So what is wrong with DLC, again?

[Topher]

BRO TOPHER DONT BE SCARED BROFIST WITH PRIDE

...and from this day forth I shall my bro, I shall.

:brofist:

 

[kingcomrade]

Money grubbing jews

 

[commie]

Idiotic is you taking it up the arse from these companies.

I 'demo' most of my games, and only buy the ones I consider quality-product after a full playthrough. So I'm not really taking it up the ass (only when I like it, big boy).

May I ask you how you and DamnedRegistrations got these clairvoyant insights into the production-plans of these companies? See, my description is pretty standard, but yours is not, so you must have some extra knowledge, and I'm curious as to how you acquired it.

I know a guy that works at 2KCzech, another that works at CA in Brisbane and they're not the cleaning people.

 

[Lumpy]

Oh and asking for companies to include content that was originally meant to be in the initial release of the game and not sold separately is not being idiotic.

It is. It's their content, and they're allowed to do whatever the fuck they want with it. If removing it leaves the original game crippled, then the original game becomes shitty and people don't buy it.

That's where your fantasy world and the real one ultimately diverge.

No, no they don't.

In fact, fuck this. Let's synthesize our arguments:
Me: Developers are allowed to do anything with the content they create. They can package it however they want, and release it in any way. Releasing it in a bad way will lower the quality of the game, leading to less sales (Yes, bad games sell less*). DLC can also lead to better, cheaper games.**

You: Developers are under a moral obligation to release everything they have created up to the release day together with the game. In fact, even content that is created after the game is released should be released for free - or at the very least, in bigger groups, as expansions.

*No, I'm not saying that bad games sell less than good games - a lot of good games go unnoticed while shitty games thrive. I'm saying that a particular game, having been hyped to some degree before release, will sell more if it's actually good, than if it's a piece of shit.

**Assuming that additional budget improves the quality of a given game. DLC allows market segmenting or whatever that maths guy called it. The normal blokes pay the normal price for 95% of the content. They're happy because they play a full game for a decent price. The rich blokes who loved the game, pay 25% extra for the other 5% of the content. They're happy because they don't care about money, and they get more of the game they love.

Because of course, the revenues from the DLC aren't simply the merit of the DLC team - it's the original game that made people willing to pay - the DLC will sell proportionally to how well liked the original game was, not how awesome the horse armor is designed.

 

[Serus]

DLC can also lead to better, cheaper games.**

That's strange. We have DLCs for some time now but i must have missed all those games better thanks to DLCs. Care to point me in the right direction ?

 

[Lumpy]

DLC can also lead to better, cheaper games.**

That's strange. We have DLCs for some time now but i must have missed all those games better thanks to DLCs. Care to point me in the right direction ?

How do you know Dragon Age wasn't better thanks to DLC?

 

[kanenas]

DLC can also lead to better, cheaper games.**

That's strange. We have DLCs for some time now but i must have missed all those games better thanks to DLCs. Care to point me in the right direction ?

How do you know Dragon Age wasn't better thanks to DLC?

Yes having NPCs going OOC and trying to sell you DLC really helped the whole RPG experience of DA

 

[BethesdaLove]

Oh and asking for companies to include content that was originally meant to be in the initial release of the game and not sold separately is not being idiotic.

It is. It's their content, and they're allowed to do whatever the fuck they want with it. If removing it leaves the original game crippled, then the original game becomes shitty and people don't buy it.

That's where your fantasy world and the real one ultimately diverge.

No, no they don't.

In fact, fuck this. Let's synthesize our arguments:
Me: Developers are allowed to do anything with the content they create. They can package it however they want, and release it in any way. Releasing it in a bad way will lower the quality of the game, leading to less sales (Yes, bad games sell less*). DLC can also lead to better, cheaper games.**

You: Developers are under a moral obligation to release everything they have created up to the release day together with the game. In fact, even content that is created after the game is released should be released for free - or at the very least, in bigger groups, as expansions.

*No, I'm not saying that bad games sell less than good games - a lot of good games go unnoticed while shitty games thrive. I'm saying that a particular game, having been hyped to some degree before release, will sell more if it's actually good, than if it's a piece of shit.

**Assuming that additional budget improves the quality of a given game. DLC allows market segmenting or whatever that maths guy called it. The normal blokes pay the normal price for 95% of the content. They're happy because they play a full game for a decent price. The rich blokes who loved the game, pay 25% extra for the other 5% of the content. They're happy because they don't care about money, and they get more of the game they love.

Because of course, the revenues from the DLC aren't simply the merit of the DLC team - it's the original game that made people willing to pay - the DLC will sell proportionally to how well liked the original game was, not how awesome the horse armor is designed.

There is your problem in bold. "Many of the economic theories that our governments have been adhering to over the past few decades have as a core premise that overall, markets behave rationally. Specifically, the "Efficient Market Hypothesis", in which it is proposed that the price for a good or service ALWAYS reflects ALL available information, implicitly assumes that market actors are acting rationally." It is not true. We are monkeys.
I want to have more for less as a consumer. But the sheeple dont care (till a breaking point) and they drag me into it.

 

[Zomg]

DLC is intended as a way to short circuit consumer restraint basically, just like the brief episodic game fad they're exploring ways to disrupt how people assign value to their product so they can find ways to charge more for less. This is bad for various reasons but mainly because people that are unmoved by old salesman tricks still get the same system up the ass

 

[Serus]

DLC can also lead to better, cheaper games.**

That's strange. We have DLCs for some time now but i must have missed all those games better thanks to DLCs. Care to point me in the right direction ?

How do you know Dragon Age wasn't better thanks to DLC?

How do you know it was ? It is your claim, the burden of proof is on you. Do i really need to explain basic concepts like that ?
Also, what kanenas said.

 

[Lumpy]

DLC can also lead to better, cheaper games.**

That's strange. We have DLCs for some time now but i must have missed all those games better thanks to DLCs. Care to point me in the right direction ?

How do you know Dragon Age wasn't better thanks to DLC?

How do you know it was ? It is your claim, the burden of proof is on you. Do i really need to explain basic concepts like that ?
Also, what kanenas said.

Because my point was that DLC brings greater revenues, and thus games have bigger budgets, so they are better. Of course, it's impossible to measure that the game was better because of DLC, but it's logical that it should be.

 

[treave]

Because my point was that DLC brings greater revenues, and thus games have bigger budgets, so they are better. Of course, it's impossible to measure that the game was better because of DLC, but it's logical that it should be.

Oh yeah, bigger budgets. Which are poured into marketing. I can see how that'd improve games.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Sounds nice in theory, but I think that extra budget is only a sizeable amount for the more DLC happy companies like Beth / Bio, and they aren't exactly desperate for that extra money. So DLC ends up as the current "here's some new swords and a few half hour long quests, that'll be 10 bux each plz" fanbase milking model.

 

[Tycn]

DLC brings greater revenues, and thus games have bigger budgets, so they are better

Because budget is such a great predictor of quality, isn't it

 

[Topher]

Because my point was that DLC brings greater revenues, and thus games have bigger budgets, so they are better. Of course, it's impossible to measure that the game was better because of DLC, but it's logical that it should be.

Bigger budget stretched over more content would be more like breaking even. Either one (more content or bigger budget) don't make a better game it the balance of the two that does.

So no it's really not logical at all if you give it any thought.

 

[zeitgeist]

Because my point was that DLC brings greater revenues, and thus games have bigger budgets, so they are better. Of course, it's impossible to measure that the game was better because of DLC, but it's logical that it should be.

So following that logic, wouldn't the ultimate evolution of DLC be an expansion pack?

 

[Pablosdog]

Yes, mainly dlc is just an excuse to cut-content and to pander into the materialism that our society so greatly admires.

 

[LusciousPear]

Borderlands has the best DLC I've played -- *better* characters than the original (Gen. Knoxx), better weapons, and at least 30h of extra content with farming.

Valkyria Chronicles has OK DLC. About 2h content for $5.

Everything else I've tried....pretty bad.

 

[Lumpy]

DLC brings greater revenues, and thus games have bigger budgets, so they are better

Because budget is such a great predictor of quality, isn't it

No, because any given game would have been better with a bigger budget.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Yeah, but that implies developers of any given game would always be able to apply it wisely, so it's just mindwank. And don't tighter budgets kind of compel you to be more creative, anyway? For example, if you can't just slap Picard / Neeson on this character, you'll have to work harder if you want him to be memorable.

 

[Castanova]

DLC brings greater revenues, and thus games have bigger budgets, so they are better

Because budget is such a great predictor of quality, isn't it

No, because any given game would have been better with a bigger budget.

Uh, no. At least, not in the real world. Bigger budget implies more revenue needed to break even. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what happens to any given game when broadening the audience becomes a design goal.

 

[Zomg]

Because my point was that DLC brings greater revenues, and thus games have bigger budgets, so they are better.

go hit yourself with a rolled up newspaper you damn bad Lumpy

 

[Tails]

Only good DLC is free DLC. Developer of Armageddon Empires released two free DLC for game, which I found as acknowledge to customer, for purchasing the game. What kind of other pros it has for a dev, I don't need mention.

Sure, payable DLC could be good if the content equal to the money people spend on it. Sadly, in most situation it is otherwise. Putting in game message like "purchase this DLC to have more backstory" (like in AC2) is like spitting in face of a customer. It should be forbidden.

 

[LazyD]

op fag lolol

 

[Forest Dweller]

Lumpy, no one here is saying that the companies don't have a legal right to do whatever they want with their product. Of course, they can do whatever. It's the free market, after all. And just as they have that right, we as consumers have the right to bitch about the practice and anything else we don't like. And that's pretty much all we're doing. Unless you've got anything else to add, you've sure gone to a lot of effort to say absolutely nothing.

Now, concerning DLC, I think it's a very bad trend in gaming and it will slowly cause a decrease in quality, while simultaneously raising prices that the average gamer has to pay.

First, let's start off with the basics. Here's the premise: games should be released in a complete state. We can all agree on that, right? All the systems in a game should be fully explored to the best of the developer's abilities, there should be no glaring omissions, and overall, the game should stand well on its own and give a good sense of closure to the gamer when he finishes it (assuming single player obviously). It should also obviously be polished as much as possible prior to release and any bugs encountered afterwards should be fixed with patches. I don't think anyone here would argue with this. Forget how the majority of games may or may not be released today, it is self-evident that this is how it SHOULD be.

So, let's consider DLC in this light. DLC is content that adds to the game in some way, released afterward for an added price. So, what could justify this? Well, we've already established that games should be released in a complete state. So if the game feels more complete as a result of the DLC, then it's content that should have been in the original game and gamers shouldn't have to pay extra for it. Alternately, the content stands apart from the main game and doesn't add anything that the game felt like it needed. These are really the only two options here. The first is bad for obvious reasons and I would argue unethical, and the second isn't good either for reasons I'm about to explain.

If the added content stands apart, then chances are it feels tacked on and doesn't really fit with the rest of the game. Examples are numerous. Darkspawn Chronicles and Leliana's Song in DA. The two mini-adventures in the Witcher (these were free but you get the idea). That castle defense thing or whatever in Assassin's Creed 2. Numerous new weapons that are overpowered and fuck up the game balance. New costumes that are gay as fuck. The list goes on and on. These things actually lessen the game by introducing inconsistencies into the gameworld or upsetting the balance.

Now, not everything added does that, but most of these little things do, when they don't help complete the game as already mentioned. The only exception is new quests added in a sandbox game. The nature of a sandbox games means a main quest and then tons of other things to do in the gameworld, which means a new quest added in a later date feels neither necessary for the game nor out of place. So that works. But even still, they're usually so small that it begs the question: why bother? And as already mentioned, they are overpriced. Expansions are a different story, since they offer a significant amount of new content for a price that's proportional to the price of the original. And those normally build on the core game as well by introducing new mechanics. But these short little DLCs don't do any of that. Is someone really supposed to get excited over 1-2 hours of new gameplay? I can go around eating crackers all day at 30 minute intervals, but eventually, I want to have a fucking MEAL. And let's assume that these DLCs actually are made by a seperate team that doesn't pull any resources from the team developing the game. I find it highly unlikely that their presence on the main team wouldn't in some way benefit the game, but even apart from that, they're spending time working on relatively pointless shit when they could either be working on QA, an expansion, or a different project. Bottom line, they could all be doing something else, and game developers ALREADY waste so much time and money on the latest graphics, full orchestra, and famous voice actors that I'm not willing to forgive them wasting even more time on more things of negligable value. Like shitty DLC.

And this is all in reference to the stuff that is actually honest on the part of the developer. As already mentioned, too much of this shit is actually stuff that should have been in the game at launch. This could simply be an issue of them not having the foresight or the patience to fully develop everything, and then them realizing it later and making a DLC. That's still bad and there's no real excuse. But too often then not it seems clear that many of these things are a deliberate omission for the purpose of milking more money from the consumer. A publisher can look at a feature that their developer has yet to implement and realize that they can withhold it and sell it later as DLC. If you don't think this sort of thing happens a LOT, then you are very naive. And recently there have been many examples where it is blatantly obvious, as if they don't even try to hide it anymore. Like that Bioshock 2 example. I mean holy shit! A complete gaming mode of the game removed until you pay for it as DLC. And this is not to mention the intrusive in-game advertising like in Dragon Age. They're getting more brazen and no one seems to really care. In these instances, piracy of the game or at least the DLC is not only deserved, but completely moral.

So, DLC is very bad in almost all cases. I'd even call it an abomination, and if it continues in the direction it is going it will ruin gaming. And I mean really ruin it, not this pseudo-decline we are in now. At best, it is small added things of negligable value that the developers would have been better off not doing in favor of something else; and at worse, it is deliberate fraud aimed at getting wholly undeserved money out of gamers. The former is a waste of time and manpower, the latter deceitful and completely immoral. In both cases DLC is a bad idea.