Some of you are asking, and yes, Anthony and myself are still employed. In other news, with the announcement of the MW2 DLC, Dragon Age Awakening’s release at both retail and for download, and EA’s DLC strategies so far this year, how do you feel about DLC right now? Good? Bad? Indifferent? You’ve got til 5 today to get your comments in.
Penis never dies.
I have a gripe with exclusive DLC that is tethered to store exclusivity. I’ve been trying to avoid buying much of anything at any Game Stops over the last year but found myself “forced” to purchase games from GS in order to get the exclusive, free content I wanted.
Why bother buying Heavy Rain from a mom & pop store (or ever Best Buy for that matter) when I can get a free half hour level simply by purchasing it day one at Game Stop? The only real solution to this would be buying those free DLC codes off of eBay, which is a joke.
Otherwise, I’m pretty happy with the state of DLC. Games like Burnout Paradise and Warhawk paved the way for other titles two years back and I’m glad a few titles have really put their foot down recently with the sheer amount of content available post-release.
You pretty much summed up my thoughts exactly. I would also like to add that the “DLC” that is already on the disc that is accessible via a paid for unlock key is total BS. Don’t milk gamers that way.
I concur.
I like the way Mass Effect 2 does DLC, you either buy the game new or purchase the Cerberus Network, which then gives you the DLC free (if you bought it new). I also like the rewards for buying other games from that company. It avoids the shitty Gamestop turn-in buys for ridiculous prices, and makes the game more profitable.
I think publishers are still trying to push us and see how much we will pay for DLC but I also think the quality of DLC has gone up substantially. Personally I think the best examples of DLC at a fair price are Fallout 3 Pointer Lookout and Borderlands armoury of general knoxx.
I’m okay with DLC, more or less, but it’s really changed my gaming habits. I tend to wait and see if a game gets loads of DLC first before I decide whether I’m going to buy it. The more DLC it has, the less the game needs to cost before I’ll buy it.
Also, DLC broke me of my achievement whoring. I cared a lot about getting 1000/1000 in my games, but suddenly seeing that stop being an S rank (you can tell where I spend my time) unless I forked over cash just ruined it all for me. So now I just shop smart.
That said, costumes or an hour or two’s worth of content doesn’t cut it anymore. I didn’t buy the 2nd Fable II DLC because despite loving the game, the first DLC was terrible. That said, I bought all five Fallout 3 DLCs the moment they released and would have bought more if they had put them out.
However, the DLC as preorder incentive is shady and frustrating. I understand that you want me to go to gamestop, but I’m not going to. I tend to buy games from Amazon or Best Buy after release, mostly because I don’t feel like 90% of games are justified purchases until I hear what people are saying about them.
Right now I feel indifferent. I like the idea of increasing the longevity of the game with addons and map packs but too often its milked. I’m ok with stuff that’s added on after the fact but I am disgusted when we get charged for dlc that was on the disc. Pricing is a huge thing when it comes to dlc and its a make or break. The most reason example is the insanely priced mw2 map pack. $15? Seriously? Shadow complex costs $15 and were being charged that amount for extra levels? I like the idea of addons like the gta, borderlands, and re5 addons. They extend the life of the game and gives me an incentive to go play it again. Its a fine line when it comes to dlc and I hope devlopers don’t abuse it.
I’ve learned to not purchase games on release and wait for the Game of the Year editions. For example Fallout 3 and Gears of War 2 are now cheaper than they were on launch and include all the bonus content. And I’m sure they’ll do the same with Borderlands.
Overall, I like DLC. I like getting more out of games I love. The pricing is still the wild west, with the obvious goal for them to be as high as humanly possible, but so far nothing that I’ve wanted to buy has been too much. I do find it kinda funny that people are freaking out about Modern Warfare 2′s map pack being $15. Didn’t Gears of War 2 have a pack of 3 maps for $10? I don’t recall riots about that.
On one of the message boards I frequent, some people are bitching about the how common the DLC pack-ins for new buyers is. While I can’t say I love it, I definitely understand why it’s happening. What I find hilarious is that they think it will stop eventually. The thing is, there’s no negative to it for game companies. All of the customers that actually give the publishers money will not have to pay more, so they’ll keep doing it, and eventually it will get to a point where it’s so inconvenient to not have that extra content that people who buy used will have to buy the DLC that’s free for new buyers or start buying games new.
My main gripe with DLC is when it’s already on the disc. Something about it just bothers me at a goddamn cellular level where it feels wrong paying for content when it could be argued that I already possess it. Of course, at this point, the only companies that actually do that often are Japanese companies, and I’ve yet to actually enjoy a recent game made by any Japanese companies, so it doesn’t seem to directly affect me anymore.
I’m with JJBro1 on the MW2 map pack. That it costs as much as Shadow Complex is jarring and to call it the “stimulus package” is absurd.
DLC has proven to be a mixed bag for me. On one hand, I like how developers can extend the life of games (can’t wait for Kasumi in my Mass Effect 2!) and add new content that we otherwise would never have, but there are also a slough of issues. A lot of DLC can feel shoehorned in and disconnected from the main story (see AC2 DLC). There’s also the matter of the “sweet spot” price point for DLC — the current wave of grumbling about the MW2 map pack does have some legit gripes, but a map pack is DLC that keeps on giving.
I love DLC. If I can chip in a couple bucks here and there to extend an experience I’m enjoying, why not? That I can access new chapters, stories, characters and gear in games like Mass Effect is fantastic. After 40 hours in that world, I’m invested. I want more. BioWare lets me go back without having to start over.
New Trials HD tracks? More songs to play in Rock Band? New maps to play multiplayer on? Right on. When it comes to EA charging for in-game money or unlockable cheat codes, though, that’s when we enter “fuck that shit” territory. As long as the content is substantial, count me in.
Dragon Age Awakening is an interesting case. Like Shivering Isles before it, the games hit retail shelves and Xbox Live. There’s some mixed messaging there. It’s big enough to be on a disc, but it’s not quite a sequel so we’ll make it a downloadable expansion. We tend to look at DLC as bite-sized bits of content that cost a few bucks here and a few bucks there. It’ll be cool to see how Xbox Live and PlayStation Network act as a distribution outlet in the future as a result of something like DAO: Awakening.
So I can either get 5 Maps for Modern Warfare 2, two of which I’ve played already. OR I can get Shadow Complex, hmm yeah, DLC can kinda really suck.
I sometimes feel glad when I find out that the DLC for a game I bought isn’t necessary or doesn’t appeal to me, so I don’t feel the need to buy it and spend more money on the same game when I can use that money to buy another.
I’m fine with DLC for games like Dragon Age or Mass Effect and I despise what Assassin’s Creed II’s method. In other words, it’s cool when I can buy a game and know that I’m getting the full experience and I have the option of getting more supplementary experiences if I choose to but I hate it when they leave a story unfinished or take out chunks in the middle like AC2 and charge for it as DLC.
Oh, and long live Penis!
Lately I’ve been noticing that whenever I buy a new game, I seem to spend the first 30 minutes with it typing in codes, signing up for accounts I’ll never log into again and generally being annoyed by the hoops I have to jump through. Mass Effect 2 and Bad Company 2 are major examples of this. If I just dropped $60, I wanna play the damn game. Stop subjecting me to more marketing bullshit just to redeem what I already paid for.
As of now, I feel pretty good about DLC. With more and more companies (whether large like Capcom or small like Gaijin Games) bite-sized content, I can far more easily find time to play some of the best games out there.
As far as supplementary downloadable content, it seems like the most favorable strategies thus far are the ones employed by Bethesda and Bioware – namely, sizable pieces of content at very acceptable prices with respect to the content/price ratio of the original game. Paying $10 for 3-4 more hours of a game that costs $60 for 50-60 hours of legit gameplay is a fair value proposition for those of us who just want more.
The only caveat of this whole thing is the rising price of DLC, specifically the push to $15 for many XBLA/PSN games or even the $15 price point on Modern Warfare 2′s upcoming map pack. Sure, if you keep COD4′s previous price structure in mind (3 maps/$10), it seems a little more reasonable, but there’s something troubling about DLC pricing becoming a greater and greater percent of the price of a full $60 game.
When DLC is done right, it’s a great way to give a game longer legs. Fallout 3 and Rock Band are both great examples of this. The expansions in Fallout are fairly priced in my opinion, and they add a lot to an already deep and massive world.
There’s been plenty of cases of bad DLC (Oblivion’s horse armor says hi), but I think that developers are generally getting smarter about what makes for worthwhile extra content, as gamers are quick to learn what’s worth their hard-earned money.
See also (for great DLC): Burnout Paradise! That has to be one of EA’s best work at exapnding a game this generation.
Oh, shit. How did I forget Fallout 3?
Oh, right, because I waited for the GotY edition.
That definitely seemed fairly priced to me. Hooray for patience. I’m not sure how I would’ve felt about Anchorage had I paid for it separately, but the loot it provided was definitely great so I probably would’ve been fine with that, too.
I think it’s telling that those came from the same people that gave us Horse Armor. It’s pretty clear, now, that that was just an experiment to test what people were willing to pay for, and that concluded: “Not this shit.”
People seem to be TOTALLY willing to pay for “horse armor” on their avatars, though, which echoes a sentiment I heard repeated often when the horse armor DLC was released, “no one is even going to see it”. People seem to be fine paying for completely aesthetic nonsense as long as they can show it off. I’m surprised more companies don’t release avatar gear.
Hell, gimme a drum kit from Rock Band and I’d probably buy that.
DLC hasn’t been the same since Lisa “Left Eye” Lopez died in that car accident in Honduras. Sure, R U A Girl was a fun album, but it failed to capture that certain “je nous se qua” of their early 90′s CrazySexyCool/felt hats and baggy pants era of work.
Word! No one’s worn condom eye-patches since . . .
Overall, I think I feel about “DLC” the way I feel about “Games”. There’s some shitty stuff out there, and there’s some great stuff.
I buy a *shitload* of songs on Rock Band. So, obviously, I like DLC, in general, as long as it’s worth it.
Trials Big Pack: totally worth it.
Skate 2 expansions: not too expensive, adds new places to mess around. I like ‘em.
If you try to make me pay for something that’s already on the disc, I will tell you to eff off, unless it’s something like the superfluous costume options in Street Fighter or Virtua Fighter, which I will simply ignore.
The exception to that would be if it’s “on disc DLC that’s free with new copies of the game”. That seems quite justifiable to me from a publisher perspective. Entices people to buy the game new, but doesn’t completely exclude them from those features for buying new. (And indirectly exerts downward price pressure on used games, making for cheaper games for those who really don’t care.)
Mass Effect 2 had done well so far. We’ll see about the future DLC releases and what they end up costing, but the free crap you get with Cerberus Network is nice.
I agree that Fallout 3 and Borderlands have done it mostly right(except for Mad Moxxi.) I like the extra content as long as it doesn’t feel like I’m being ripped off. It’s still a bit nebulous how expensive things should be, however. Fifteen dollar MW2 map packs and 4 dollar chunks of Assassins Creed 2 tedium don’t feel right to me but it’s hard to determine exactly why. Things seem to be getting better overall though, I never thought I’d be playing so much enjoyable DLC a few years ago. The retailer exclusive stuff is just annoying though.
I really have no problem with DLC except for when DLC becomes mandatory in order to play the game, for example COD: World at War. If you didn’t have certain map packs you would simply be kicked from lobbies where the DLC was being played. DLC should always be optional.
I’m sure this question was asked due to the internet bitchfest that’s arisen from the 15$ MW2 nontroversy. The only people I feel should have a legitimate beef with this is PC players. PC players shouldn’t ever have to pay for maps that could easily be adapted from the original game with proper map editing tools. You know if IW gave a fuck about PC players and released those.
Console players really just need to chill out. Really, you have no problem paying 10$ for 3 Halo maps, but apparently 15$ for 5 maps caused this interweb ragefest. It’s 5$. Think about how much 5$ is. Go look under the cushions of your couch or return some cans for the deposit.
I feel purchased dlc has come a long way since Horse Armor. Game likes Borderlands, Fallout, and Grand Theft Auto have laid a good road for many developers to follow. Although not all DLC is sold equally. Some bullshit examples are when DLC is put on the disc. I feel ripped off when publishers develop content, and stick things on the disc to make a little bit more after launch of the title especially on big AAA title games(I’m looking at you RE5 and Bioshock 2). Thankfully most developers don’t do this and has only happened on rare occasions.
I also think that in some cases DLC is a way for developers/publishers/retailers to experiment with different models and try new things(ex: EA selling cheats to most of their games, Gamestop offering free content). I think free DLC on intial purchase games is a great way to combat piracy, and incentive to buy the game new(as opposed to the bullshit way some other publishers do it *UBISOFT*). Giving an incentive of more content for free, to purchase the game is probably one of the better way to incentivise people to purchase the game and not pirate it.
Lastly I feel that long support of free DLC ala burnout paradise is probably not going to happen any more, or will happen in much shorter amounts. I think 09 specifically with the shit economy, made every company tighten their belts and focus on staying afloat.
As someone who will usually only buy games second hand or when they become cheap, I’ve never liked the fact that DLC does not go down in price over time.
I’m happy with DLC right now. Very happy.
The only thing I’m unhappy with is pricing and the obtainment of funds. The biggest problem I see is the disparity between US and UK pricing. No matter where you are in the world, the denominations cost the same decimal price.
1000 points in the UK is £8.50
1000 points in the US is $8.50
£8.50 = $13
Common sense says that Microsoft will have servers in every region in order to server content as fast as possible. So why the disparity in prices? It can’t be charges for long-range data transfer. So what is it?
I honestly don’t see why I should pay MORE for the same content. Why is the Fallout 3 content worth more of my money than it would be if I was in the US?
The final thing is: I understand why you make me buy 1000 MS points, but could I please have the option to buy just the right amount of points, Microsoft? I’d even be happy to pay, say, 10% more for the 800 points than it would be worth as 800 of 1000 points!
Um, 1000 MS points in USD is $12.50, not $8. The difference between 12.50 and 13 is negligible
Even if the original point were correct ($8.50 for 1000 points, it’s 5/400 for $/points) that wouldn’t matter anyway, since exchange rates aren’t the same as Purchasing Power Parity, another way to look at the cost of goods in various regions. This would make the comparison something more like “average hourly wage” vs. “cost of some good”. The “big mac index” is one folk-version of this. Big Macs in the UK and the US are fairly comparable goods, with prices in the range of 3£ to $4. (Which doesn’t differ largely from your exchange rate. In an ideal world -haha- exchange rate would be PPP.)
The raw exchange rate between currencies doesn’t take into account the cost of varying goods of different types, or rather, it does, but in aggregate and the prices of any random good being “too high” in one area are just statistical noise in the long run.
At any rate, the points system MS uses allows for some vastly simplified accounting that in turn allows for many benefits to consumers. Specifically, points don’t have to be accounted for when used, only when purchased, so there are fewer transactions to keep track of, which reduces cost. As “points” become a good on their own, and not simply a reference for currency, it is possible to offer points at varying prices within the same market, to put things on sale. So I can wait for Amazon to have 4000 points on sale for 45$, or $40, instead of paying $50. You can’t do this with a literal currency. It also vastly simplifies the market interface, no regional variations need be made for pricing in the UI, no accounting for currency display issues or exchange rates that vary during a given week, etc. As much as you may want the price to be fixed at the exchange rate to US dollars now, you’d probably change your tune if the dollar strengthened and that forced your prices to be higher. With a separated market you can have a fixed price which keeps the purchase predictable.
–
What *is* bullshit, however, is the weird 5/4 price ratio they developed when they set up the original market. So that things cost 160 instead of 200. This is pure psychological chicanery, intended to confuse customers into thinking the price of goods is lower than it actually is, due to our inculcated perception of prices referring to dollar values. It’s obviously less of an issue in other markets if those point values are higher than the nominal cost, but MS is arguably focused primarily on the north american market, specifically the US.
This is also why you can’t buy “just the right amount” of points. They want you to have surplus points so that you keep returning to the market.
DLC is great. It’s optional. It potentially expands the life of your product.
If you complain that DLC isn’t worth it: excellent. You know what to do. (Especially for stuff like Horse Armor, which is EVEN MORE OPTIONAL vs. “substantial” content)
If you complain that DLC is already on the disc: you’re missing the point, and likely adopting a double-standard about the value of software products.
Side note: I don’t think we’ve seen GameStop or other used retailers fully address Project Ten Dollar. Is that telling? I wonder if/when we’ll get hard data on the impact of that initiative.
DLC is only as good as the developer. For instance, the Fallout 3 DLC took a while to hit its stride, and was buggy as Hell – but it made the game probably my favourite next-gen title so far. I also like the Project Ten Dollar stuff, as it’s a very clever way to encourage new sales and recoup some money from second hand as well. And, of course, Left 4 Dead’s model of releasing as much for free before charging for larger chunks paid off well.
But then, we have the bad; Resident Evil 5′s seemingly on-disc Versus MP, for instance, or the recent release of the Sinclair Solutions pack for Bioshock 2. And, further back, EA’s rather shameful “pay for cheats” Need For Speed DLC. Heck, even Halo 3′s multiple map packs stretched it too far for many, with the MP disc bundled with ODST being scant consolation.
It comes down to value: how much it adds or enhances. It’s certainly more likely these days you’ll get an addon like Fallout’s Point Lookout than Oblivion’s Horse Armour, and we can only be grateful of that.
I like the concept of DLC as something that will pull me back to a game I really enjoyed. It’s a great way to get people to keep a game they would normally trade in. Burnout did a great job, and it seems like Mass Effect 2 will do it pretty well, but some companies still don’t know how to get it right. Activision is screwing up with Modern warfare 2 because their game is such a glitchy mess. I traded my copy in a while back and would maybe pick it up again if they fixed it or put in good DLC, but fifteen bucks is getting ridiculous for what amounts to only 3 new maps. The problem is they know people into the game will pay it no matter what. If anything I’m waiting on the new MOH or may pick up battlefield.
I think some companies use it as a way to wring money out of their fanbase, prime example being the MW2 Stimulus pack being $15. 2 retrofitted maps and 3 new ones is a $5 or $8 addition at best. The only reason it’s $15 is because they are Activision.
Other companies seem to be using it to fight their losses in the second-hand market, like Mass Effect’s Cerberus Network. As long as they are reasonable about it (I believe BioWare has taken one of the best approaches yet), I’m fine with that.
However, I don’t like when retail copies of a game specifically leave gaps in game play only to fill them in with DLC later. Tomb Raider: Underworld is all I need to say about that.
As a whole, as long as my retail disk is a full game (or is priced accordingly to reflect its completion) and DLC is used as reasonable expansions with reasonable price tags, I’m totally fine with it. I just wish it wouldn’t fuck up my Gamerscore completion percentage.
I’m right with you on the gamerscore completion… It’s right up there (or down there) with online-only achievements.
I think that DLC currently serves as an easy avenue for developers to finish their games. Many of todays games would be considered incomplete a few years ago. I have no problem with DLC for a fully realized game but most games today seem to be falling a bit short.
Games that have done DLC right:
WipEout HD Fury add-on: This pack was only $10 bucks and doubled almost everything the first game had.
Warhawk: Each expansion change the game completely and the pack were spread out perfectly, about 1 $7.50 pack every 4 months. I bought all 3 packs because each brought something new to the table.
Borderlands: Kept me playing for the than I thought I wold be playing it.
Fallout 3: I didn’t like Fallout 3 but adding a substantial amount of content once a month is alright in my books.
Burnout Paradise: So much free stuff.
Team Fortress 2: 100 something free updates and counting.
Games that have screwed it up:
MW2: $15 for 3 maps…nuff said.
Oblivion: The Horse armor that set the precedent for idiots to follow
Any Need for Speed game: Anytime the would update the store, there would be about 50 new cars available…for about 2.99 a pop.
With regards to the recent news of the MW2 DLC, I’m fine with it, if idiots want to pay excessive amounts for old maps, let them do it.
I’m alright with the state of DLC right now, it’s improved lightyears beyond horse armor on consoles, but I’m watching PROJECT $10 very closely. My curiosity is to whether or not the average consumer has been using the codes that have been coming with the new retail copies of the games (ME2, BFBC2), or making purchasing decisions based on that. Square even jumped on the exclusive beta boat with FFXIV codes in FFXIII on PS3; does that matter? My feeling is that Average Joe doesn’t care. Making the choice to buy new or using the codes when they get it doesn’t matter to that guy.
Otherwise I know that I vote with my wallet, and if I don’t think that something is worth my time I don’t buy it. Can’t think of a better way to influence DLC.
Generally speaking, my experience playing DLC has been a positive one. In terms of the role of DLC in the gaming industry, however, I can’t help but be somewhat bothered by the prevalence of DLC exclusivity (both store and console-based) as well as the conventional wisdom that every game stands to benefit from DLC (Is “DLC” the new “multiplayer mode”?).
I’m tired of store exclusive dlc.. I don’t want to have to set up a frakking spreadsheet of options every time I’m thinking about preordering a new game.
Also sick of timed platform exclusive dlc.. if developer A decides to not release their game on platform B at all, then fair enough.. but if I buy a multiplatform game, I want the same options as everyone else, waiting half a year for dlc is not cool.
Sure, platform manufacturer C that pays for that timed exclusive probably think it’s a great idea.. but I wonder if they realise the ammount of badwill they’re generating.. when it’s time to decide and buy the next generation of consoles, I’ll remember which company robbed me of gaming experiences the last time.
I think dlc is great, but it almost makes me want to just wait for the game of the year edition that includes it all. Almost.
I just feel recently that DLC between the two largest publishers has become a stick and carrot. With EA using DLC to keep people from buying used copies of their games, but without a blockbuster online multiplayer game, the point seems a little bit moot. The whole store exclusive DLC has not really even bugged me, since most of the time the DLC seems to be relatively minor, such as the armor in Mass Effect 2. It’s not as if they are withholding entire levels or story critical elements.
With activision having Modern Warfare 2, which we all know has a huge multiplayer community, it seems like they are banking on the hardcore players purchasing their overpriced map pack. I’m not even a hardcore player and I have been tempted to pick up the new maps when they are released as well, even though I know that it is practically highway robbery. That decision has to be balanced with how much money I have left in my budget to buy points, and how many of my friends actually buy that map pack. Being the only person unable to play a map sucks pretty hard, especially when everybody wants to play the new maps. Such a case happened with the Halo 3 DLC as well, where there was peer pressure into buying these maps.
Overall I think that DLC has to be a balance between content and price, which is what many game critics do not consider. Myself being a unemployed student in San Diego, money is tight, and I love to play games. However, I do have a monthly budget and my savings are running pretty low, so I don’t have the money to go out and buy a lot of games or DLC that I would have while I was gainfully employed. So for me it becomes a balancing act between how often I am willing to get ditched online by my friends, or how much gas I put into my truck.
The fact that Infinity Ward is calling their DLC a “Stimulus Package” is a slap in the face, especially at the price point that they are pushing. At that cost, I’d almost rather just buy the arcade version of Perfect Dark and wait until the inevitable price drop, or until I get another job in this fantastic California economy.
I’m torn on the subject. On one hand, I have played awesome DLC like the Fallout 3, and Oblivion “expansions”. Things like new weapons, armor, and map packs are great and the fact that I get new sample cars for Forza 3 like every month is fantastic. I appreciate continued support for games, and it’s nice that if a developer runs out of time and has to ship without content, they have a little bit of a buffer to release that content.
On the other hand, I have played less than stellar DLC that has left me feeling empty and cheated. On the whole, I guess we’re not going to get a really fleshed out experience akin to the original game (especially on something like Fallout3) but things like other modes that are just tacked on (RE5 multiplayer says hi)and things that were cut from the game for reasons we clearly see when we finally get to play them just look like a money-squeezing technique. I understand that a lot of work went into that level or mode, but if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work.
I guess it’s like anything else. You’re going to have quality stuff and you’re going to have shit. I guess it depends on if you are super into a series enough to pay for and download new content sight-unseen. Or is that too level-headed of an opinion for the internet?
Having said all that, I was totally having a nerdgasm when I downloaded the new RE5 scenario.
I love the DLC but developers need to slow down. Let the dust settle a bit before flooding gamers with extra content. It’s hard enough finding the time to play all the great games that have been released in the last few months, without even considering the time (and money) for DLC.
For example, I think the Resident Evil 5 DLC, as mediocre is it is, was timed just right, if not strangely late to the table. The dust had settled, I’d shelved RE5 for a few months, and along came two entertaining DLC packs, two weeks apart (and priced just right at $5 a pop) that inspired me and a buddy to dust off our copies of RE5 and frag some zombies cooperatively for an evening. We weren’t super impressed with them but we both felt the money spent was worth the experience.
Borderlands seems to be doing DLC right as well, though i’m going purely off word of mouth as I’m still trying to beat the core game.
To summarize, don’t overwhelm gamers with too-soon DLC. Let the dust settle, keep DLC to 2-3 “episodes” (we don’t want to play your game forever), and price it between five to ten bucks depending on how much content is being offered.
And no, Activision, $15 for three new MW2 maps and two rehashes is not a good value.
DLC means too many different things. Free DLC amounts to a title update. Map packs split the player base. Single player content measured in hours or missions is often misleading. New achievements, or the lack there of, are hit or miss.
It’s too hard to put a value on these chunks of content at a glance in the marketplace and unlike many retail releases, you can’t demo it first.
For these reasons DLC has become a nebulous buzzword for me and I approach each DLC purchase on a case by case basis.
Free: of course! (this should happen more often because it keeps a game in the mindshare which can only be a good thing — Burnout is good proof of this.)
Extra costumes: no.
Extended plot/quest: maybe, more likely if it adds a meaningful character, meaty gameplay mechanic, or decent achievements
Standalone: perhaps if the spin-off content is equal to (or better than) the initial release i.e. Lost & The Damned
Map pack: price check — they depreciate more quickly than most, but peer pressure (what Infinity Ward is counting on re:$15) is a huge factor
Game of the Year Edition: almost certainly, if I’ve managed to avoid it all the first time around
That said DLC announcements usually always catch my interest but they won’t always get my dollar.
Despite the impulse nature of DLC developers still need to win me each and every time.
The vast majority of DLC is a not-so-cheap cash-in intended to squeeze cash out of the stupid and the obsessed. Outside of the Fallout 3 DLC (specifically Point Lookout), GTAIV DLC and Borderlands DLC, most of it seems like a waste of money.
By far the most reprehensible practice is holding back content and selling unlock codes. Put simply, if it’s already on the disc then I’ve already paid for it. Anything available within six to eight weeks also feels suspiciously like material held back from the retail version of a game.
DLC was something I loved until I realized how bad it would be whored. When you look at the value proposition of what you receive in DLC versus what you paid for the original game and all its content, it’s such a rip off.
You pay usually around 20% of the original cost of the game, for about 5% new content if even that. Very few (see Bethesda and Rockstar) get it right.
DLC was always touted as a way for publishers to fight against the used game market. It is, the only problem with most DLC is that it’s too obvious.
Here’s my timeline for DLC. First it sucked because nobody knew what to do with it, then it got better, now everyone uses it and it’s starting to revert to sucking again.
I think the best example of DLC is still the GTA IV episodes. Those episodes weren’t just an addition to GTA IV but whole new experiences. Unfortunately most DLC is additions, not new stuff.
I like it when game devs can expand upon great games (GTA IV) but what I hate are shameless “please don’t trade in our game” kinder surprise sized content updates.
DLC has gotten much better as years go by, Bethesda went from being ridiculed for horse armor to giving out monthly DLC that are on scale with expansion packs. Though aside from Bethesda and Criterion most other DLC seems to come a month or two after the game releases and then understandably the devs move on to future projects.
However many times I find myself buying mediocre DLC for a game I really like to either support the devs or just give me a reason to play that game again. I spent a dollar on costumes for Way of the samurai 3 hoping to support a game nobody’s herd of, but the first Mass Effect DLC (Bring Down the Sky) was really good for five dollars it was like a whole new story mission which is exactly what I wanted from DLC of that game I ignored the other DLC for that game though.
DLC feels a little finite in the ways it is employed at the moment which is understandable. Consumers have a way of enjoy more of a game they really like, and publishers and devs have another way of making a profit.
In the past I’ve bought map packs, skins, and other things for games that I know I will be spend a lot of time with and these small DLC are like tiny treats that keeps the excitement going for a little longer. Lately however, interesting Achievments/Trophies/unlockables scratch that itch for me just fine without spending money. I’m feeling like there could be more creative things that could be done with DLC.
GTA 4′s DLC is a great example of something that gives me hope for the potential of DLC. “Ballad of Gay Tony” and “The Lost and The Damned” extends the world of GTA 4 with new characters (skins), areas (map packs), and new stories focused together to create different feels to the same GTA 4 world. The work needed to create this type of DLC is close to that of episodic gaming which might not be what your trying to discuss on the podcast.
It would also be fun to have DLC that sort work like some of the mods that are in the PC world. Mods like first CounterStrike/Team Fortress 2 and Company of Heros Eastern Front. Anything that flips things around in the game that don’t necessarily need to follow the story or the lore
All I’m trying to say is I want DLC to be more creative!
…might not be what *you’re trying to discuss.
On that note, please my comment as you see fit.
Free = Good
Large and cost money = Good
Comes too quick after main event = bad
The above applies to DLC and also hookers
Aaron
Manchester
UK
I think DLC has been a huge missed opportunity and just another way for the customer to be screwed. Retailer and pre-order specific DLC is one of the most horrendous trends to pop out of the past few years, as well as on disk DLC. The few games to get it right are GTA (even though Im still not a huge fan of the mechanics), Borderlands, and especially TF2. The free and quality stuff Valve has provided for a game almost three years old makes other companies’ efforts an embarrasment.
There have been some strides made, but respect for the end-user is largely ignored. A lot can still be done to make DLC a viable, hopefully it doesn’t take another console cycle for publishers to figure it out.
I would pay $200 for a DLC pack that added exposed penii(penises?) to all my characters on Mass Effect 2 or Heavy Rain.
I don’t like what the idea of DLC has become, which is to design and develop DLC prior to a game releasing. The idea that companies build a couple dozen maps for a multiplayer game, and then withhold half of them to be sold separately later on as DLC kind of makes me sick. The idea that a game is being sold full price with 70% of its developed content isn’t the ideal situation for me as a gamer.
I personally don’t think there’s a better example of amount/quality of content, versus price than GTAIV Episodes from Liberty City. To me, the content I’ve read that DA: The Awakening contains is equal to one of the episodes from GTAIV, so obviously I feel the DA DLC at $40 is overpriced, but I’m not dismissing it as something I’ll never pick up, as it does seem very worthwhile.
MW2′s map pack DLC on the other hand, the definition of being taken advantage of. $15 for 3 new maps, 2 old ones does not equal a good deal. Why not just get a Greatest Hits title at $20? Why not try deals on Amazon? I can think of a dozen better ways to spend $15 as related to games.
ps: am a huge fan, love the show
In general, I like the DLC scene right now, but I do think BioWare is sometimes using DLC to take advantage of the good will built by their full games. I like their approach conceptually: there is no “one-size-fits-all” DLC. Fallout 3 and Borderlands taught us that DLC needed to be extensive and needed to cost $10. That was all well and good, and those DLCs were certainly packed for that price. BioWare comes in with some cheaper, smaller DLC and some larger more expensive. However, BioWare’s DLC doesn’t seem to capture the content-to-price ratio which makes Gearbox’s and Bethesda’s DLC seem like such a steal.
Glad to hear you gents are still employed!
I like how DLC is being handled by most companies. I think the prices are usually fair although there are sometimes standouts: *cough* MW2 $15 *cough*
One thing that really bugs me though is when it comes to achievements. Sometimes developers seem to like to put hardass achievements into DLC just to make gamers angry; or play their game even more. As someone who likes to get all the achievements out of a game for completion sakes, it drives me insane. Things like the Ballad of Gay Tony where I have to perfect each mission.
Other times though I feel likes developers take too many steps to try and make the game different for difference sake. Borderland’s Mad Moxxi Underdome Riot is the perfect example where the game because tedious and boring; as it tried to be something it’s not. And again, annoying achievements.
I have with episodic DLC which continues to support the game and increases the playbility and enjoyment of the title. Fallout 3 and Burnout Paradise are prime example. I don’t even have a problem with exclusive DLC tethered to buying from certain outlets, because I haven’t seen one yet that gives somethings to the game that buying from another retailer wouldn’t. It seems to be mostly skins or a weapon.
Publishers need to sell their games, especially in a competitive retail market during and economic downturn. It is cost beneficial for the publisher to require the developers add a little extra to a version of a game sold at a retailer who can deliver consistent sales. i.e. Gamestop. People may hate on them, but they move product for the publisher. And everyone in the end seems to be win/win for the most part.
Even DLC that is time exclusive, like the content for Grand Theft Auto isn’t that big of a deal to me. Because I’m an adult with patience.
Activision’s $15 map pack? That’s some bullshit. That is riding the success of a franchise/title too far. One could say that it is Activision reaping the rewards cultivating a franchise which engenderd loyalty and “gotta have it on day one” hype. But it’s also like a drug dealer making a junkie do the Truffle Shuffle before letting him buy the drugs you hooked him on, in lower quality at an inflated price.
Yes, even amongst horrible people like drug dealers, Activision’s behavior would rank them amongst the lowest commen denomiator of that population.
To all the MW2 people who are freaking out…MP still works without the EXTRA maps, don’t like the price either wait for a deal of the week, get your MS points on sale, or DONT BUY THEM and stop the nonstop tearing up.
Its bloody stupid! I am sorry but most of it is. I am starting to feel like the developers are using DLC (and also the ability to patch too) to ship broken and incomplete games. I don’t mind if they haven’t done the game and delay the launch, but when they make you pay for content that was going to be in the game but because of deadlines they cant, I think it is deplorable. On the other hand, I believe that if this is the case they should give the DLC away for free as you have all ready bought the game.
I also don’t like the way they use DLC to punish the people who have bought the game second hand. Surely this will then only encourage the pirating (like the high prices of DLC in general) of the DLC and ultimately then the game its self.
Living in Brazil, I can surely say DLC is a good thing, due to how rare local releases are at all – when they do happen, they’re often overpriced. On the other hand, DLC does have its drawbacks here, especially on Xbox 360, due to the fact that we don’t actually have Live here. We are forced to use foreign addresses to make accounts, but regardless of that location, when our IP is scanned, Microsoft knows that the connection comes from Brazil. In our case, their ratings for downloads for our country is equated to Germany, thus, games prohibited there are blocked to us, like Doom, Duke Nukem 3D or Wolfenstein.
In the end, I really appreciate DLC. Those blocked cases are rarely an issue for most releases, and as a reviews freelancer, it’s the only way I can get new games. I won’t get into the DLC in the disc fiasco, I decided to show the “not in the U.S” perspective, as I’m sure most of the other people writing to you will touch on that.
Thanks in advance for reading this on air, if it happens!
Eduardo Reboucas
When it is done right I love DLC, when it is done wrong I couldn’t care less, and when it is done really wrong it just pisses me off.
Loved the Fallout 3, Borderlands, and most of the Oblivion DLC. If Bethesda was still making DLC for Fallout 3 I would still be buying it.
I really don’t care about lame DLC like new costumes or horse armor that don’t actually add anything to the experience of the game. Maybe some people get off on that stuff but I don’t. Even stuff like the new guns and armor released via the Cerberus Network for Mass Effect 2 are pretty lame, but at least they are free.
I really hate bullshit like what 2K pulled with Bioshock 2 though. If DLC is just an unlock code for something on the disc then it should be in the game on day one without any extra cost associated with it. Unlike other DLC the cost of producing the content in Bioshock 2 was covered during the initial development period otherwise it wouldn’t be on the disc. This type of shit is just sleazy and underhanded IMHO.
I greatly like the idea of DLC and so far I think the industry has done a good job with it. I think most DLCs have been fairly priced, there will always be people who think they have the right for DLC to be given tho them for no charge but I think they are bat shit crazy. I would gladly pay ten dollars to add on to a game that I enjoyed. And the way EA has given out free DLC for people who buy it new is a great idea imo. I’ve gotten some great stuff in Mass Effect all for free.
The only thing that pisses me off is when the DLC is on the disc. Not when they take it out and sell it back to you later like Assassin’s Creed 2. I was actually fine with that for both DLC you payed the price for one in the average market and I got a good couple hours out of it. But when you pay 10 dollars for a key is when It think they are taking the idea for granted.
Please talk about the level cap in Mass Effect 2, as it relates to the EA DLC strategy. It seems that the level was arbitrarily capped at 30, only so it could later be raised as part of a DLC package. As someone who took the same character through that game more than once, less than halfway through my second playthrough, I felt like BioWare gave me a big kick in the balls. Past that point, all of the enjoyment that comes from leveling up is obviously gone. The implication is that, if I want to keep playing the way I did in ME1, I have to pay more.
It’s crack son. You’re addicted to that game and they know this. If it means more money to a developer for a game that I enjoyed then I’ll pony up. The MW2 DLC is in line with most map pack prices these days. Would you rather they give you 3 maps for $10 in 2 releases with one map being an old MW1 map? Keep crying about it and then go spend $5 on a coffee.
Pretty much everything EA is doing with free downloads if you buy the game new is great. Hopefully EA will actually support this and provide more stuff for free. Everything else is pretty shitty though, such as Bioshock 2′s on-disk DLC. And paying $15 for maps for MW2 is crazy Activision bullshit.
One type of DLC I feel is still being overlooked is the content that comes with new games on the day of release. I work for an electronics & media retailer that sells only preowned goods and have, at times, had to deal with some of the guilt that comes with the knowledge that second hand sales can harm developers and publishers. I love the fact that release day DLC that requires a code (like ME2′s Cerberus membership) can encourage consumers to buy new titles but are not essential. This may stop certain people from buying preowned games (meaning more money to the people who made it) but also ensures that those on a budget who may not care about extra material can still enjoy their games without missing out on too much.
I think so far this year has been a great one for well done and well priced DLC. Assassins Creed 2 and Resident Evil 5 being great examples. The DLC for those games was substantial and gave me a great excuse to jump back into those games when I otherwise may not have bothered.
That is one of the main reasons I like DLC, especially when it’s priced reasonably. Not caring much about achievements, once I was done with AC2s story I just stopped playing it. But when the DLC came out I had a reason to get back into that world and play around in it some more, something I was more than happy to pay for. The same goes for Resident Evil 5, a game I played a ton of last year, unlocking weapons and the like. Getting to play some completely fresh content in that game with my co-op buddy was a joy.
It’s not just cheap DLC I enjoy, I spent alot of money on Burnout Paradise although that could perhaps be attributed to my wanting to support Criterion was themselves supporting the game with a years worth of free DLC.
I think we are still in the middle of the learning process with DLC, publishers know it can be a great way to keep a game going but they’ve yet to find a sweet spot in terms of pricing and size/scope of the content. The stuff I’ve mentioned is definitely what I’ve reacted to the most positively.
I think what EA are experimenting with (having some extra content that doesn’t change the main game but is a bonus to have) is what I would like to see more companies do in the future, and also what Socom for the PSP is trying (having to pay for the multiplayer if it is a used copy or pirated one).
DLC is great for some games like Burnout which keeps you coming back to the game even years after it has been released. I am worried about the way alot of companies are releasing DLC so soon after their game is released, it seems like the games are finished and out of the picture when work beings on the DLC before even the game is released.
DLC is going to be where they will receive the majority of their money avoiding retail costs, which will give power back to game companies, which will affect how long their game will be available to the public and not have to worry about day one sales. I hope that some games won’t have blow us away in the first few hours but will unfold and keep us engaged like a good movie, book or ‘Heavy Rain’.
-DLC that equates to paying money for things that you usually unlock or receive as part of game progression is not cool
-Sorry DA:O, but $40 for DLC is a little steep
-”DLC” that is just a code to unlock something already on the disk -way way uncool
-I really like the way ME2 and Bad Company 2 are using codes that come with a new game to provide freebies to those of us that bought the game – while other people will have to pay. Makes spending $60 on a new game a little more palpable.
That’s a little unfair on DO:Awakening isn’t it? Yeah, true you can download it so it’s certainly in with DLC but they’re definitely marketing it as a proper expansion pack aren’t they? According to the Eurogamer review the playtime was 25 hours, which I’ve paid £15 for, so ~$23 dollars. Compare that to MW2′s map pack at $15 (which, OK, bad exmaple because everyone is bitching about the price of that but still!) Basically, please buy Awakening so they make more?
for me? 
The problem is that I will buy it!
I’m just wishing since I paid $60 for the original game that I got a discount, or some snazzy armor or something.
Why? PC RPG’s a few years ago used the same business model for their expansions. They just weren’t downloadable. I didn’t get anything special for buying Hordes of the Underdark (or any of the other expansions) just because I bought Neverwinter Nights at full price when it came out.
I’m down with DLC, they don’t owe me
With companies that I trust (like Bethesda), I will buy DLC with confidence that what I am receiving is worth the money (in fun). These companies don’t have to give us this content though. They could just force us to buy a sequel or wait for a bonus disk that would cost more due to the production costs of making a DVD (or BluRay). The one thing I wish companies would do is to not go only halfway in their content. Its as though some companies think “well we have to have DLC, lets throw a skin pack together and charge $5 for it.” I want big meaty (Fat penisy) content, not a pack that makes my weapons or character look different (here’s looking at you Bioshock 2 >>Honorable Mention: Deadspace<<).
@eatallgames
If I’m a fan of the game and/or its publisher why wouldn’t I put in a few more bucks to get more life out of the game. However I’d like to see a more uniform pricing system, maybe seperate DLC into categories of some sort. If a publisher wants to keep me coming back to new titles they should have a good track record for patches and DLC both with price and how frequent the updates come.
with that said I won’t be buying the MW:2 map pack, with the game being such a huge success it would have been nice to see some fan appreciation. Although I think I remember paying that much for Halo DLC, but Bungie seems to justify it by giving us surprise beta key’s and multiplayer discs.
I’m fine with DLC as long as it has some effort put into it and it isn’t just a cash grab. Example: The recent Assassin’s Creed II DLC was full of technical glitches (mostly sound related) that affected my enjoyment of the content. It was fairly cheap, but that’s not an excuse.
Other people may feel differently, but that DLC felt very lack-luster, considering it was cut from the original title.
I think the rise of DLC this generation has overall been a good thing. While it may give developers an excuse to leave content out of their launch product. But the way that games like Rock Band continue to support the platform easily makes up for it.
I welcome it as long as its done right. I’ll pay $5-$10 for some significant single player add ons. If its hitting the $20 mark I’d rather buy a disc, I have no good reason why this is.
I would really prefer more single player DLC or something other than just Map packs for multiplayer. As an Example. Battlefield 2 Special Forces on PC. While an Expansion pack, it added so many unique things with the extra gear like Grapple Hooks and Zip Lines. Crackdown had some interesting DLC as well.
Most MP add ons are extremely late. MW2, while I still play from time to time, took to long to deliver more maps. I know these things take some time but I’m one of heard that moves from game to game fairly often.
Bioshock 2 is plain bullshit, just as the VF4 and SF4 costume packs were. If its on the disc then it was done and tested before release. I understand how that stuff could have a seperate budget from the game proper, using a very thin excuse for it just infuriates people.
Since I grew up with Quakeworld Mods, Valve being so generous with their games, and Blizzard’s ongoing patching of their 5+ year old games, the idea for paying for game support just doesn’t mesh with me. And now that I keep on reading about publishers holding content back for DLC, or locking it on the disc itself, it just doesn’t sound that great.
The idea of buying the content from companies like Gearbox (Borderlands) and Bethesda (Fallout3) doesn’t seem like that bad of a deal though. I think it might be because their content reminds me more of expansion packs, rather than extra maps, costumes, etc. We will not speak of the horse armor.
I bought the horse armor.
I came here to say exactly this.
Growing up with PC gaming and all the free ongoing support I still find it really weird to think about paying for maps. I am just so used to having free maps provided by all the modders.
I totally agree with the Fallout 3 and Borderlands content, with each one being basically a mini expansion pack and all together having easily the same amount of content as an expansion pack while being the same price works for me.
I bought the horse armour also. DLC was new, fresh, exciting and Oblivion was compelling, visceral, engaging, it was a perfect storm
Echoing some of the comments here, I feel that DLC is great. I feel continued support of a game not only allows for a longer shelf life, but it also, if I am not mistaken, shows gaming companies that gamers like particular games.
With trepidation I say obviously games like Street Fighter 4 have their fanatics who will devour every piece of content even if it is just a costume pack. This has more to do with games that aren’t expected to receive the public praise that they rightly deserve. Saying Borderlands now almost makes me feel like a crazy person, because look at it, how could it not be a great game? The fact remains however; that this game wasn’t being accepted with arms wide open as Creed so eloquently put it(joke.)
OK so I know this a bit of an essay, but gamers need to buck up, stop bitching about prices of DLC and support the games they love. I feel that it is the medias job to accurately and promptly review these content patches so that gamers might make informed decisions even if all most gamers to is look at the scores and move on.
Anyway great show and on this our St. Patrick’s Day may we remember those who lost their lives fighting those rascally, wily, pot-o-gold hiding, enemies that the world seems so enamored with. May the fight continue and our battle standard be raised from the chief leprechauns cold and lifeless body.
I’m pretty happy with DLC and expansions right now. EA is serving up free DLC for me, cause I buy my games new, and I’m getting some great expansions on PC now that I can game on it.
I’m someone who will buy DLC for a game I like even if it is shit (horse armor, spell tomes), but lately, I haven’t had that feeling with many games. Sure there’s been some bad stuff, but it wasn’t just lazy or costing way too much (not counting MW2, cause I don’t own it). Recent DLC I’m really getting into includes the DoW2 expansion, Diplomacy for Sins of a Solar Empire, and the Secret Armory. If companies continue putting effort into their add-ons, I’ll be happy to buy.
And bundles are great. I can only really think of two instances of this, but I love it. I bought the Gears 2 All Fronts pack, and it was great. Bundling DLC after the fact seems like a great way to continue keeping people interested in the game. I wouldn’t have bought any of the Gears DLC if it hadn’t been bundled, so this kept me playing online for at least a month more.
I also think of the EA thing as bundling DLC, you’re paying one price for a decent amount of stuff, and as I said before, I buy all my games new, so this is great for me.
Oh, and Happy St. Paddy’s Day!
DLC is good for the most part, but there are companies wanting fairly steep money for some of the content. It’s seems to mainly like going to the store for games. You have to pick and choose what content you wnat versus the value you recieve out of it. Some of the content is really great. Some is OK. Some is horrible. Like games, it’s up to the developer and publisher to decide what should be DLC and what shouldn’t, though sometimes, it is beyond me to figure it out.
As for DLC on release day, it’s good. I can understand why they do it. Sometimes by the time the company preps for the release of the game, the content is not ready. Other times who knows. But hey, the companies are out to make money and need money to develop the next game and pay back the debts they owe (particularly new companies).
Some is good, some is bad, I’m just happy that it is making people try creative marketplace solutions. At this point, we are still too close to the start of DLC to have a chance in hell of predicting what will succeed and what will fail.
I’m late with my comment! I like DLC, only I have no more room on my XBOX 360 20GB hard drive! To make matters worse, there is no reasonable (price or availability) solution to expand.
Small €10-€15 DLC Packs rarely hits the spot for me. Im more in favour of expansion content.Chaos Rising, GTA IV “Lost and Damned” and “Ballad of Gay Tony” are examples of DLC that I find are worth in investing in. You get a complete story, A good few hours of gameplay and will always be something worth while returning to in the future.
€10 packs always feel like a tease and in the back of my head I’m always thinking its gonna wrap up any second, so I can’t get really imerse myself into the game.
shit, I work for a living and have a hard enough time finishing games as it is, DLC is just another stab at me that I’m not in my 20′s anymore. Love it, but it sucks.
In my opinion, I think DLC is a great thing for gaming. I believe since nowdays where gamers buy fewer games because of the ecomony, its great to see that the games that gamers do have get even more replay value and more of a positive reason to keep the game around. Otherwise,games would ultimately be on the shelves at our houses collecting dust or would have gotten traded in once the fun & adventure of the game was gone.
Possibly indifferent.
I’ve actually yet to play any dlc that I find incredibly compelling.
Not because there’s nothing good; but because there’s always something new to play.
Something overshadowing returning to essentially the same experience.
Take for instance, Assassins Creed 2 dlc. A wonderful game that I invested a plethora of time into. However, when the dlc eventually arrived, I’d traded the game in, felt burnt out on it and had moved on.
this doesn’t exactly answer your question dead on, but it at least shows why I’m not investing money into extra content. Other people are and that’s great.
Way too many comments to read, so hopefully nobody covered this.
My problem with DLC is the static pricing. Sure there’s sales now and then (woo 120 MS Points off!) but for the most part the prices of DLC stay the same. Games that came out on XBL 3 years ago are still 800 points while retail games are 1/3 the price they released at.
Additional DLC for those games like Oblivion that came out 4 years ago now cost more to buy than the game itself does. Oblivion is $15-20 now new while Shivering Isle is still $30 on XBL and horse armor is still $2.50.
I generally wait a while after a game releases – unless there’s a nice incentive – before buying it so that the price drops. When I buy a game for $30-45 new, that means that $10-15 DLC that adds 2-3 hours now costs as much as half as much as what I spent for my game. If I buy a game a year or two after release it now costs just as much if I want the DLC as it did for the game. That kind of scares me.
I think that DLC is a fine concept and any sort of negativity that comes out of it often has very little to do with the actual content.
I for one find the comments from people that “X content should have been on the disc” rather bemusing. With the exception of fully fledged expansions of the more story-heavy role playing games, DLC is more often than not content that would otherwise be left on the cutting room floor (AC 2′s memory blocks, RE5′s Lost in Nightmatres, Dark Void’s Survival Mode to name a few).
In any other generation this stuff would not see the light of day so be grateful for the opportunity to get more out of your games. But, one thing that is holding it back (and all the other content on XBLA/PSN) is the weird pricing denominations on points cards that leave useless leftover points and force a person without a credit card (i.e me) to go to a store in order to access the DLC I want. How about that for an oxymoron?
DLC is great when it’s not used to extort the customers. It seems lately that’s what it has been used for, but when implemented correctly it offers up some of the best content the orignal game never even considered. Play as a Helghast in UC2, Fat Penis. Another island with trophy challenges in Pixeljunk Monsters, Fat Penis. Playing new release songs in Rock Band, Fat Penis. Hover around Paradise in the Delorean, Fat fucking Penis!
I just got rid of MW2 on Goozex. I figured I’m not going to pay 15 bucks for maps then I should get rid of it and give it to someone else. I got a big backlog and some games coming out in the future have really peaked my interest, Just Cause 2 in particular.
If Activision wants to play hardball with gamers then it just seems really short sighted. But who knows maybe they need to make some money to pay off all the back residuals they owe the good people at IW.
I can’t stand DLC that is announced before the game even comes out. That’s absolutely ridiculous. Or games like Beautiful Katamari where the majority of the in game content is locked unless you get DLC.
Dumb.
I have been happy with most of the DLC I have bought thus far.
Fallout 3: While not all the DLC was amazing, I greatly enjoyed most of it. When I was finally done with all the content I was over 200 hours. The DLC definitely made me hold on to the game much longer.
Rock Band 2: Nuff Said
Mass Effect 2: I find the way ME2 used DLC to combat the used market is a great idea. It has been cool how they have added weapons, armor, and characters all for free for those who bought the game new. We will see next month, when they will charge for the first piece of DLC, if it is enough content to justify the price.
I think that the rise of dlc has been, for the most part good for everyone. While there are instances of publishers gouging customers for on disc content to be unlocked, I truly believe these are not indicative of most companys’ approach to dlc. In the end it is up to us as consumers to reward those who get it right (Harmonix, Criterion, Bethesda, etc.) not those who do not (Namco, Capcom, etc.)
I agree that charging more than a buck or two for less then an hours worth of content isn’t appealing to me. I do like the idea of full expansion content being quickly available via dlc however.
DLC has definitely improved since the time where DLC would break current save games or map packs were never rotated into the play schedule and although improved the pricing of a lot of DLC seems disproportionate to the content.
That said I like DLC as it can bring freshness and longer life to some games such or give us the consumer more options in what we want from a game.
For me it all depends on the quality to cost ratio. I’m looking forward to the new Dragon Age DLC as it’s going to significantly add to the game (and has a price to match).
The upcoming MW2 map-pack is much more of a debate for me, having not really been into the first MW I don’t have any attachment to the 2 returning maps and I feel for the price it’s not adding enough new things for me to do, it’s just multiplayer in a few new locations. If they threw in a couple of Spec Ops missions with the maps then I’d be a lot more interested.
I also like the fact that I’m rewarded for purchasing a game at retail, Dragon Age is a perfect example of this with the Stone Prisoner DLC being free in retail boxes.
I haven’t paid for any DLC yet, and for the most part don’t want to. DLC isn’t necessarily a bad thing in theory, just how it’s shopped around to gamers. I won’t buy any DLC that’s simply an outfit or map, or the like. I have plenty of other games I can play instead of paying for new maps or weapons.
Probably the quote unquote PC elitist in me shining through, but I’m not going to pay for the things I don’t feel add any real value to the game or feel should be free. So long as it’s not forced on me (ie I can’t play the game without it, or it interferes with the vanilla release in some way like an in-game pop-up or message) I don’t care if it’s made and released, I’ll just ignore it. Of course, I tend to be a single-player gamer on PC, so I am most certainly not the target audience for most DLC as it is.
Anything closer in nature to an expansion pack (remember those?) I would seriously consider, but DLC that big in scope is rather rare by and large and I’d rather buy it retail than download it in such a case.
Boy do I feel out of place with those views…
In the future, it will all be DLC. Prices need to come down, though, because it cannot be “traded in” for store credit or money. This is one of the reasons I held off paying $60 for Assassin’s Creed 2 on PC. I know it’s an amazing game, and that I’ll probably love it, but I’m not sinking that much into something that cannot sell. I’ll wait for it to go on sale and then pick it up.
Recently, I’ve been holding out on DLC and waiting for the Game of the Year edition with the DLC bundled in. I don’t mind spending 5 to 10 bucks on new levels or items, but I’m more concerned with limited downloads per consoles and items that aren’t tied to my account.
I fell good about DLC because I’ve only bought a few pieces of it, and they’ve all been worth the money.
Wipeout HD Fury was a steal at $10, and the two recent RE 5 missions were very fairly priced at $5 a piece.
Does it seem like DLC prices are rising or falling?
Did the crash of your Apple have anything to do with the approaching St Paddy’s Day? Did the leprechauns try to thwart your messages of warning? (Gotta love an old meme)
Anyway, DLC is like everything else on the market. Shitty DLC won’t be bought and the companies will learn not to spend development money on crap that won’t sell. Hopefully, in the long run, this will mean a higher level of DLC quality.
And read my comment on the air just to prove you actually look down this far.
I think what you mean to say is:
“Anyway, DLC is like everything else on the market. Shitty DLC won’t be bought and the companies will blame it on piracy. In the long run, this will mean a higher level of DRM.”
LOL. Yeah, a bit of that, too, I suppose.
I love DLC. Some of the prices are a little expensive but I have more of a problem with BF:BC2 than MW2.
EA is cheating the consumer making the game hard to resell by withholding pieces of the game to be DLC later. In all honesty it is the reason I won’t buy the game even if the multiplayer is better than MW2.
Activision sucks because they charge too much for DLC (that I will buy) but it probably be very high quality until the current IW guys leave. We will see how long DLC comes out that is high quality.
Great show
U know what’s sweet? How you don’t put up the podcast on time. That’s sweet. What’s this like the third week in a row. Sweet. Good job.
You know what’s sweet? Your sense of entitlement. That’s sweet. Sweet. Good job.
It’s free, they have full time jobs, it’s free, GDC just happened and we got a show anyway, it’s fucking free.
No, poop buddy is a reminder to all of us who don’t associate with douchebags and maintain an asshat free environment, that they exist.
oh, shit I didn’t realize… I guess I’m just not used to asshattery of this magnitude.
I’d pay for this. Really.
I kinda hate DLC, but it’s because of my situation rather than anything to do with the DLC itself. There’s no broadband available where I live, so if I want to download anything I have to disconnect my entire console and bring it in to work with me on a weekend. Most of the time it’s not worth it, so DLC currently has no impact on my decision to purchase or retain a game.
I was perfectly fine with the way DLC has been going so far until Bioshock 2. It seems we are coming around full circle. Horse armor to Map packs to full extentions of the game back to DLC you don’t even download. Sure there have been a few DLC packs that we just parts of the game that were taken out and I understand the business sense of doing something like this to save on server costs, bandwidth, and to make sure people with less than stellar internet to still get the content but at least give us the illusion that we’re actually getting what we pay for.
DLC is a great outlet for developers to make profit off fans of a a game post release, using content and skills developed over the entire coarse of the games development cycle. That said I rarely get that invested in a single game to go as far as beating it and then wanting more to the point of buying DLC. Usually one play through is enough, and the maps packaged with the game are enough.
Depends on what the DLC is and the price. MP DLC doesn’t really interest me. SP DLC has to have decent amount of play time on it. What I don’t like is the trend of GOTY editions. Where they are release a GOTY edition a year after the game originally releases, with all the DLC on disk. Makes me think I should stop buying games on release and wait for the GOTY edition.
By the time I finish a game like AC2 or Batman Arkham Asylam, I’m ready to move on. I’d much rather move onto the a new game instead of directly diving into more of the same. I may purchase the DLC after I cleanse my pallet. But by that time it’s for nostolgia purposes similar to buying a game I already own on a new platform. (i.e. Monkey Island for iPhone). Like eating sushi, I gotta be in the right mood
Now get meeez some podcast lovin! I need some DLC from you three! F your mac!
W T F?????
When done right like free map packs (BC1&2) and well made content (fallout, fable, little big planet)
you get my drift we know where it needs to go but there is the dark side which to be honest pisses me of a fuck ton ie 1200 space dollars for 3 maps wtf
Fuck me, you guys work for IGN now? Good luck with the keg-stands and the Fast and Furious marathons.
@Marty No doubt.
I’m listening to Anthony’s first Gamescoop podcast …
Please Please PLEASE don’t ever stop doing RebelFM. The other guys on this Gamescoop thing are embarrasing.
Long live RebelFM
*Cartman voice*
Goddamnit! I can never get in here before the times up!
Screw you guys… I’m going home.