Poll of the Day > Your thoughts on DLC

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's been a decade since the Great DLC Storm of 2008 (I made that up), but in all reality, DLC is becoming more and more common, even Nintendo has hopped onto the trend in the past few years. What's your outlook on it?

I don't like it in games where it's clear the devs just held out, but for something like Street Fighter V that gives updates years later, I can enjoy it.

It usually depends, but I have no problem with it.
---

DLC that comes out a year later is fine. DLC that comes out day one or close to release isn't so fine.

Most DLC is cut content, nowadays a fully DLC'd game feels like an old from-the-box game.
---

Depends on the DLC. If it adds new game/story content cool.

If its a couple of aesthetic costumes or some such bs, I don't care.
---

Depends if it's actually DLC and actually worth while to get.
---

I don't inherently dislike it, and many good things have come from it. But like everything there's good and bad, and a lot of companies take the wrong approach to it (gutting a game and charging for the rest, nickel and diming with dozens of insignificant purchases, etc.).
---

Indifferent. I understand it's income for them and extends the life of games, but it feels cheap if it's just withheld content from normal development. Then since I prefer to spend less and have too many games already it's not something I try very often.

Depends on the quantity and quality of DLC. If a game has 30 small DLCs then no thanks(and fuck that game), but if it has one or two that are more like what we used to call "expansion packs" then sure.
---

It all depends:

Day one, disc locked DLC that should've been in the game in the first place that soaks the customer can suck it.

DLC made after the fact way later (you know, like what it's supposed to be) that adds to the overall experience I'm all for. Excellent examples of this would be the Dark Souls Atorias stuff, Bloodborne Old Hunters, Borderlands 2 Tiny Tina / Mr Torgue campaigns.
---

Normally Im fine with it, I like the idea if you enjoy the game that you can get extra content if you want, if you dont you can play the base game. FFXV was probably the only game that Ive played that felt like it was hindered with dlcs since they awkwardly cut pieces out of the story to sell as dlc.
---

Would Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen considered DLC? If so that's another great example of doing it right.
---

The funny thing about DLC is I disapprove of it in it's current implementation (Split up a full game to get people to spend more money on the individual parts) but think it would work great as a replacement for yearly franchises (imagine spending $10 to get the 2018 season DLC for Madden instead of $60 for a new game with some minor improvements).

However, if DLC is just fun stuff (like the zombie story for Red Dead Redemption) then I usually love it.
---

Depends. If it looks fun and interesting, I'll buy it. Most of the time on release day. I almost never preorder.

I don't fuck with multiplayer DLC, though.
---

Black_Crusher posted...

Would Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen considered DLC? If so that's another great example of doing it right.

I'd just consider that an expanded version, because I don't think DD owners had access to that content without buying the new game. Only like 50% sure on that though.

Dikitain posted...

The funny thing about DLC is I disapprove of it in it's current implementation (Split up a full game to get people to spend more money on the individual parts) but think it would work great as a replacement for yearly franchises

The only issue with that becomes the target audience and for what games. Usually, games with that model make the most of their bank from loot boxes/cosmetic DLCs.

i don't think we're all using the same definition of "DLC". that just means downloadable content, but some people are counting full expansions in the same category as like, an optional costume
---

if the main game is awesome and DLC just adds even more awesome, then give me all the DLC you can.

if the main game feels like it's half finished, and adding DLC makes it feel maybe 80% to 90% finished instead, fuck that.
---

I refuse to buy any DLC that isn't included on a physical purchase of some kind (GotY Edition, etc.), simply because I don't believe in supporting any business model that isn't archivable.

DLC annoys the shit out of me because it's money-grubbing and price obfuscation - not to mention, half the time it feels like the DLC are features that should have been included in the base game. It's another system that sounds great in concept ("Now developers can continue to add more content to games after launch!") but was ruined in execution by greedy assholes.
---

Why release a finished product when you can push a shoddy game out the door half-finished and make people pay for it twice?
---

keyblader1985 posted...

I don't inherently dislike it, and many good things have come from it. But like everything there's good and bad, and a lot of companies take the wrong approach to it (gutting a game and charging for the rest, nickel and diming with dozens of insignificant purchases, etc.).

This. There's not really a good option in the poll for my opinion.
---

Generally, the moment they announce DLC for a game (especially pre-release of the game itself), I almost always immediately put off buying the game until it's not only GotY edition with all DLC included, but also on sale. I find the practice relatively distasteful, even if once every hundred DLCs or so you wind up with something truly brilliant.


---

I'm not morally opposed to DLC or anything. However, after conquering a game, it's a bit of a killjoy to say, "Oh, but you haven't beaten everything yet! Give us more money!" I've usually had my fill of a game after beating the main story, so I don't think the DLC is usually worth it.
---

Tails 64 posted...

after conquering a game, it's a bit of a killjoy to say, "Oh, but you haven't beaten everything yet! Give us more money!" I've usually had my fill of a game after beating the main story

This definitely happens to me. Recent examples would be Horizon: Zero Dawn, and Sleeping Dogs Definitive Edition.

Loved both games. Played Frozen Wilds immediately after finishing Zero Dawn and got burned out on the game halfway through. Same with Sleeping Dogs. Loved the core game, but had to force myself to complete the DLC. On some level the DLC is enjoyable simply for being more of a good thing, but like you I've had my fill with the main game at times. Don't really need more.
---

DLC that actively adds content, rather than selling chunks of the full game, is fine. Look at Witcher III in that regard. I'll get it when I feel like getting it, because it's optional, truly optional; if that happens to where I'm buying the game once a full/extended version is out then I'll buy the full thing in one swoop.

Compare even to FFXV where I stopped at the end of the open world, in the main story, and I by no means felt inclined to buy any DLC. I didn't bother with the Royal Edition either, and I could have waited until then or later to bother buying the game at all, if I'm honest with myself. Too bad, so sad.
---

Every single game ever made has had cut content.

Doesn't necessarily mean the consumer is getting screwed over. Sometimes game developers have deadlines. Sometimes the editing room gets a little bonkers.

As long as the initial game being sold is satisfying to consumers and feels worthy of the price tag.....I see nothing wrong with additional content being sold later as DLC.

Fortnite has the right idea with most of just being aesthetic stuff.

EA had the WRONG idea with characters like Vader dominating the battleground because some kid wanted to pay to win.

Borderlands had the right idea with MASSIVE DLC packs that were several months apart to keep the experience fresh for multiple YEARS.

Some companies do it WRONG by having the content already on the disc and you have to pay to unlock it later.
---

As long as the DLC isn't pay-to-win on competitive games then I don't really care much.

I do think it's scummy for them to have things locked on disc that you can't get unless you buy it on day 1.
---

Far-Queue posted...

Played Frozen Wilds immediately after finishing Zero Dawn and got burned out on the game halfway through.

That's why I was glad I had a cooling down period between the main game and the DLC. That being said, I sometimes don't like the down time because I have to remember all the controls and how I played my character. Haha.

Also, if it's free DLC, then I definitely love it.
---

I love it, but my wallet doesn't.
---

I would prefer a slightly more expensive, longer, or fully completed game to one with dlc. If I buy a game close to launch, I tend to finish it before any dlc even comes out. Usually that means I don't want to go back to it, just to play a couple of hours worth of content.
---

Entity13 posted...

DLC that actively adds content, rather than selling chunks of the full game, is fine.

---

i was ok with it, i bought some dlc here and there, then my video game time got cut in half so i stopped buying all dlc, now i buy it only on deep discount because rarely will i even get around it it, ok?
---

It's a good concept, but it's frequently abused. So long as it's actual extra content and not just stuff that you need to buy to feel like you're getting some semblance of a complete game, I'm cool with it, and I'll buy it if I think it'll be worthwhile. If it's stuff that was obviously cut out to sell back at a premium rather than having the balls to increase the price of the game? Less so. If it's largely pointless frills like extra costumes? I might buy it if I've really enjoyed the game and want to support the developer, but again, that's only true if that's not the only way to attain such things (i.e. Borderlands 2 having several costume DLC's, but also plenty of costume options in the base game (though I didn't buy any of the costume DLC there)).
---

adjl posted...

If it's stuff that was obviously cut out to sell back at a premium rather than having the balls to increase the price of the game?

So, does that mean you would buy a season pass? Because a season pass for certain games will sell with the game. So, it's kind of like raising the price of the game, like you said.
---

LinkPizza posted...

adjl posted...

If it's stuff that was obviously cut out to sell back at a premium rather than having the balls to increase the price of the game?

So, does that mean you would buy a season pass? Because a season pass for certain games will sell with the game. So, it's kind of like raising the price of the game, like you said.

It's usually selling cut content.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

adjl posted...

If it's stuff that was obviously cut out to sell back at a premium rather than having the balls to increase the price of the game?

So, does that mean you would buy a season pass? Because a season pass for certain games will sell with the game. So, it's kind of like raising the price of the game, like you said.

It's usually selling cut content.

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what the DLC(or season pass item(s)) is in certain cases.

Though, I'm not usually worried about buying cut content. The reason is because it might have been cut for other reasons. If something was cut from the game, and they weren't going to put it in, you don't get that part. But maybe they sell it off as a separate thing(like a "what could have happened if" or "this is a different part of the story").

But the reason I asked is because he said "having the balls to increase the price of the game". And selling the season pass with the game is kind of like raising the price.
---

LinkPizza posted...

adjl posted...

If it's stuff that was obviously cut out to sell back at a premium rather than having the balls to increase the price of the game?

So, does that mean you would buy a season pass? Because a season pass for certain games will sell with the game. So, it's kind of like raising the price of the game, like you said.

As far as my logic there goes, sort of. It does mean they're offering the option to buy the whole game up-front, but they're still painting it as being some sort of premium bonus instead of just being the intact game. Season passes also run into the issue that they're often effectively a pre-order for content that hasn't been previewed at all, which turns me off of them. That said, I have bought season passes when I had reason to trust that they'd be worthwhile.

-For Borderlands 2, I was sufficiently impressed with the DLC for the first game that I trusted the new stuff would be good and went for the season pass (at that point, I believe only the first two campaigns were out)
-For MK8, adding another 50% of the game's tracks for only $12 was guaranteed to be a good deal if the tracks were any decent, and given the track record (heh) they established with the ones already in the game, I was willing to make that gamble.
-For Hyrule Warriors, I bought the season pass when the first two packs were out, knowing that even just the Adventure Mode maps they were adding were a massive amount of additional content, and it'd be worthwhile.

Those are the only examples I can think of. I considered the one for Xenoblade 2, especially once more of the content had come out and it was seeming worthwhile, but now that it's all been released (and looks very worthwhile) it's not really a gamble anymore. I'll probably buy that at some point. Mostly, it just boils down to whether or not I feel I can trust that the season pass will be worth the money. Usually, it's too much of a gamble.
---

I don't buy DLC(outside complete versions of games) because for the most part it's nothing more than a cash grab. It bugs the shit out of me when DLC is announced before a game is even out too such as with Spider-Man. Don't get me wrong some devs/publishers do DLC right such as with CDPR but most don't.

Nightengale posted...

i don't think we're all using the same definition of "DLC". that just means downloadable content, but some people are counting full expansions in the same category as like, an optional costume

You're downloading content (unless bought on disc later/on PC) so it means all downloadable content. Hearts of Stone and Blood and Wine were expansions to Witcher 3 yet also called DLC for that reason.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

It bugs the s*** out of me when DLC is announced before a game is even out too such as with Spider-Man.

To be fair, there's often a pretty significant amount of time between when a game is considered feature-complete and when it actually launches, during which starting work on DLC is perfectly reasonable. Like everything to do with post-purchase monetization practices, there are many, many examples of this being taken too far, but the fact that DLC is in an announcement-ready state before launch isn't inherently a bad thing.

Personally, I also don't mind even if they've got that DLC ready right at launch, provided the base game feels like a complete experience. If the Tiny Tina DLC had launched alongside Borderlands 2, I might suspect they delayed the game's launch to facilitate that, but I'd still consider it an excellent example of DLC. Without it, the game still feels like a full game, and that's what's important in my books. The DLC is just something extra on top of that, which I was happy to pay for because it was great.
---

adjl posted...

To be fair, there's often a pretty significant amount of time between when a game is considered feature-complete and when it actually launches, during which starting work on DLC is perfectly reasonable.

Sure a game normally goes gold a month before it's due out. This doesn't excuse the fact that they could have put said content in the game. Without spoilers they are two cases in Spider-Man where the DLC should have clearly been in the game but was left out to sell you later. Final Fantasy XV was the worse for this though. Games like God of War can do just fine without DLC despite your justification for it yet a game like Spider-Man absolutely must milk the player? GTFO with that noise.

adjl posted...

The DLC is just something extra on top of that, which I was happy to pay for because it was great.

... and this is why we have this problem. I will say I thought better of someone as smart of yourself though but I guess I'm wrong to do that. Still you're more than happy to have bits of your game sold to you so good for you buddy. Others not so much as no matter what you say DLC is often abused.
---

adjl posted...

-For MK8, adding another 50% of the game's tracks for only $12 was guaranteed to be a good deal if the tracks were any decent, and given the track record (heh) they established with the ones already in the game, I was willing to make that gamble. -For Hyrule Warriors, I bought the season pass when the first two packs were out, knowing that even just the Adventure Mode maps they were adding were a massive amount of additional content, and it'd be worthwhile.

That was my thinking on those two. MK8 stuff was supper cheap and came with 50% more game. So, I definitely bought that. And I bought the season pass for Hyrule Warriors because it was basically characters and adventure map. Which all play differently, so that was cool.

adjl posted...

Those are the only examples I can think of. I considered the one for Xenoblade 2, especially once more of the content had come out and it was seeming worthwhile, but now that it's all been released (and looks very worthwhile) it's not really a gamble anymore. I'll probably buy that at some point. Mostly, it just boils down to whether or not I feel I can trust that the season pass will be worth the money. Usually, it's too much of a gamble.

I actually got the season pass for this, which was cool since it also came with the prequel, which sells on it's own for like $40, I believe...
---

I just wait for the inevitable complete version of games that I know will have quite a bit of DLC. Borderlands always has a game of the year version and Shadow of War recently got one just as Mordor did.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Still you're more than happy to have bits of your game sold to you so good for you buddy. Others not so much as no matter what you say DLC is often abused.

Sometimes, people would like the option to have pieces of the game that wouldn't have ever been available to the public otherwise. But, anyway, it can be (and is) abused sometimes. But not all the time. I agree with adjl about how DLC being announced before isn't always bad. Just because they announce it doesn't mean it's completed yet...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Sometimes, people would like the option to have pieces of the game that wouldn't have ever been available to the public otherwise.

DLC makes it more likely that content will be cut and sold later in some shape or form correct.

LinkPizza posted...

But, anyway, it can be (and is) abused sometimes. But not all the time. I agree with adjl about how DLC being announced before isn't always bad. Just because they announce it doesn't mean it's completed yet...

Of course it isn't completed. They saved that job for later for folk like you who love opening their wallets and buying whatever shit publishers throw at you. No matter what others say you'll always find a way to justify that thought process to yourself so as I said this shitty practices are made for folk just like you.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Sure a game normally goes gold a month before it's due out. This doesn't excuse the fact that they could have put said content in the game.

Maybe they could. So? There is no game in existence where you cannot say "they could have put more content in." There will always be a point in development where the dev team has to accept the limitations of their budget, deadlines, and creativity, and call the game a finished product. DLC means you can add more to it later, if you've got ideas that just didn't fit or weren't feasible to get out on the base game's budget/schedule. That's not a bad thing, and you're not entitled to get that content at no additional cost just because it *could* have been part of the base game.

Again, does this get abused? Absolutely. The game industry is full of greedy executives who start salivating the moment a new idea for exploiting customers emerges, and you get many games with essential or major content locked behind a paywall (or, as it sounds like the case is with Spiderman, conspicuous holes where missing content could have been that artificially make the content more attractive than it would otherwise have been). That's a problem with implementation, though, not the concept. The only thing wrong with the concept is how easily it can be corrupted and exploited.

This is in comparison to something like loot boxes, which are fundamentally designed to exploit the same psychological principles that gambling does, thereby inflating their perceived value and dramatically increasing the likelihood that somebody with addictive tendencies turns into a whale. That fundamental concept is bad, even before getting into particularly egregious implementations like Battlefront 2.

wwinterj25 posted...

They saved that job for later for folk like you who love opening their wallets and buying whatever s*** publishers throw at you.

I only open my wallet to buy quality content. For all my defenses here, I really haven't bought much DLC. There's a whole lot of garbage out there, and I have no interest in buying it. I just know better than to generalize that garbage and discount the quality stuff.
---

adjl posted...

Maybe they could. So? There is no game in existence where you cannot say "they could have put more content in."

There's not so many games you can say "they should have put more content in." though. Games have got shorter and the development time has gone up, they should have a lot more to say for their effort.
---

As long as it doesn't feel necessary to enjoy the original product. Cause if I didn't enjoy the original product why would I wanna throw down more money. If I enjoyed it enough I'm more than happy to throw out some extra money to get more of what I enjoyed
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Games have got shorter

Have they? Or is it just that the shift away from RPG's as the dominant mainstream genre has naturally resulted in the average popular game being shorter? In all honesty, I haven't seen any clear stats on the matter, but between changes in popular genres, the increasing popularity of multiplayer games (where the finite single-player campaign tends to be an afterthought, if it exists at all), and the fact that we're all just better at video games (and can therefore complete them faster), I actually wouldn't be surprised if there hasn't been that much of a change.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

the development time has gone up, they should have a lot more to say for their effort.

That's a tricky thing to say, since there are so many more metrics than game length to use in making that comparison.
---

Some of the recent Etrian Odyssey games are tough though when they offer day 1 DLC quest rewards that significantly cut down on the exp and gold (en) grind. And in these games that's kind of everything. EOU2 did this way worse than V did, but it's still there.
---

Black_Crusher posted...

Some of the recent Etrian Odyssey games are tough though when they offer day 1 DLC quest rewards that significantly cut down on the exp and gold (en) grind. And in these games that's kind of everything. EOU2 did this way worse than V did, but it's still there.

That's the sort of bullshenanigans that would turn me off of buying a game at all. Leave that nonsense in F2P MMO's.
---