Games, DLCs and Complete editions

[Makenshi]

Since the advent of this practice of shipping games and then providing day 1 DLC, I stopped buying games early.

I mean, I never bought games on launch, because prices always drop - and to me that means the real price is not the one on lauch, in which companies try to make most profit than what would be fair. But this is not the point.

These days, they ship games somewhat lacking content that should be in on launch, and then sell that missing content as lots of DLC's (Dragon Age, 9 DLCs...). And finally, they come for consumers like me, with a Gold/Ultimate/whatever edition that has everything (Dragon Age Ultimate Edition will have the exp and all 9 dlcs, Fallout 3 did the same).

That's the one I buy, and only after the prices drop a little. Only con is not playing while it's still fresh and being discussed on teh internetz, but since I have a job and family (aka: real life), I'm fine with that.

So, what are your thoughts and consumer practices on the subject?

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

For the most part, I try to wait for a "Game of the Year" edition that comes with said premium content, or a juicy steam sale. The only 'just released' titles I buy are either indie or coop games.

For everything else, I can just hop on one of my friends steam accounts, download the game, and play in offline mode.



Day 1 DLC is irritating, but DLC in general is usually a good thing. Having to pay $100 for the "full" game if you bought it day 1 sucks, but that's why you shouldn't buy it day 1.

 

[Mr Fish]

Pisses me off when they release the DLC a day or two after the game is released, cause that proves that they withheld the content from the actual game which is a dick move.

But other than that, I have money, doesn't bother me to purchase a game for full price and then DLC's when they are released.

Although I wish that companies would focus on a true expansion instead of giving us bite-size DLC's.

 

[Crni Vuk]

So, what are your thoughts and consumer practices on the subject?

THQ Plans to Release Games with Less Content at Cheaper Price

Stinks to me like a easy try to rip off consumers so they pay more in the end like 100$ for games which would usualy come with 50$ maybe as full price game. If you split up the content and tell the consumer "if he doesnt like he has not to buy it" so the basic game is maybe just 30$ he will think that its cheap but forget eventually that the game released as usual product might have much more content then he would get with a splited product ~ if you know what I mean.

I never was a big fan of "DLC". Why ? Not because its a bad idea the idea is awesome easy to get and easy to do compared to add-ons on CDs/DVs. But DLCs are just way to tempting for a game developer/publisher to NOT use it as cheap way of selling as few content as possible for the higest price possible (horse armor anyone ?). The number of DLCs which are overprized is much higher to those that REALLY add something to thegame you have.

THQ believes that, eventually, games could be released for free – with in-game purchases inflating the price tag.
Hah, I can see it already now reaching the midle of the game "want to progress the story ? Pay 5 dollar please!" - "Oh the last boss ? Want to to beat him `? again 1,99! buy the end for 5 if you buy both together it will only cost 6!" ... no thx.

I already HATE it the way how valve is doing it with their "Episodes" (and most still wait for episode 3 no ?) instead of simply making a comlete game.

 

[TheWesDude]

well one thing to keep in mind is that once a game has gone "gold" ( game copy ready for final release ) it is 1-2 months until it shows up on shelves.

if it is "day 1 DLC" that you have to download, then i would expect they declared it gold and kept working on stuff. i would rather they spend the time polishing and fixing bugs, but with how tolerant people have become with bugs and such ( just look at bethesda games ) developers probably are spending less time on bug fixing and polish and more on extra content to sell.

now "day 1 DLC" that is already on the release medium, that is cheap as hell because it means they held up release of the game to package that DLC on the distributed media. unless of course it is like the model where first-purchases get it free with a 1 time code in the box done to penalize renters for console games.

day 1 DLC not on release media: means they didnt spend their time fixing bugs and polish

day 1 DLC on the release media with code in box: just fine to me

day 1 DLC on the release media without code in box: fucking money grubbing assholes

 

[XenoRad]

I also stand against the current norm for DLC. I like the way things were back in the day. You had the original game and perhaps an expansion that required it. You either had one or both games. There was no fussing about with synchronizing every possible combination for multiplayer, no fussing about with which patch you needed, and also you didn't have file redundancy on the hard-drive.

Now everything is being chopped up in as many pieces as possible and it the long run all this is needless complication.

I have plenty of older games that I do reinstall from time to time. The installation process is simple. If I wanted to do that with a "typical modern game" I'd have to to juggle between various expansions, patches and DLC.


Another thing that also bothers me is that very few games have proper endings nowadays.

Seems like the "trilogy" bug has hit many developers/producers and everyone is trying to set up every game for a sequel. Nothing is more satisfactory than reaching the end of a game to find out the game doesn't really end there but simply stops suddenly. Really great feeling.
The sequel might not even pick up from that point.

Also the possibility for DLC is used frequently by fans to discourage any criticism of their favorite game:

The game's too short? - Don't worry, DLC will fix it.
The gameplay is shallow? - Don't worry they'll improve it with DLC.
The game is buggy? - Don't worory patches and DLC will fix that.
The game is overall a disappointment? - Don't worry DLC and patches will fix it, and if not a sequel is most likely coming.

I have strayed a bit by including patches and sequels but basically my point is as follows:

The constant updating of a game via patches, DLC or even sequels seems to be used more as a shield for bad day one releases rather than a genuine method of making a good game great, or great game excellent.

It's more about making a mediocre game decent - at greater expense for the consumer.