking the "expansion pack" approach) and that actually has hindered my desire for the Xbone or PS4.

The idea of both me and a friend having to buy the console, subscription, game, and all the dlc separately to play the full game together, not in the same room, seems silly to me at best. And since the content-to-price ratio is not where i'd like it (SFxT comes to mind, or buying styling gel or something for assassins creed gear) i usually opt out, despite wanting the content

 

[Dreamwriter]

I think the Horse Armor thing scared them away from adding Horse Armor to Skyrim

Why would it have? Horse Armor, despite the outcry here, was incredibly popular and they made a boatload of money off of it.

 

[Synth]

Expansion packs are not DLC

Downloadable expansions (such as those in Street Fighter 4) are both expansion packs, and DLC.

 

[Sobriquet]

While Oblivion had horse armor, it also had Shivering Isles. I support good content at a reasonable price. Otherwise, I don't buy it.

 

[Tobor]

My own guess would be when smartphones become popular and got consumers used to the idea of paying small amounts for tidbits of content.

Wrong. It was immediately successful and popular, save for a vocal minority of whiners.

The infamous Horse armor was even successful.

 

[SystemUser]

StarCraft: Brood Wars was awesome. I loved StarCraft and it was more Starcraft for less money than a full game. DLC (expansion packs) allow you to get more of a game you love without having to wait years for a sequel and without having to buy another full priced game.


Why wasn't Modern Warfare 2 released as an expansion pack for $40 instead of $60 game? There was no big tech changes. It should have been DLC.


I think yearly releases that are really just expansion packs are a bigger problem.

 

[human onion]

I like expansion packs such as those for Dawn of War and Sins of a Solar Empire, and DLC that are pretty much expansions, like Fallout: New Vegas and Shadowrun: Dragonfall. I don't like minor shit that's released alongside the actual game. That kind of stuff should honestly be free updates or all released in an expansion.

 

[flatearthpandas]

At what point did DLC become so important to gamers that they will reject the Wii U version of the game because it lacks access to DLC?

Can only speak for myself, but the rejection of Wii U games missing DLC is not because I love DLC. It's rejecting the idea that it is okay for a publisher to offer me a product with less content available to me and with less support than what they are offering to other people.

 

[Zxrophantom]

I can't speak for the gaming community as a whole but i was never opposed to DLC. I think when DLC started becoming a thing it fell into two fields. One it was just a small little thing like free weapons,costumes, or in game items. The second was the smaller missions that were dlc that were often a bad value.

Later when DLC started being apart of the business we got better DLC with decent prices. The flip side of that is when "DLC plans" is part of game development, things started to get a bit shady of what goes into the game and what becomes DLC. So i don't think DLC at its core was something not supported. It just had a rocky road of becoming a standard in the business.

 

[kaching]

... if my memory serves, DLC was not well-liked upon initial inception.

Your memory does not serve. DLC as a term may have only started gaining mainstream acknowledgement around the time last gen's consoles finally started offering digital storefronts and sadly was then unfairly associated with that sector's hamfisted initial forays, but the basic concept of offering smaller amounts of post-release content on a more frequent basis than an "expansion pack" was already extensively utilized, well understood and generally embraced for years before that by the PC gaming sector.

 

[msdmoney]

I think the first post is built off of a false premise, that the gaming community universally opposed DLC. What you are probably remembering is the vocal reaction to a few high profile dlc items that were not well received. It doesn't mean the very premise of dlc was rejected. What exactly are you opposed to with Downloadable content that adds to a game? I understand that there are specific instances where it is executed poorly, but for the very idea of DLC, what is the opposition?

Also let's back up to the idea of whether should be a universal opinion by the gaming community in the first place. Gamer groupthink is problematic itself, especially if rejecting an entire idea based on the knee jerk and reactionary opinions toward a few early and misguided attempts at testing the waters with DLC.

Also you keep going back to the separation in opinions being generational. I'm certain that many of the posters here are able to remember the years prior to DLC, it wasn't that long ago. So is the generational difference purely due to older gamers not being able to accept a new delivery method for gaming? The very idea of expansion packs and DLC are same, giving you more content to a game you already own. It's semantics to somehow differentiate and separate them. The only reason we have more DLC rather than expansions now is because the ability to deliver smaller chunks of content is now feasible, whereas before companies had to wait until they had enough content for it to be reasonable to sell a boxed copy in a retail store. Why wait to package an extra level into a larger expansion when it can be released when available?

 

[Accoun]

The worst offenders for DLC nickle & diming are amazingly not publishers like Activision or Ubisoft. It's the people who put out little niche & medium Japanese games. Compile Heart and Tecmo Koei are just insultingly horrible with it. They put Ubisoft pre-order nonsense to shame with how much ridiculous DLC they have per title. Bandai Nacmo is pretty awful too.

*cough* iDOLM@STER *cough*

 

[eighty(one)]

Please provide support for your assertion that paid DLC was not well received. I don't recall people complaining in 2005 when Halo 2 received paid DLC. Outside of the horse armor jokes and Azura's Wrath, I have a hard time finding anything about widespread anger over paid DLC.

Whether you agree or disagree, I take issue with the model of the Batman Arkham games' handling of content (an example of just one series). This games come with costumes and challenge maps are parceled out to various retailers as 'pre-order' bonuses. Those are arguably cut from the game outright and sold as incentives or additional content.

That type of DLC should not exist and should be in the game wholesale, at launch.