Support NeoGAF

[BLunted]

The minute gamers paid for this:

After that, they realized we would pay for anything

Should have been first post

 

[cleveridea]

Some DLC is good and worth the money, some isnt

Like a lot of products

Options are good

 

[Uthred]

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?

Excellent post. The idea that its generational is clearly just as much bollocks as the idea that DLC is one homogenous monolithic "thing" that some gamer hive-mind did, will or should have a united opinion about. Decrying all DLC as intrinsically bad is just as (if not more) ignorant and silly as embracing any and all DLC. Shockingly, as with most things in life, its more nuanced than that.

 

[Boss Doggie]

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.

But tidbit spinoffs appeared before.

I guess it's all marketing shit then.

 

[SystemUser]

Maybe it is just my perception, but I recall when DLC was brand new and the gaming community appeared to universally oppose the idea.

Yes, it is just your perception. People have always liked map packs and campaign expansion packs. I don't think you actually recall when DLC was new. PC games have free expansion content that is made by the community, but once a mod team becomes popular enough then they sell their product or get funded by a publisher to release a standalone game. Things like Defense of the Ancients and the Battlefield Desert Combat mod come to mind.


There is no such thing as a free lunch. Development studios close every year.