DLC Should Be Free

Travis from Leviathyn.com discusses his take on DLC and how it should be a free add-on to a game, not paid for additional content. Do you agree?

[Relientk77]

Agree with the title

[Reverent]

Agree with you agreeing

[ATi_Elite]

1. DLC should be Free = DLC to me is a Devs continued support and gratitude to the gamer buying the game and thus it should be FREE.

especially since most DLC is just map paks and 2 hour side missions or a special item then yeh just make it Free instead of nickel and diming the gamers.

2. Expansions can cost ca$h = Now if a Dev goes the extra mile and completely changes the game into something else and or adds a whole other game to it then yeah go ahead and charge $20 bucks for an Expansion Pak.

Perfect Example: Bad Company 2 Vietnam Expansion Pak or Skyrims Dawnguard

3. Best Bet = just wait for the GOTY Edition or whatever and get the game and all the DLC in it for one low price.

Console Manufactures are scratching their heads about lower game sales, WELL it's because you got $15 DAY 1 ON DISK DLC on every game made now a days.

I like the good old days when Pubs didn't cut up a game and all this PAID DLC stuff wasn't around.

[creatchee]

By using the same logic...
-three months after you buy an album, the artists should send you new songs for free

-after you buy a suit, you should be able to get a new tie to go with it after you get tired of the old one

-after you see a movie, you should get a complimentary epilogue mailed to you

-after you eat dinner at a restaurant, dessert comes at no extra charge

The DLC entitlement mindset is bull. In no other medium do you see people expecting extra products or services after an initial purchase. The fact is, whether the developers worked on DLC during a game's development cycle or after, it's still extra and optional content and should be priced accordingly.

That being said, free DLC is always welcome. But this "I deserve free DLC because I bought the game" mentality is both spoiled and asinine.

[iamnsuperman]

No. I think extras should be charged for. You don't really need it to play the game but if you want to play that extra bit more or have a special item that isn't included on then disc then I do not mind it being charged for.

However, if it is on the disc than it should be free. This unlock rubbish has to stop.

[Kryis]

Most should be free. Large add ons or a whole expansion, could be priced.
However, nonsense like a couple maps, outfits, couple guns.. should be free.
Little things should be incentives to the customers buying, and playing, the game.

I can see things like ME's 'Shadow Broker' or Skyrims 'Dawngaurd' costing money, though.

[iamnsuperman]

I disagree because the incentive to buy the game is the core game it self not free stuff tagged on. If you want new maps to play multiplayer on because the older ones are starting to get a bit old then you should pay as the developers are making content to extend the life of the original game. Map packs are a bit expensive (possibly over priced) and outfits and gun packs aren't really that expensive but to say they should be given free is just nonsense. It is extra. DLC doesn't take away from the game but adds/changes your experience of the game. At the end of the day you are not paying for fixes in the original game but extra content which you can choice not to buy. We have no right to demand free content for things developed beyond the core game.

[KaBaW]

I agree with him, perhaps not an incentive but a reward, so to speak.
While maybe we should pay for the work they did, in a way we kinda did.
We are the ones who originally paid to allow them to make the extra DLC.
Just like Call of Duty did with the 'Terminal' map, it was free to get.
The companies should have some sense to give back to the customers.
Again, they wouldn't be able to sale us DLC, if we didn't buy the game.
It doesn't have to be outrageous content, but little things won't hurt.
Individual packages may not cost a lot, but they sure as hell add up.
Go buy all the extra outfits and costumes for the Street Fighter(?) game.
As I said below, there is no way to know the content is actually 'extra'.
That it wasn't originally taken out just to sale later, as "extra" DLC..
I don't know about you but I like my games complete, not half baked.

[LOGICWINS]

DLC should be free for people who buy their games new.

[DwightOwen]

That's a pretty good idea, and a much better one than online passes.

[Kryis]

Agreed. That would be a good reason to pick up a game new, not pre-owned.

[Hufandpuf]

If the devs want me to play for additional content, then I'll pay for additional content. Nowhere when buying the game did I see a "all DLC for this game is free" I'm buying what I paid for which is the game in the case.

[GREW50ME]

This article explores the ideal model for game publisher ethics with regards to DLC. It's not an article about how the market operates. We already know that if someone wants to buy/sell something, they can. Hence the word "SHOULD" in the title of the article. Dumbass!

[simonrope]

Wishfull thinking.

[smashcrashbash]

It is amazing the kind of business advice you get from people on this site. ALL DLC should be free? Then why am I giving you DLC at all if all of it is for free? Don't buy it if you don't want to but don't compromise my profits. It's a business these people are running, not a soup kitchen.If I decide to add two more maps later to extend the life of the game, for what ever reason it is, no one is putting a gun to your head making you buy it. You can't want something I made but don't want to pay for it.

[Hicken]

In the past, that would have been understandable. But these days, with less and less content actually available to us at launch, that just doesn't hold water anymore.

It's gotten so bad, they call it "DLC" when it's already on the disc. The disc you've already paid for.

There used to be little extras- cheat codes or whatever- built right into games, but that you had to put in work to acquire. Now, you have to put in your money. You don't start off with 30 characters and unlock another 20 by playing; you start off with 20 and unlock the other 20(not even thirty) by PAYING.

There's no longer the same sense of value in a game, as it's incomplete until you've ponied up for all the DLC. Can't get the full multiplayer experience without all the maps, after all.

[aliengmr]

They should charge for expansions and leave bonus weapons and armor as an incentive to pre-order or whatever. Either way the little stuff should be free.

[Kryis]

Agreed, this is basically the same as I said above. That really should be how it is.
The way things are going now, is the reason why I've stopped buying games new.
Now, I just buy games that are pre-owned or wait for around a $30 price point.

[Pro_TactX]

Our entire society is built upon capitalist principals. I don't see why anything should be free in such a society. It is a free market. If people feel the content is not worth the price, then they are welcome to exercise their right as a consumer and just not purchase it.

[Kratoscar2008]

If extend the story then it should be free (Like endings or new missions), if are things like character costumes and such it should still be free, if you charge to get unlimited money and such it should still be free.

Games before this generation had all this on the disc so why should we pay for the same options? When actually we are receiving less content for the same price as past games.

[Bathyj]

No DLC should not be free. If the dev wants to make extra content after the games release they should get paid for their work. I have no problem with that.

But if they making DLC while the game is still being made, and worse yet, releasing it within a month of the game, then it shouldnt be charged for, it should just be part of the game.

The problem is these devs are just abusing the concept of DLC, withholding content you should be getting on the disc day one, or at worse as a free download.

[KaBaW]

I agree in a sense. Although, I don't believe little items should be priced and sold.
The problem seems to lie in that companies are withholding content intentionally to sell.
Also, there really is no way to know when the DLC was actually started in production.
Unless, of course, the developer states otherwise. And, release day DLC, obviously.
Content originally meant to be on disc could be held for 3 months after release.

Most game companies get away with it, though, because customers want a 'full' game.

[Soldierone]

I'll pay for expansion packs, but DLC yes it should either actually add to a full game and be CHEAP/FREE or bundled together in an EXPANSION PACK.

During last generation I liked being a PC gamer because of expansion packs. This generation consoles can handle it, but instead get 15 dollar map packs.....

[NeoTribe]

The overly entitled gamers are back at it again. Why should they give stuff away for free when it cost them to make it? I can see if it was something small just to be nice... but map packs, game extensions and such all cost money to make. Quit being cheap whiny babys.

[hellvaguy]

Why stop with dlc? The whole game should just be free because otherwise most are just gunna bit torrent it for free anyways. /s

Even if games were free, people would complain they didnt get compensated for thier gas to drive to the store to get that freebie. Just human nature to complain and feel entitlement I guess.

[Kyosuke_Sanada]

I have no problem paying for extra content but only if

- It is reasonably priced.

- Has enough content in it that it can be played as a separate full game.

Stuff such as costumes, weapons (unless they are vehicles that fit the expansion), color edits, character viewers and other tidbits should be in the original game already.

Proper DLC should feel like a bonus to a consumer, not a need.

[MiamiACR21]

There are a lot of things in this world that 'Should' be, but in the case of the DLC it's too far along now to stop in the foreseeable future.