Views on DLC

Here's the problem: you bought a FF game.

Originally Posted by Double A

"Everybody" except, well, people who haven't bought the original game. And, of course, the developers themselves (as per my previous post - they've basically foregone the opportunity to sell this content to new gamers).

The fact that they can use the same tools is, as far as I know, kinda irrelevant. Isn't it possible to make a different game using the same tools modified slightly? And I could point to MM as a game that gave the same character models different identities. I could also point to the Pokemon games and the Golden Sun games as examples of games that allowed you to "harness" the growth you've already experienced in a prior game.

Regarding "DLC content expands the world", it would be ideal if subsequent games did this anyway, which makes that argument rather pointless.

As I said in my previous post, it's not so much the idea that the content was added post-release so much as it is the idea that it is being sold to people who already have such a strong interest in the game (because they own it). People want to get the most utility out of what they buy, and paid DLC plays into that desire. The point was that this extra content would most likely be more interesting if it was made in such a way that it was standalone (since the interest one has in a follow-up game tends to be less than the interest one has in the game they currently own, which means a little more thought and effort would need to go into designing the content). If the content was merely added to the next game as default content, then of course the gamer would end up paying less overall (which is, last I checked, a good thing), and would get a more content-packed game from the beginning.

I don't see anything wrong in appealing to the niche market of gamers who have already played your game. If your game was successful, it seems like a logical step to use the tools you have to quickly and easily make a meaningful and worthwhile addition to the existing experience, and make some money along the way. Of course, the key word here is worthwhile: there's a difference between adding a whole new chunk of gameplay and cheaply cashing in on a single two-hour mission. As long as Expansions are worthwhile, I see absolutely nothing wrong with developers putting them out there.

Originally Posted by Sailgoat

I don't see anything wrong in appealing to the niche market of gamers who have already played your game. If your game was successful, it seems like a logical step to use the tools you have to quickly and easily make a meaningful and worthwhile addition to the existing experience, and make some money along the way. Of course, the key word here is worthwhile: there's a difference between adding a whole new chunk of gameplay and cheaply cashing in on a single two-hour mission. As long as Expansions are worthwhile, I see absolutely nothing wrong with developers putting them out there.

Technically, neither do I.

I just think it'd be a whole lot better for gamers (and for developers in the long run) to make content that doesn't only appeal to the the gamers that have already played your game, because

1. If released as standalone: the extra work gone into making it interesting enough to stand on its own would lead to a better experience even for the people who WOULD have bought it as DLC, and there'd be more sales because of the wider audience (i.e. better for the devs too).

2. If added onto next game as default content: gamers pay less overall, while next game is more content-packed.

They have the right to offer paid DLC. I'm just saying what I think would be the best outcome for everyone overall in the long run (and especially for gamers), and that would be a lack of paid DLC altogether.

I miss when costumes and extra cosmetic content were unlockable. :|

Bayonetta <3

Day 1 DLC isn't necessarily offensive.

Consider something: AAA development requires funding, or the publisher of you will. This creates a deadline for the game to ship. Publishers won't continue throwing money at a project infinitely, so it makes sense to consider the idea that DLC could be planned during development because it's something good, but they can't necessarily finish it inside the deadline.

When a game is done it "goes gold." This means the game is finished, but the discs aren't pressed and shipped to stores yet. This also takes time, sometimes months. What can the team work on in that time? More content! If It's done by the time the game's on shelves why not go ahead and make it available?

DLC is nearly always content that should've been on the disc, and in some cases actually IS on the disk. We used to be able to complete tasks to unlock game cheats, extra game modes, costumes, etc but now we have to pay for them. It's ridiculous.

Stuff like Dawnguard, Ballad of Gay Tony, and other major content packs like that are good. Single missions and stuff you can tell they just cut out of the game to sell as DLC later are awful.

Not a fan of day one DLC, not at all. If there's a chance that you can put it in the game, put it in.

I love DLC like what Dark Souls is doing, adding a bunch on content. Or Skyrim's Dawnguard of Oblivion's DLC.

I don't get new costumes or weapons or anything like that, I like my DLC to be big

I find video games expensive enough as it is, I find paying for DLC insulting.

Originally Posted by POLICEMAN Gamzee

I find video games expensive enough as it is, I find paying for DLC insulting.

Video games have always been $50-$60, though, and it's not like there was a way for them to deliver additional content (outside of releasing an entirely new game) in past console generations. It's not like we got a price hike and over priced DLC. We just got over priced DLC.

Having a problem with appropriately priced DLC is silly.

Originally Posted by Hoopy Frood

Video games have always been $50-$60, though

I'm aware.

I miss expansion packs, myself.

I understand it doesn't really work for consoles and such, but I loved being able to buy practically a second game to build off the first. Nowadays a lot of the DLC are minor things, that somehow remain overpriced.

Hyperdimension Neptunia: Single player RPG. A lot of the DLC is free, most of the paid DLC are costumes, but there are a couple of characters that you can only get through DLC- and a couple that you can get INTO YOUR PARTY but cannot actually USE them until buying a license to use them. Fun game, good story, but it's like Final Fantasy X if Auron and Rikku were only usable in battle if you dropped $3.75 each.


I disagree with multiplayer 'power buying' DLC. Never should power be sold for real money, especially if there's an in-game economy where players can buy from players.

I disagree with DLC that takes provides story-important information that should have been included with the original game. If it gets made many months after and released for free, fine. If it costs a bit but adds a significant enough amount of gameplay to the game, alright. If it involves a fairly major plot twist or development and is available for pre-order bonuses or an extra $10 on launch day, sod off.


At this point, I'm hoping Nintendo keeps to their plans. They claim the new Mario game will have paid DLC, but it will be based around the challenge stages and will take customer feedback into account. That last part practically confirms that, at least what they are SAYING, Nintendo has plans to make DLC, but no real plans on what that DLC will be until the game has been released and they've got feedback.

Originally Posted by POLICEMAN Gamzee

I find video games expensive enough as it is, I find paying for DLC insulting.

It's insulting to charge for horse that is completely cosmetic in a single player game (oblivion horse armor)

It's insulting to charge for a single mission that could and should have been in the game at launch (Deus Ex: HR)

It's insulting to charge for DLC that is integral to the story (Mass Effect: Arrival/ Prothean Squadmate)

It's NOT insulting to charge for an expansion of the original game to create a new, worthwhile experience for those players who have had their fill of the original. (TES3: Bloodmoon, TESIV: Shivering Isles, Fallout 3 Operation Anchorage/Point Lookout, Borderlands Zombies, Red Dead Zombies, GTA IV Gay Tony, GTA IV biker gang, Rome: Total War Alexander, etc)

It's not insulting, it's just the outcome that's turns out less preferable for all parties involved in the long run (and possibly in the short run too).

Originally Posted by Sailgoat

It's NOT insulting to charge for an expansion of the original game to create a new, worthwhile experience for those players who have had their fill of the original. (TES3: Bloodmoon, TESIV: Shivering Isles, Fallout 3 Operation Anchorage/Point Lookout, Borderlands Zombies, Red Dead Zombies, GTA IV Gay Tony, GTA IV biker gang, Rome: Total War Alexander, etc)

well duh, I usually consider these to be expansion packs however as they actually add a decent amount to the game. i.e. burning crusade or the ones you've mentioned beforehand.

just making sure, not all DLC is bad DLC

I'm pretty neutral to DLC as a concept, and consider it more or less a variety of expansion pak, but I will become angry at various ways DLC is used. In particular, I hate games that make you pay (specifically pay - if it's free it's alright) to continue a game, whether 3/4s through or the actual ending. That's something that should have been on the disk and unlocked.

I disapprove of pay-for better weapons/accessories/skins DLC, but my experience with this has been rather tame, since the games I've played still let you access those items - you just have to work your butt off to get em. Clearly for those games that don't have alternate ways to get items as a feature I am more disappointed with.

I've pretty much been super giddy with the DLC on the 3DS (with the games I have). Nintendo keeps releasing new puzzles when I'm just about to 100% the darn things, and Mario Tennis Open keeps spamming new delicious characters - for free! As long as you can find them (pretty easy to do, even if you don't get the hints). Though it would be nice to also see downloadable courts. If Mario Tennis is any indication though, I'm really curious to see what they'll do for the new Smash Bros.

I don't mind most DLC, I just think that day-1 DLC is a ♥♥♥♥ing stupid idea. It's nothing more than a grab at extra cash for people that didn't pre-order the game.

Most DLC is great though (Dawnguard, Dragon Age Awakening, etc, etc, etc), but I still dispise day-1 DLC and there will be NOTHING that can change that.

The Borderlands DLCs were awesome. Not to mention they were all eventually included with the original game.

Asura's Wrath DLCs though...bleh. It's like they cut off the real ending and added it to a DLC.
I remember these old PC games like BF1942 and Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy, where there were so many mods, all for free by the community itself. Real good stuff too. Then you see some game that charges you for some costumes and you just wanna sigh