DLC - What is it good for?

[warsaw]

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.

Paying 10-20 bucks for say, Point Lookout or Shivering Isles or The Lost and Damned would be worth it, and is well priced. Paying 5 bucks for a set of armor for your horse, or a simple 5 minute quest, or costumes, or a game mode that could have easily been bundled with the game at release is a terrible idea. I can understand if these downloads were say, a dollar or two, and lasted a half or full hour, or contained tons of weapons/armor/items. I shouldn't have to pay a 1/4th the price of the original game for maybe (depending upon how i play) an hour of content.

P.S. Did anyone else notice you have to pay something like 5 bucks to actually access the internet on your Wii?

 

[Beelzebud]

I think with Fallout 3, Bethesda has been fair with the price of their DLC addons.

With one exception.

Broken Steel.

Broken Steel gave the game the ending it should have had to begin with. Fallout 3's retail ending was utter bullshit, and they KNOW it.

Any respectful company would have given that content away for free as a "thank you" to their fans. Unlike the others, it really was more of a 'patch'.

Of course when you compare what they've charged money for to what Valve has added to TF2 for free, and it's clear that DLC is a scam.

 

[Kyuu]

P.S. Did anyone else notice you have to pay something like 5 bucks to actually access the internet on your Wii?

Eh? I don't remember paying 5 bucks to access the internet. Then again, I only occasionally use the News and Weather channels. Do you have to pay 5 bucks for the Internet channel or something?

Anyways, sure, DLC is fine in theory. Paying 5 or 10 bucks to get a little extra content. But the problem is, you know damn well developers are using it to milk a few extra dollars out of content that would (or should) have been included with the game in the first place, or should have been patched in for free (and might've been if the micro-transaction model had never come about). Good examples have already been listed: multiplayer mode for Resident Evil 5. The extra skins for Street Fighter 4. It goes on and on. 5 bucks for some extra character skins? Uh no. Those should've been there to begin with.

 

[Lexx]

the best way to fight the dlc money milking is to not buy in.

Problem is, we have this really big marked for console games with gamers who like the game and want everything new now. So they buy the DLCs to get more content- mods don't work for the console versions (well, in fact I already read somewhere that it is possible to play the Xcubus version with mods but it isn't that easy for everyone).

 

[Beelzebud]

The console crowd, who are all too young to have known what the PC scene has been like for years, do not know any better than to pay for these overpriced addons. And MS has them right where they want them.

As the article points out, and what I've noticed with my nephews, is that when a Halo map pack is released, you either buy it, or you don't play online anymore. Sure you can still play Vanilla Halo 3, but if all your buddies have the map packs, you're screwed. Peer pressure, plus a greedy company, means this trend will only get worse for the younger generation.

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

What Bethesda ever did to us <s>aside from making a great game, fixing the ending and making l33t kewl expansions</s> ?

 

[DexterMorgan]

Broken Steel gave the game the ending it should have had to begin with. Fallout 3's retail ending was utter bullshit, and they KNOW it.

Halfass implementation aside, the central theme of F3 was supposed to be "sacrifice", so no, the Broken Steel DLC actually broke the game completely IMHO.

 

[Mr Maigo]

If it means continued game support, then it's a good thing.
CoD4 only got 1 map pack and stopped at v1.4. World at War has 2 map packs, is on v1.5 and has another on the way.

 

[Public]

CD Projekt Red Comes to mind. They made an enhanced edition of The Witcher, for free.

For people like Todd, it's weird to do something "for free". Even Patches...

 

[patriot_41]

CD Projekt Red Comes to mind. They made an enhanced edition of The Witcher, for free.

For people like Todd, it's weird to do something "for free". Even Patches...

I'd hate to put a lot of work in for free too, If I had made the best game in existence.

 

[warsaw]

P.S. Did anyone else notice you have to pay something like 5 bucks to actually access the internet on your Wii?

Eh? I don't remember paying 5 bucks to access the internet. Then again, I only occasionally use the News and Weather channels. Do you have to pay 5 bucks for the Internet channel or something?

For the internet channel, so you can actually browse the internet. I realize I can just go to my computer and access the internet there, but then what the hell is the sense in charging me for the channel if I can already do that?

 

[Stealste]

I'm neither surprised nor bothered about charging for DLC. Wow, a company driven by profit has discovered a new way to get more money for minimum work. That's capitalism, kids. And, in a capitalist economy, demand dictates supply. As long as a newer, spoilt generation of kids are the primary players of Fallout 3 (despite being sure i heard when in development it was 'definately adult') and they have the money to pay for DLC, you can bet your ass bethesda are going to make it.

If you don't like it, don't pay for it. I realise there's more to it than that, but you can't beat capitalism.

 

[zioburosky13]

In the future, game developer/publisher will probably release a 'finish' product with cheap price (say, 5 dollars), then charge everyone who wants to download 'extra' content.

Sounds like those add-on meal in McD. Or any fast food restaurant.

 

[TheWesDude]

wasnt there the idea a while ago where a developer creates the engine, a few areas, and stuff, sells it for like $15, and then starts work on expanding the game and like every 1-2 months he puts out "expansions" that gives you more and more of the game for like $5-10 with more areas and stuff?

i when i originally heard of DLC thats what i thought we were going to move to. instead of waiting 3-5 years for a game, you wait like 1.5-2 years for the game in a limited state, and then as they continue to develop the game you pay more into it to get more content, and the developer can take feedback in ways to improve the game or different ways of doing it if the fans come up with something better than the original dev.

 

[Verevoof]

DLC is just fun little extras for the fans of the game, and a good strategy for companies to make money. News flash: Game developers are businesses, meaning their sole purpose is to make a profit. These businesses only try to make good games because if they have the reputation for producing a good product, then they develop loyal customers and gain new ones. Occasionally a product will be produced that many people deem exceptional.

DLC eases the stress of having to ship on time. Developers can't create everything they wanted to in the game before the shipping date, so they can leave out the things that don't really matter to the main plot and flow of the game, with the hopes of releasing their ideas in DLC.

If developers know they are going to release an unfinished game and will be providing DLC in the future, marketing shouldn't charge full price for the game. But, hey, they have a good thing going now for making a profit, why would they change that.

Now, if they charge you for patches to fix problems in a game, thats just freakin' ridiculous. So now we gotta pay because you developers didn't do all the right testing or you shipped a game knowing it had problems?

The concept of DLC isn't new cats. Remember when you had a to go down to the store to purchase expansion packs for games? Its the same thing, only most games only had one or two expansion packs, and since DLC is online and companies don't have to worry about manufacturing and shipping costs, they develop lots of little things, such as skins or new weapons, while they also release game expanding content.

Let's face the facts, gamers are rarely satisfied with a game as is. So, gamers want more after beating a game, companies want profit and to minimize production costs, its a win win situation. It won't be too long until major game releases are strictly purchased and downloaded off the internet or console network.

Bottom line is, DLC is just to keep the fans satisfied, and to produce profit for companies to fund future development and keep the company going. If you don't like the DLC, you don't have to buy it.

 

[Herr Mike]

DLC (Or is it DLC's?) is just a logical evolution of the expansion pack, and in many ways they are better for fans in that they give you a choice of how much expanding you want to do. And they are better for the company because a better awareness for the game is maintained.

I'm not worried about the loathsome "paying for patches" becoming a widespread practice. People don't like being cheated twice - once for the broken game and again for the fix.

I really have no complaints with the Fallout 3 system. The original game had a lot of content and it didn't feel like anything was held back for the DLC.

It doesn't seem to me that typical $30 expansion packs have more content that any three of the FO3 DLC packs combined. Probably less.

I could see a bad trend developing however. I wouldn't like if the main offerings got skimpier and skimpier in favor of having more DLC. That would suck.

 

[Kyuu]

News flash: Game developers are businesses, meaning their sole purpose is to make a profit.

That's always a poor argument to bring up. News flash: businesses don't need the consumer base defending their profit making schemes. Oftentimes, what earns the most profit for the business is also the worst thing for the consumer. News flash: most consumers are, as they should be, more concerned about whether something is good for the consumers than they are if it's good for the business.

Further, businesses made money off games just fine before DLCs, so obviously DLCs aren't needed to make a profit. They certainly enhance profits, but, strangely enough, I don't really care if the company is making a few extra bucks. I'm more concerned about what DLCs mean for the way games are developed and what it means for my pocketbook.

DLC eases the stress of having to ship on time. Developers can't create everything they wanted to in the game before the shipping date, so they can leave out the things that don't really matter to the main plot and flow of the game, with the hopes of releasing their ideas in DLC.

That's a nice thought, but probably isn't reality. More likely, it means that publishers can much more easily tell developers to cut large amounts of content so they can rush the release in time for a quarterly report or the holiday season.

If developers know they are going to release an unfinished game and will be providing DLC in the future, marketing shouldn't charge full price for the game. But, hey, they have a good thing going now for making a profit, why would they change that.

So... this is your argument in favor of DLC?

Now, if they charge you for patches to fix problems in a game, thats just freakin' ridiculous. So now we gotta pay because you developers didn't do all the right testing or you shipped a game knowing it had problems?

So you see what a slippery slope DLCs are... it's already lead to charging for patches.

The concept of DLC isn't new cats. Remember when you had a to go down to the store to purchase expansion packs for games? Its the same thing

That wasn't DLC. Those were expansions. They're only similar in that they're extra content for a game that was developed after the game was released. They're packaged different, and expansions are generally more thoroughly tested, polished, and larger because they're developed more like a full game than some little DLC to be thrown out. You can see how much care Bethesda has put into their DLCs. At least their expansions for Morrowind and Oblivion weren't as horridly bug-ridden upon release as their Fallout 3 DLC. And I believe they actually released bug-fixing patches once in a while.

... such as skins or new weapons, while they also release game expanding content.

Developers were free to release new skins and weapons and whatever in their expansions, and did so. Getting a few extra skins doesn't really do much for me in terms of expanding gameplay, so I can't really seem to care about getting them a little early.

It won't be too long until major game releases are strictly purchased and downloaded off the internet or console network.

Not going to happen anytime soon. There are lots of people who don't have internet access, don't have internet access of sufficient quality to download something like a game in a reasonable time frame, and people who, like me, simply prefer to go to a store and get a hard copy of a game. I have a pretty good internet connection, but I can still drive to the store, buy the game, go home, install it, breeze through the manual, and start it up long before I'd have finished downloading it.

... produce profit for companies to fund future development and keep the company going.

You mean produce profit to pay for a CEO's new town home in the LA foothills to get burned up during the wildfire season.

If you don't like the DLC, you don't have to buy it.

Well yes. That's capitalism. Speak with your dollar. Unfortunately, there are too many other people with too many other dollars who are incapable of thinking about the possible consequences of what they're doing.

 

[Syraxith]

Extra game content for the price of a magazine isn't a bad deal, to me.

While for the most part I agree, unless it's charging to unlock content that's already fully in the data files (i.e. multiplayer mode in resident evil 5 as the article states.)

 

[Verevoof]

News flash: businesses don't need the consumer base defending their profit making schemes.

I'm not defending anyone, just stating a fact.

Further, businesses made money off games just fine before DLCs, so obviously DLCs aren't needed to make a profit.

There's no such thing as too much profit.

More likely, it means that publishers can much more easily tell developers to cut large amounts of content so they can rush the release in time for a quarterly report or the holiday season.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I wrote that post right after I woke up.

So... this is your argument in favor of DLC?

Not really, no. I'm merely just discussing the topic (isn't that what we're supposed to do?), just throwing out some ideas.

That wasn't DLC. Those were expansions.

Hmm... content that is downloaded that adds on to a game... sounds like an expansion to me.

Developers were free to release new skins and weapons and whatever in their expansions, and did so.

Never denied that.

Not going to happen anytime soon. There are lots of people who don't have internet access, don't have internet access of sufficient quality to download something like a game in a reasonable time frame, and people who, like me, simply prefer to go to a store and get a hard copy of a game.

Yes, I too prefer to go out and buy a physical copy of a game. I have read (forget where) that perhaps in the future all games are to be downloaded. I'm just saying that it wouldn't be surprising if that were to happen, that's all.

You mean produce profit to pay for a CEO's new town home in the LA foothills to get burned up during the wildfire season.

While that may be true, you can't honestly believe that companies don't use their profits to fund and produce new, better projects? Come on.

Unfortunately, there are too many other people with too many other dollars who are incapable of thinking about the possible consequences of what they're doing.

Uh, what? If people want to buy something, they'll buy it. Consequences? Like, more DLC? That's going to happen anyway. What consequences do you have in mind?

 

[Pablosdog]

There is plenty wrong with supporting DLC. It means that it's going to become more and more likely that shoddy, rushed content will be released to the consumer. Sure, there a business, but as a created media, it's losing much of it's integrity. Sure, profits are nice, but the direction that gaming is going as a result will suffer, and already is, suffering. "Decline" like the mighty fine folks at the codex would say.