Current Events > New Survey: ~60% of Gamers say DLC is "Important" to Them

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2017-reports/nielsen-games-360-report-2017.pdf

https://abload.de/img/nielsenshu6u.png

Number rose from ~50% just last year. For all two of you still on your DLC strike, you may as well give it up. DLC has been a thing for over a decade now and isn't going anywhere. Especially not with people asking for it like this.
---

Yup, people are idiots, on the other hand, fire is hot
---

HEY YO!

Survey says... one more for the good guys!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYwXUxgszF0
---

Well I've never had a problem with DLC done right so why would I want it to go?
---

And like 1 in a 1000 developer does dlc right, the other are money sucking, nickel and dime trash content intended to suck dry idiots' wallets
---

dlc is good

i'd rather spend 60 dollars on a game and 40 dollars on dlc for it than 60 dollars on a game and 60 dollars on its sequel
---

apolloooo posted...

Yup, people are idiots, on the other hand, fire is hot

It's not idiotic. It's content more often than not you would have to wait years to be added in a sequel. That's not even factoring in the fact that prices of video games should have increased years ago. This gives you an option to buy it if you want, or to skip out on it if you don't.

Calling people "idiots" is a poor excuse for someone not agreeing with your archaic mindset.
---

Good. People should pay if hey want extra costumes and other content for a game even for cheat codes.

Zack_Attackv1 posted...

HEY YO!

Survey says... one more for the good guys!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYwXUxgszF0

http://media0.giphy.com/media/hxXhy9z4x6N2w/giphy.gif
---

Yep gotta love that disc locked content, randomized loot boxes/crates/packs and preorder exclusives that you can buy for $5!
---

my theory is that all the annual franchises, DLC, day 1 patches etc turned off a lot of older people from gaming, and so the majority of the people who game nowadays are kids/teens who grew up with DLC as a normal thing. as a result they dont see anything wrong with the practice, since it gives them something additional to play
---

apolloooo posted...

And like 1 in a 1000 developer does dlc right, the other are money sucking, nickel and dime trash content intended to suck dry idiots' wallets

Hyperbole helps no one.
---

Romulox28 posted...

my theory is that all the annual franchises, DLC, day 1 patches etc turned off a lot of older people from gaming, and so the majority of the people who game nowadays are kids/teens who grew up with DLC as a normal thing. as a result they dont see anything wrong with the practice, since it gives them something additional to play

I was born in 92, started playing the SNES/N64/PS1 as a little kid.
---

DLC is such a broad term, that it doesn't really help the survey. DLC can range from $5 to have your horse wear pants to a full priced, completely new campaigns. There are plenty of examples of good DLC. Fallout; New Vegas had a wonderful set of DLC that explored new areas and gave new storylines. Of course, some are hit or miss, but overall, the five expansions were a great addition to the game. Paradox also has a bevy of DLC that added to the game in great ways (though, admittedly, some are hit or miss and the free patches are controversial). DLC is not inherently bad. It can be great for extending support of a game, or answering questions they didn't have time for in the game or adding new gameplay mechanics that gamers were interested in trying out.

It only sucks when it's obvious that content was removed in order to make it DLC later.

Romulox28 posted...

my theory is that all the annual franchises, DLC, day 1 patches etc turned off a lot of older people from gaming, and so the majority of the people who game nowadays are kids/teens who grew up with DLC as a normal thing. as a result they dont see anything wrong with the practice, since it gives them something additional to play

Sounds like a pretty baseless theory. More "older people" probably remember the days when some SNES and Genesis games were upwards of $80, and they understand that prices of games should have gone up ages ago as costs to produce them has increased exponentially.

Plus it's content we most likely wouldn't be able to get otherwise that's optional. Literally no harm done.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

DLC is such a broad term, that it doesn't really help the survey. DLC can range from $5 to have your horse wear pants to a full priced, completely new campaigns. There are plenty of examples of good DLC. Fallout; New Vegas had a wonderful set of DLC that explored new areas and gave new storylines. Of course, some are hit or miss, but overall, the five expansions were a great addition to the game. Paradox also has a bevy of DLC that added to the game in great ways (though, admittedly, some are hit or miss and the free patches are controversial). DLC is not inherently bad. It can be great for extending support of a game, or answering questions they didn't have time for in the game or adding new gameplay mechanics that gamers were interested in trying out.

It only sucks when it's obvious that content was removed in order to make it DLC later.

Hell, episodic games could technically be considered DLC and my favorite game is an episodic one.
---

I think most of it is tied to online play in general.

67& of gamers play games to be social according to a link there. Destiny, The Division, Overwatch, Ghost Recond Wildlands, COD etc. all have massive online focuses and sell significantly. In order to keep gamers interested these games require post-game support and DLC.

I'd say multiplayer takes up the far majority of these answers.

While I do like and enjoy single player DLC when it's good an valuable I still wouldn't consider it important. But it is important for online games. A lot of us here are dinosaurs with our opinions about online focused games and DLC. Myself included.
---

Darmik posted...

I think most of it is tied to online play in general.

67& of gamers play games to be social according to a link there. Destiny, The Division, Overwatch, Ghost Recond Wildlands, COD etc. all have massive online focuses and sell significantly. In order to keep gamers interested these games require post-game support and DLC.

I'd say multiplayer takes up the far majority of these answers.

While I do like and enjoy single player DLC when it's good an valuable I still wouldn't consider it important. But it is important for online games. A lot of us here are dinosaurs with our opinions about online focused games and DLC. Myself included.

But there are exceptions. For example, Crusader Kings II is over five years old and still receives around 3-4 DLC packs a year, and routine developer support. Of course, there is a multiplayer option, but the game is predominately a single player game. The DLC keeps the developers invested in it and has greatly improved the game.

Yeah there's another stat backing up the online figure. Gamers spend more time on their PS4 and Xbone playing online than they do offline. I'd even say that the average console/PC gamer is more online focused compared to most people who post on message boards like GameFAQ's.

Dash_Harber posted...

But there are exceptions. For example, Crusader Kings II is over five years old and still receives around 3-4 DLC packs a year, and routine developer support. Of course, there is a multiplayer option, but the game is predominately a single player game. The DLC keeps the developers invested in it and has greatly improved the game.

Yeah of course. I know the Bethesda DLC is big too.

I'd say most of the revenue and expectations come from online 'games as a service' sort of game. I wouldn't give a rats ass if Breath of the Wild had no DLC for example but I'm sure people would skip out on Destiny 2 if they didn't offer any.
---

Darmik posted...

Yeah there's another stat backing up the online figure. Gamers spend more time on their PS4 and Xbone playing online than they do offline.

Those are constantly connected though so you're technically ALWAYS online.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

Darmik posted...

Yeah there's another stat backing up the online figure. Gamers spend more time on their PS4 and Xbone playing online than they do offline.

Those are constantly connected though so you're technically ALWAYS online.

Surely that isn't how they phrased the poll question.
---

tfw u mostly play games that dont have dlc
---

Darmik posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Darmik posted...

Yeah there's another stat backing up the online figure. Gamers spend more time on their PS4 and Xbone playing online than they do offline.

Those are constantly connected though so you're technically ALWAYS online.

Surely that isn't how they phrased the poll question.

I've had my internet go out and have been unable to do a majority of things in games, mainly save. You HAVE to be online to play.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

Darmik posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Darmik posted...

Yeah there's another stat backing up the online figure. Gamers spend more time on their PS4 and Xbone playing online than they do offline.

Those are constantly connected though so you're technically ALWAYS online.

Surely that isn't how they phrased the poll question.

I've had my internet go out and have been unable to do a majority of things in games, mainly save. You HAVE to be online to play.

I mean surely they're referring to actually playing online with people.

And yeah I know. I could barely use my PS4 when I moved house. Even retail games had some sort of DLC that would lock out my account lol
---

dave_is_slick posted...

Well I've never had a problem with DLC done right so why would I want it to go?

---

I used to really strongly dislike dlc on principle. But recently I've realized there are so few new games I'm genuinely interested in and think are good that I don't mind giving some extra money to the ones who get it right
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTYpKlIc_fg

Not surprising seeing how well CoD sells every fucking year, them players can't wait for their $15 map packs.
---

DLC that is the equivalent of the old PC expansions is perfectly fine.
---

Well duh DLC has been out so long kids that grow up have no idea how games were back then.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Terra-enforcer posted...

Romulox28 posted...

my theory is that all the annual franchises, DLC, day 1 patches etc turned off a lot of older people from gaming, and so the majority of the people who game nowadays are kids/teens who grew up with DLC as a normal thing. as a result they dont see anything wrong with the practice, since it gives them something additional to play

Sounds like a pretty baseless theory. More "older people" probably remember the days when some SNES and Genesis games were upwards of $80, and they understand that prices of games should have gone up ages ago as costs to produce them has increased exponentially.

Plus it's content we most likely wouldn't be able to get otherwise that's optional. Literally no harm done.

This.

Not to mention when games were so expensive and how they arrived Day 1 was how they were going to be forever. If someone released Super Mario 2 today, I would probably complain that it was $60 with so little content. Today, we mostly get games highly populated with content and stories, plus patches, plus some free DLC, and then paid DLC if you want.

It's the golden age compared to what it was.

Also, I'd rather pay for addons that give me more stuff to do with the core mechanics I've come to enjoy from one particular game than to just buy other games. For example, Forza Horizon 3 with everything that's come out so far has cost me around... $132? But I've put over 300 hours into it since release and I preferred getting more tracks and cars to use in that game than to spend $60 on another racing game.
---

The same people bitching about gamers buying DLC would be the first people to bitch if game prices increased to compensate. They're just cheap dorks who live at home and cry every time they see something they can't afford.

Be glad that DLC allows more well off gamers to subsidize your cheaper copy.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Also agree here. I got into a somewhat heated discussion with @ZombiePelican about this.

No we got into a discussion over microtransactions in games people paid upwards of 60 dollars for, with you bending over backwards to find ways to be the perfect little lapdog for publishers
---

Terra-enforcer posted...

More "older people" probably remember the days when some SNES and Genesis games were upwards of $80, and they understand that prices of games should have gone up ages ago as costs to produce them has increased exponentially.

Plus it's content we most likely wouldn't be able to get otherwise that's optional. Literally no harm done.

That's pretty much how I feel. Instead of the price going up, we're able to pay $60 for the core game and then choose if we like it enough to buy the additional content.
There are a couple games that I feel really need the DLC, but most of the time it's stuff I wouldn't even miss if I didn't know about.

Plus like, it's never been easier to be a gamer. With Amazon Prime, I pay $48 to get a brand new game delivered to my house the day of. So much better than the 90s and such.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Yeah, you're right it did start with microtransactions. I believe we did get into DLC, however.

No. It was entirely microtransactions, I don't care about DLC as long as it's reasonably priced and made post game


Asherlee10 posted...

And I still stand by my points.

You made no points. Your so called points justify nothing and only make you look like a sniveling corporate apologist.
---

I don't have a problem with DLC if it's done right:

Game has been finished for over a year and DLC gets announced= awesome
Game has been out in Japan for years and is finally coming elsewhere with day 1 DLC= totally understandable
Game isn't even close to done and DLC is already announced= smh tbh fam
---

Or why not do the reasonable thing abd pay $15 for the game and $15 for the DLC?
---