DLC - What is it good for?

Dragula

Dragula

Stormtrooper oTO
Orderite
DLC, cheap expansions that keep the game alive, or overpriced patches that should be given for free? This is a topic that is very close to Fallout 3 and all these "amazing" expansions bethesda keeps giving out. Dogmeat armour!
<blockquote>"My anger comes from this, I have enjoyed quality content from top developers for years through the PC format and now I see people forking out for content that by all rights should be given for free. Capcom even had the audacity to charge people for the multiplayer mode on Resident Evil 5, something that was already on the disc at purchase! Unfortunately this is not going to go away in a hurry with people wanting the content offered and having the classic gamer lack of patience, only if we stopped buying the content that is being over priced will we get reasonable responses from the industry."</blockquote>Link: DLC – What Is It Good For?
 
Per said:
The Fallout connection is a bit thin?
Click to expand...
Not really, Mothership Zeta is on the way and they still have 100 more achievement points to fill in so they can milk the franchise to the last. I would say the DLC debate is much needed.
 
In Fallout 3, maybe it's good for keeping the wildly stupid stuff of the latest DLC out of the main game, but alas it makes little difference.

In the case of all other games, the answer is obviously: absolutely nothing, with and optional "unh". I hate everyone of you who pays for it for decreasing the content I get when I buy a game. You have been fooled by marketing, congratulations.

Hugs
 
Dead Guy said:
In Fallout 3, maybe it's good for keeping the wildly stupid stuff of the latest DLC out of the main game, but alas it makes little difference.
Click to expand...
I think the main issue with Fallout 3 is that it appeal to people with short attenton spans, they want everything immediatly. Nuking a city? First ten minutes. New areas to explore? One week later.

I think the group bethesda aims for would not be able to wait for a proper expansion.
 
Dragula said:
New areas to explore? One week later.
Click to expand...

I know you probably hate Fallout 3, but is this really your legitimate complaint? That they're coming out with new content too quickly?
 
terebikun said:
I know you probably hate Fallout 3, but is this really your legitimate complaint? That they're coming out with new content too quickly?
Click to expand...
It was not a complaint as much as it was a questions whether they put enough effort in it.
 
terebikun said:
That they're coming out with new content too quickly?
Click to expand...

Seems to me he's saying they put out too much relatively empty content vs waiting a while and putting out a large, interesting expansion.
 
Bethesda does have a great business model going though it seems. Perpetually churning out DLC keeps copies in circulation so to speak, and out of the secondary market. People are less likely to sell a game back if they expect more content coming down the pike, forcing newcomers to buy a full retail copy rather than a second hand one that Bethesda would make nothing off the sale of.

As long as people continue to buy shit expansions, Bethesda will happily serve them up.

Personally I have an issue with giving money to Todd Howard and Pete Hines. More importantly my time. Anything they are in charge of can't be worth my time or money.
 
Well, in Beth's case, the DLCs obviously aren't overpriced patches, since they don't actually fix anything (perhaps they even break something?).

Just today I heard that Battlefront.com released a patch that makes Combat Mission Afrika Korps work on Vista, and they're charging 5 bucks for it. The patch, not the game.
 
Actually, the whole, raise level cap to 30 and allow you to play after completion is very much just patch material. The least they could have done was make EVERY dlc raise the level cap to 30, but if you're only interested in one of them, you still have to get the one that raises it to 30 also. Lame.

Also, paying for new skins is bull. All or most of the dlc for Dead Space, for example, is just new weapon skins. That's worse than horse armor because at least horse armor needed somebody to model the armor. This is just a new texture that they throw on to a couple of the weapons... and not even all of them.
 
DoktorVivi said:
Also, paying for new skins is bull. All or most of the dlc for Dead Space, for example, is just new weapon skins. That's worse than horse armor because at least horse armor needed somebody to model the armor. This is just a new texture that they throw on to a couple of the weapons... and not even all of them.
Click to expand...

Killing Floor just got some DLC and it is four new characters. However it is only £1.50 and even more offset by a new update coming out with a map and some weapons for free soonish.

This sort of DLC I can get behind but the simple skins stuff ala Street Fighter 4 and Dead Space is just evil.
 
This is getting ridiculous. Times have changed and releasing content that had to be cut during development(deadlines) is now considered a DLC(that you have to pay for) not a patch! In 2004 Valve released half finished counter-strike source. It was fully playable(few maps, 1 skin per team and all weapons from original CS). Over the months they've been adding new maps, skins and other features. Now the game can be called a full product. Luckily for gamers, Valve released all that for free. I bet, now you'd have to pay for every single skin and map...
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with DLC's necessarily. Fallout 3, good or bad, at least had enough content in it to make it feel like a complete game. Anything they want to pop out beyond that deserves to be paid for. Also, I don't see what people's gripes are. Most DLC's cost like 5-20 bucks, and tend to give you 4-10 hours of extra content. In an age where tons of games only give you 6 hours of gameplay and charge you a full $50, I see this as a bargain.

Mind you, I haven't yet bought a single Fallout 3 piece of DLC, and come to think of it I don't think I've actually purchased any DLC's for any game ever, but I still don't see anything inherently wrong with charging people a relatively small amount of money for something that requires more work but isn't the kind of content that deserves to be called a full-blown expansion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top