DLC - A Discussion

[CrypticQuery]

I've been meaning to start a topic on this for some time now, but recently the problem has gotten worse and worse. DLC, by acronym, is classified as Downloadable Content and is considered to be extra or additional content for a game. More and more developers are beginning to embrace the practice, though problems have immediately brought themselves to light. Instead of using DLC to add on things to a game, lazy and greedy developers are taking things away from the final product and adding them on at an extra cost. This is even worse when DLC is disc-based; if it's on the disc, and I paid for the disc, it should be mine.

Here's a video on the matter that sums up views on the new Street Fighter VS Capcom game, though be warned, as there is NSFW language;

What are your thoughts on the matter?

[ballisticwaffles]

DLC is a finicky subject.

On one hand it is a great way to expand the content of a video game and to deal with your customers complaints, IE Fallout 3's ending and the Broken steel DLC to fix it.

On the other, Its a money grubing dirty tactic where your players feel denied of content, that at worse, comes on the CD! Games such as Mass effect Thrive on DLC, entire sections of the game unaccessable unless you shell out close to 50 dollars.

My stance on DLC is this. If you can play the game more than 3 times without any DLC and get a rewarding experiance that you may wish to modify using DLC, then DLC is good. This includes Alternate Paint jobs and unlockables that contribute, not break, gameplay.

If You srsly Cant stand the game without dropping more and more money on it and the DLC breaks the gameplay, than F*ck DLC. THis includes Shiite on the disk, Or things such as a Weapon or person that annihalates Gameplay to the point it isnt fun anymore.

Bethesda is a good user of DLC. Their Expansion Packs dont break Gameplay. In Oblivion's Two biggest expansion packs, you paid for hours of fun fighting In the shivering Isles wearing Knights Armor that set shit on fire. Thats what we paid for and it delivered a great experiance that we didn't need. Oblivion was fun enough without Scottish Sheogorath celebrating Cheese. NOw i admit Their Usage of DLC in Fallout 3 wasn't as subtle, but it was fun as Hell though. It did break the game with the operation Ancorage DLC, but they also fixed the terrable ending. (IM LOOKING AT YOU BIOWARE)

Bioware in particular is a srs abuser of DLC. Mass effect 3 came out with DLC on launch! THey also had one Romance that had no conclusion unless you dropped money on DLC. Two charecters, several dozen useless weapons, and the entire vehicle segment of the 2nd Mass effect are not only important parts of the 3rd game, but also only accessable if you drop money on A DIFFRENT GAME. D:<

[Star Fox Runner]

My opinion of DLC, is that if the content being bought adds on entire new levels or activities for the game that increases the depth of the game, then I think it's worth it.

But if it's DLC for simple cosmetic changes, such as the alternate paint schemes for the planes in Ace Combat 6 and Ace Combat Assault Horizon, I think DLCs like that are pointless and not worth the money involved.

[CrypticQuery]

Bethesda is a good user of DLC. Their Expansion Packs dont break Gameplay. In Oblivion's Two biggest expansion packs, you paid for hours of fun fighting In the shivering Isles wearing Knights Armor that set shit on fire. Thats what we paid for and it delivered a great experiance that we didn't need. Oblivion was fun enough without Scottish Sheogorath celebrating Cheese. NOw i admit Their Usage of DLC in Fallout 3 wasn't as subtle, but it was fun as Hell though. It did break the game with the operation Ancorage DLC, but they also fixed the terrable ending. (IM LOOKING AT YOU BIOWARE)

Bioware in particular is a srs abuser of DLC. Mass effect 3 came out with DLC on launch! THey also had one Romance that had no conclusion unless you dropped money on DLC. Two charecters, several dozen useless weapons, and the entire vehicle segment of the 2nd Mass effect are not only important parts of the 3rd game, but also only accessable if you drop money on A DIFFRENT GAME. D:<

Couldn't agree with you more on this sentiment. Bethesda has been doing great with their DLC, and while I do have a problem with them releasing buggy games, the majority of problems are vastly exaggerated. I also love that Bethesda fully supports mod-tools on the PC; seems like a win-win for everyone. Rockstar also does great with this sort of thing; GTA IV's Episodes from Liberty City was incredible. The base game was expanisve as hell, and Episodes only expanded upon this fact.

Activision is another bad example of how to carry out DLC [and game design for that matter]. They've staggered out Call of Duty's maps in separate map-packs at a ridiculously inflated price, charged for things that should have been included with the game in the first place, never innovate their installments of CoD, etc.

I also like your thoughts on the "3 playthroughs rule," though if I can enjoy the game a single time and I feel that DLC was legitimately added on later and is worth it, then I'd probably make a purchase of it.

[FoxMotoX]

I might actually like DLC If I didnt have a slow DSL internet connection :(

[Icy]

I'm gonna keep this short and quick, even though I could go into a LOT of detail.

My take on DLC?

If the DLC is actually developed after a game releases, and reasonably priced? Yes, it's perfectly fine.

I mean, I don't care for alternate costumes this, alternate costumes that, etc, etc, like in fighting games and stuff. But I do enjoy costume packs in games like LittleBigPlanet, because that is what the game is about. Costumes in fighting games, etc? I couldn't care less and those are generally developed BEFORE release, and just tacked-on in the store for $$.

Anyway, some examples of good, reasonably priced DLC, developed AFTER release, and add great things to the game?

Back to Karkand for Battlefield 3 and all future expansions for Battlefield 3. ($15 for 4 new maps as well as 10 new weapons, some new features, etc) Good value.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Vietnam ($15, adds a new theme, plenty of 70s weapons, music, sounds, and of course, maps.) Very good value.

Burnout Paradise ($2-$6 for new cars, new modes, and one nice big island to download that adds to the ingame map. A great value. This is how DLC is done)

Then there is DLC that may/may not be developed after release, and may/may not be reasonably priced, but is still a good value and adds something new to the game.

Examples:

Split/Second car packs, etc ($2-$5 for 1, maybe 5 cars)

Gran Turismo 5 DLC (Same as above, but a good value since that is what the game is ABOUT)

LittleBIgPlanet DLC (Same once again. Usually for costume packs, etc. If you like customization then there's really not a problem with this DLC since that is the whole point of the game. Usually developed after release, too, so they didn't just plan it already.)

Then there is "evil" DLC. Usually developed and readied before a game releases, this DLC is the worst kind of DLC. Usually pointless, sometimes a good value, but still stupid that they developed it for the game and could have EASILY shipped it on-disc for FREE as more content for the actual game.

But no, instead they charge upwards of $15 (Call of Duty, anyone?) for usually optional, sometimes pointless, sometimes cool stuff that COULD HAVE easily been on the disc to begin with… For free.

Examples?

Capcom games (Capcom is just shit nowadays, they've lost everything they used to have going for them, alienated themselves from their fans, it's just ridiculous)

Call of Duty DLC (Okay, I admit, a lot of DLC for CoD games IS developed after the game releases, but they could easily add these new maps to a free update. No reason to charge for it if it's JUST a new map or two. Ridiculous. You're already the best selling game in history…)

Uncharted DLC (I admit, I am a huge Uncharted fan, but I stay away from DLC unless it's story/co-op related, and they have yet to do anything like that. They release skins from previous Uncharted games for use in multiplayer, etc. It's just annoying to have to pay for things like this that could easily be in the game for free with a simple update… :S)

And of course, Mass Effect 3's day-one DLC. Completely disgusting.

One little thing I have to add, since it annoys me like I don't know what. Marvel vs Capcom 3 came out in February 2011. Great game. It also had character/skin packs for download. Probably developed well before release, but whatever.

Then in November 2011, they release ULTIMATE Marvel vs Capcom 3. Sounds like an expansion, doesn't it? It added like 12 new characters, new skins, maybe new stages, Idk, whatever. $40 iirc for the SAME GAME that came out in February. No backwards "compatibility" if you will. You couldn't just buy it in the store if you already owned MvC3. No. It was a real game. Same exact game that came out 9 months before, just with new skins, couple of new modes, and new characters, as well as everything that was in the original game.

Absolutely ridiculous.

[CrypticQuery]

One little thing I have to add, since it annoys me like I don't know what. Marvel vs Capcom 3 came out in February 2011. Great game. It also had character/skin packs for download. Probably developed well before release, but whatever.

Then in November 2011, they release ULTIMATE Marvel vs Capcom 3. Sounds like an expansion, doesn't it? It added like 12 new characters, new skins, maybe new stages, Idk, whatever. $40 iirc for the SAME GAME that came out in February. No backwards "compatibility" if you will. You couldn't just buy it in the store if you already owned MvC3. No. It was a real game. Same exact game that came out 9 months before, just with new skins, couple of new modes, and new characters, as well as everything that was in the original game.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Capcom seems to be getting worse and worse with their business practices concerning DLC; first Marvel VS Capcom and now Tekken VS Capcom. It's a shame; if you want to see fighting game DLC done right look at Mortal Kombat. Everything necessary to enjoy the experience is already on the disc, included in the purchase price like it should be. Extra things, like classic outfits, are set as DLC.

[ballisticwaffles]

And another thing is the Game that NEEDS DLC.

Example. Okami.

That game was the SHIT.

I beat that game like 4 or 5 times, annoying minigames and everything. I even Grinded to get teh ability to shit all over everything. Every part of that game was fletching awesome. If any DLC, even stupid costume packs, were released, i would dust off my PS2 Right the hell now to play it. Alas, no DLC.

Resident evil 4. I beat that game like a red headed step child. I destroyed that game so hard that if it was in bed it would need two cigarretes. Again, i would buy DLC for that game.

In both these cases the game is very good with solid levels of replayability, the DLC is like adding sprinkles to a double large chocklacardiac Arrest. But they dont get DLC. Forgetting for a moment both are PS2 games which predate DLC but that dont mean you cant boost them up for a HD release and put extra shit in there.

Holy crap, id drop 200+ dollars for a PS3 if Okami got a HD remake. Even without DLC.

Mean while Modern warfare 96 already has 5 map packs, Ace combat EMO has the same plane you start with only faster and Blue and Mass effect 4 has DLC release BEFORE the game comes out.

[CrypticQuery]

This subject can also fall into the inflation of prices for games, as well as the content actually included in them. Take Timesplitters 2 VS Call of Duty MW2 for example;

TimeSplitters:

-20+ hour campaign

-Local multiplayer

-Large amount of maps

-Stage Creator

-$50

-No DLC

Call of Duty MW2;

-4-6 hour campaign

-Local multiplayer

-Online multiplayer

-DLC EVERYWHERE

-$60+

[jeth]

I think that DLC is a good thing IF used corectly. You can't make a game, not end it and then say, "You can see how it ends for an extra $10." That's just bull-crap. I'm more likely to buy DLC for a game I like then I am for a game that sucks unless you pay the extra $10 for the DLC.

I may not be a big RPG player, but by what I hear BioWare is a prime example of what DLC should NOT be.

[ballisticwaffles]

you are compleatly right.

Again, it bears repeating,

Fuck you bioware, learn how to end a series.

[Vy'drach]

It depends on what the DLC contains.

If you come up with ideas later, and want to add them to the game, DLC is alright, but if you're gonna charge for it, make it something worthwhile. SOCOM: Confrontation's Cold Front expansion pack was good for this. It was $15, same as the Call of Duty map packs, but Cold Front contained:

-Two brand spanking new maps and three maps from previous SOCOM titles

-Winter themed levels which required you to kit your guy out in winter camouflage (if you were smart)

-New faction to join, the Russian Spetsnaz, with their new weapon, the AN-94.

-Other new weapons, the AS VAL and the AK-107

-New game feature, specializations, which allow you to unlock new attachments for your weapon class, better stats for your weapon class, and more new weapons, which are special versions of already existing weapons, which are:

Vera, the USAS-12

Motoko, the FN P90

Alice, the H&K G36K

Gloria, the Mk. 48 mod 0

Tilly, the SR-25

Gladys, the Desert Eagle

-New game modes

That's how you DLC.

For how not to DLC, see Bethesda, Midrealm, Capcom, Activision Blizzard, and BioWare.

[Gestalt]

I've never really ran into a scenerio were it seams as though developers had actaully held back content...not to say this doesnt happen tho... how can one really tell...

[Vy'drach]

Capcom did it for Resident Evil 5. The other game modes, namely the versus and whatever the other one was. They charged you for the new game modes, but the download was incredibly small due to the fact that the game modes were already on the disc, and the downloads just unlocked them.

You bought the disc for $60, and had to pay more for content already on the disc.

Midrealm also did it with downloadable content, with the retro costumes, after Ed Boon said that they wouldn't charge for content already on the disc.

[Drasiana]

Let's just start calling them "expansion packs" again, people didn't seem to bitch as much about that.

[Vy'drach]

Expansion packs actually tended to have a lot more in them than a few maps or a new character.

Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind's expansion packs gave you new continents and all the bonuses that came with them. Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion's expansion pack also gave you a new contintent, but its DLC was silly things like horse armour.

Aliens vs. Predator 2's expansion, Primal Hunt, added a new campaign, a new Predator, and other stuff I can't remember as it has been years, though it did improve the graphics. AvP 3's DLC, is a couple of new maps.

Expansion packs =/= DLC

[Drasiana]

No, they're pretty much the exact same idea, some are just a little skimpier than others. But if you really don't want to spend money on horse armour, don't buy it.

[Vy'drach]

If one wanted to get really anal retentive, then one can argue that if the core game was acquired through a download, then the game itself is downloadable content.

Expansion packs and DLC may both be additional content, but they are not the same. What seperates them is the tier they are on. I don't know about you but I'd be quite surprised if any of my friends referred to the likes of Bloodmoon, Tribunal, Shivering Isles, Frozen Throne, Burning Crusade, Wrath of the Lich King, or Cataclysm (assuming they were all downloaded) as DLC, and on the flip-side, if any of them referred to a CoD map pack as an expansion pack.

They may be, through literal dictionary definition, the same thing, but in practice and perspective, they are far from it.

[Drasiana]

A car is not a truck but they're still both automobiles. If you download a small add-on or download a big add-on, they're both still DLC. What separates them is how the DLC is advertised. If it's an expansion pack, it's big, something like Shivering Isles. If it's a horse armor pack, or a character pack, or a weapons pack it's...well, exactly what it says on the can.

I also don't see this DLC as something to get worked up over, either. If a pack doesn't look worth your money, don't buy it. The gaming industry seems to adapt quite quickly to things and the same company responsible for the infamous horse armor (which Bethseda themselves make fun of) has now opened the avenue for hundreds of free mods through Skyrim's Creation Kit.

There is some pretty stupid DLC out there but I also don't get what's so hard about resisting the urge to spend $15 on a bunch of multicoloured guns.

[Vy'drach]

They may both be automobiles, but one doesn't call a car a truck and be correct, and the same for calling a truck a car and being correct. I agreed that DLC and expansion packs were both additional content, but one doesn't call DLC an expansion pack, nor call an expansion pack DLC.

And the issue people have isn't really with DLC, it's generally about two things.

One: When developers make an incomplete game because they have DLC already lined up that they can charge you for, rather than making a complete game, and if they come up with something later on, making it DLC. Bethesda is really bad for this as lately they've developed their games with huge story elements sliced out so they can charge for DLC to complete it. Think it was Fallout 3 that did it as Fallout 3 was a rather complete game, but they came out with DLC afterwards that people snatched up, so a little lightbulb went off over their head.

Two: When a developer get's the oh so smart idea to remove content that's planned to be in the core game normally, or to lock it, for the sole reason of they can charge you for the content/unlocking the content. Already listed an example of Capcom doing this, but another one real recently was BioWare and their removal of the Prothean squadmate just so they could charge $10 for him.

That's where people start to have issues with DLC. Game companies are trying to bend you over and wring everything they can from you. You can not buy the DLC, but now you spent $60 on an incomplete game. If you buy the DLC, that $60 game is now a $75 game. New DLC? $90 game. Now $105, then $120, so on and so forth.

Some game companies really dislike that. The creators of Dark Souls have said they had no plans for DLC as they weren't releasing Dark Souls until they felt they had made a complete game that required no DLC. If they came up with ideas for DLC, they added it into the main game rather than launching what was, in their eyes, an incomplete game. That's how you do it, that's how you get on the list of "Good" game developers rather than list of "Money-grubbing, fuck you over" game developers.

[Gestalt]

So from what I gather, its best to do your research and/or form your own opinions based off of your experience with a particular game developer...We live in a world were money seems to be everything. So regardless of rather or not its wrong...stuff like this is going to happen.

[Icy]

I agree with Vydrach here. Expansion packs and DLC are two different things.

Burnout Paradise's "Big Surf Island" is big and has new cars, challenges, races, secrets, and a whole new island to explore. That's an expansion pack.

But its car packs, party packs, etc? DLC.

Battlefield 3's Back to Karkand is an expansion pack.

Bad Company 2's Vietnam is an expansion pack.

They're both bigger than the typical DLC that you can buy.

Think back.

Starcraft (Insurrection, Retribution, StarCraft: Brood War)

Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, (Spearhead, Breakthrough, both bringing their own campaigns, multiplayer maps, and new effects, etc.)

Battlefield 2 (BF2: Special Forces added a lot of new features, maps, etc.)

Battlefield 1942 (The Road to Rome, Secret Weapons of WWII. Both add various new gameplay modes and other things typical DLC don't.)

Call of Duty (2003) (United Offensive expansion, adds new multiplayer maps, weapons, features, and new campaigns)

Even World of Warcraft has real expansions. :V

[Luminous-red]

One of the reasons for DLC`s being something so common today is that game companies see more profitable to release content that expands the game for the sole reason that the game is already made, the main engine already exist, so scripting some new models, characters, etc, into the already existing game is not as expensive as creating the game from scratch, making new features in a game already made is more like updating it,they dont spend much time on programming because they just simply "add" stuff to the game with low development cost, and they can charge more from DLC`s because they see them as "new stuff" for your game, when the case is that it`s just the same features tweaked to be somehting else, of course, this it not always the case, but i think DLC`s are not enough reason to spend more on the game, at least in my opinion.

[Fox-Shot]

DLC has been a love/hate relationship in my eyes. There are games where I absolutely love DLC, and other games where I hate it.

Burnout Paradise required you to download the "DLC" in order to play online. They essentially released a patch that had all the content on it, and you download the unlock keys instead. In exchange though, you got a few patch fixes and a little bit of free content. (Free motorcycles, better feeling game, restart race through menu instead of finding the location)

Bad Company 2 did a similar thing, except that the update was optional and you could still play online without it. This added the "VIP Maps" to the game, which is a much better new game purchase encouragement. The parts I hated with this game and dlc were the spectact kits, which had more powerful guns. Battlefield 3 had Back To Karkand which was awesome in my eyes, I like those maps more than any of the default maps, though once again, it was a "free" update with an unlock (Limited Edition had the whole thing liked to your Online Pass, however)

I absolutely hate fighting games with DLC, even though I don't play them, I don't understand how you fight against someone who's using a fighter that's not on the disc (If you're playing a fighter that isn't by Capcom. ) Forza solved that whole issue using the "Null Car", which is a placeholder for any vehicle that you don't have installed.

The only Call of Duty DLC I liked is Rezzurection, since it's the only one that has enough replayability to be worth 15 dollars.

When used right, DLC can rock, otherwise, please stop, I really think that Microsoft and Sony should say something in their rights for companies that requires that any content on the disc must be available to the customer at no extra charge.

[Vy'drach]

Actually, Fox-Shot, the SPECACT weapons in in Bad Company 2 were just reskins of the last gun you unlocked in that class, with the M16, UMP45, and MG3 getting camouflage, while the Barrett M95, already having camouflage by default, got a constant, matte black colour from its SPECACT version.