DLC in gaming

[oogaboo]

From what I read, Dreamcast was the first home console to use what is known as downloadable content. I was 12 at the time and I never knew what DLC was. I didn't really get into DLC until 2006 which had tons of DLC. However, some the "extras had questionable content. For example: EA charged people for tutorial videos of NCAA 07 Football and Madden NFL07 that were released at a later date. And we found some DLC content on the SFxTekken disc.

Personally, I've never downloaded any add on. Especially, since I already paid $60 to $70 dollars for the darn game! Why pay $20 to $50 for any add on with the game that I bought? Sure, DLC was made to extend the lifespan of a game but that is what online multiplayer is for. Collecting money IN-GAME should get you new characters, new maps, or any other extra content. This DLC trend in the gaming world can have a bad ending if it isn't implemented correctly. I feel that Microsoft, Activision, Capcom, and among others abuse DLC to garner more cash. I know how business works. I just wish they would throw us a bone to their loyal fans. Apparently, game companies are part of an income-dependent industry and will only change if they foresee a benefit to their bottom line.  People pay their hard-earned money to play their published games. Minimum wage will slightly increase or stay the same whilst everything else goes up. Next-Gen consoles are already planned and it won't make any positive outcomes as it will just make development more difficult. How about fixing the long loading times first. It's not like these consoles will have holograms.

I remember a time when "milking" a product on console games wasn't possible.
Regarding used games, I resell or trade-in a used game and I couldn't afford to buy a new game and end up buying another used game. Later on, I may purchase DLC or a $10 online pass and the developer gets extra $ they wouldn't have earned otherwise. Saying the used game market is killing their profits is only looking at 1 side of the story.  Also, when I traded in a game, I just bought a NEW game (At least a game I've never played) at the store, correct? The developer got a sale because I subsidized the NEW purchased item with my own $ from their traded old game That I've already played.

Again, DLC would be a positive thing if it was implemented correctly and wasn't so expensive. Hopefully, in the near future, we will not have to buy music and sound effects as DLC. What do you think of DLC or the game industry?

[Campion1]

The main reason I don't like DLC is because it's content that should have came with the original game to begin with.

[Kor]

It could be good if done right, though I'm not sure if some DLC is done right as apposed to some that is not since my pc can't handle modern games I don't' get those.  Eventually I'll have a gaming pc but not right now.

[oogaboo]

I have just finished beating Mass Effect 3 and...I feel empty.
Now people would like to see a better ending as DLC. Will I purchase a DLC with revamped endings? No. Again I'm not willing to spend my hard-earned money on an add-on. It would be adding insult to injury to pay EA more money for what should have been made in the first place. <_<

If I payed for a better ending as DLC like this, I would ensure that every other game released by any publisher will have similar bad endings, so they can sell the good ones purposely as DLC. Something tells me that EA told Bioware to do this on purpose.

[LBTFan13]

I think DLC can be a great thing if done properly. The best example of DLC I can think of is songs for the Rock Band franchise. Every single week there are new songs being added to the game. Sure some may not be the greatest choices, and some weeks we may only get three songs, but Harmonix works very hard to continue to add to an already gigantic song library. On top of that, songs are not that expensive to download, so it's affordable.

Now a company that seems to really take advantage of DLC, but in the wrong way, is Capcom. Take the latest revelation of Street Fighter X Tekken. Somebody managed to hack the game disc and find 12 more characters that have been programed and coded for use. They are on the disc, but Capcom wanted us to think that they did not exist. Now they expect gamers to pay extra money for something that is already on the disc. That is just greedy. I'm sorry, I don't care what reasons Capcom have for keeping the characters locked on the disc, but that is just plain wrong. These characters should be unlockable, which would give players more of a reason to keep playing that doesn't include the multiplayer. Capcom completely ignores this in favor of getting another buck off of gamers.

They also did this with Marvel vs Capcom 3. Announcing that two characters would be available on the release date for download is a cheap move to yet again earn more money from gamers. For shame Capcom!

At the same time, I feel like part of the hatred for DLC has something to do with this level of entitlement gamers seem to posses. We feel like because we are the gamers then we deserve to have a full game made. That's not entirely true. Gaming companies are in a business for themselves first. Their goal, as every other business out there, is to make money. Gamers are a secondary objective to them. They can do whatever they want with their games that will see them the greatest profit. That doesn't mean we have to like every decision gaming companies make, but at this point we have to go with it.

[Littlefoot1616]

Depending on how DLC is implemented and distributed can make all the difference. Admittedly, unless the DLC is free or comes with a half way decent bonus add on, I generally don't bother. I've paid for the game once so I don't really want to have to fork out for it again. Bonus missions, extra characters, more MP maps are all cosmetic changes and adaptations that really should have been within the game to begin with. Special editions? Yeah fine. Let them have a few extra bits and bobs for those who are that much into the game title. Not to have all this stuff shoe-horned in for standard editions isn't on.

I agree that Capcom are perfect criminals for DLC. Resident Evil 5 and Marvel Vs Capcom 3 were disgusting shows of exploiting and dragging out payments from players down to the point it was almost punishing to those who paid up for the initial title releases. They released DLC for both these games but then later on down the line, they release RE5: Gold Edition and Ultimate MvC3 with included everything available for individual download in a complete package and for around about the same price as the standard game without the additions. RE5 Gold Edition is about £15 (now) when the DLC individually rock up to much more than that plus the original game. UMvC3 came with a ton of new characters and hit the shelves just a couple of months after the original and for a price tag below the original release. The majority of these new additions were DLC. And now this whole SF X Tekken thing just shows that some companies are not making DLC worth getting.

[oogaboo]

And now this whole SF X Tekken thing just shows that some companies are not making DLC worth getting.

I always thought DLC was not worth getting anyways. I also agree that Capcom abuse their business ethics for blatant cash grabs but Activision and EA have been doing the same thing as well. It is sad how large companies want to take advantage of gamers that have an emotional investment in their games. Apparently, the money is making them  

[Littlefoot1616]

The problem I find with it all is that it seems to be a welcoming handshake for those who sit and wait for a game releases' "complete" edition or pick up a title with all DLC included without so much as an after thought than "this might be good for a laugh and it's cheap". In the same move, it's a giant middle finger to those dedicated and loyal to particular games/franchises and want the standard game on release day and fork out above and beyond for DLC as and when it comes out labelled as "new". It honestly makes you think if you should bother buying an awaited game up front on launch day or whether you should kick back and wait 6-12 months for the complete edition to arrive with all the DLC in tact.

Then you've got concerns about actually ownerships rights to DLC if you only d/l it (that's a complete other argument) and what about if it's online only? I got locked out of playing Mass Effect 2 when the PSN went down last year because I d/led a special costume (didn't pay for it; freebie that came with the game purchase) and began a game with it. Having clocked 20+ hours on it, because I couldn't log onto the EA servers at the startup, it told me that because registration of DLC was unavailable, I couldn't access my saved file while the PSN was offline. And I damn sure wasn't prepared to start over again!

Assassin's Creed 2 is another one. To truly finish the game, the last few episodes of the game are DLC. So effectively, Ubisoft released an incomplete storyline that you have to pay extra to actually finish it and really understand how the game ends. Now, is that supposed to be a bonus or a punishment?

DLC just doesn't seem worth it no matter how it's implemented. Especially if it's adding onto a game that has already been released. A friend of mine falls for it every time whereby a £35-40 game ends up costing him closer to £55-60 coz he guns and revels at any new DLC that is released for it. I suppose the experience is nice but it's just the logistics behind it all that always make me think twice before parting with money.

[pokeplayer984]

Speaking of DLC, Extra Credits published a video today that talks about it.  Fans of the show might recognize the artist that is joining them from the earlier "Game Addiction" Episode.

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/mass-effect-3-dlc

A rather interesting find if you ask me.