Who Is DLC Really Designed For?

Original-Gamer.com: "Video games and DLC go hand-in-hand in the modern gaming. The question is, is this some evil new trend to make money? Or does it get its idea from a more heinous, diabolical source?"

[caseh]

DLC is acceptable in many cases, the exception for me is when a company announce DLC for a game before its even been released.

They may as well be saying:

'We could have bundled this with the game on release, we've already done the work and its even on the disc ready for you to play. However, rather than allow you to unlock these extras in a conventional manor like completing the game, we've decided it makes more sense to make you pay an extra $20-$30 becuase that fact of the matter is...we are a bunch of greedy f*ckers.

P.S. We'll let you have the bugs we've left in the game for free'

[bubblebeam]

Well said. I do believe in other circumstances though, once the game is "complete" and only a small team need to do bug testing and polish, the rest start working on DLC packs. It may take them 3 months to finish the DLC, but the game comes out in 2.

It sucks, and it is the publishers who set a release date, and it is VERY hard and costs a lot of money to change a release date, especially that close to launch.

DLC is good and bad. I have had amazing moments with DLC, and I have had those moments where I feel completely ripped-off. It is down to the developers to create worthwhile content and stop treating consumers like money producing machines. We all have to work hard for our money also, so a bit more honesty would be well appreciated by us gamers, as this hobby is already very expensive as it is.

[knowyourstuff]

Who is it designed for? People willing to pay for it, that's it. There is no other reason other than getting money, and perhaps fan service as a reason to keep coding a game (in the case of fan service it's always either because the devs screwed up and are trying to win back their fans ie. Mass Effect 3, or when they just want to have a good name with fans ie. Portal 2).

The concept of DLC may help to make games more profitable, which will increase the chances of the game franchise continuing. This helps Publishers to make money and continue making games, which I believe is what we're all about. I mean does everyone just want the big companies with the most money to survive like EA and Activision? We need those smaller devs to stay alive if the industry is to move forward, instead of the bigger companies which take zero risks, homogenize all of their games and ruin them like EA is doing with Dead Space 3, including cover mechanic gears of war shooting and co-op, completely taking away all tension, do we really need these people running our industry? We need the smaller companies to take chances with games like Shadow of the Colossus, The Last Guardian, Heavy Rain, Psychonauts, and other gems I'm sure you can name yourselves.

[Ducky]

DLC that is on disc or contains extracts from the main game (such as LA Noire or AssassinsCreed2) are what bother me.

If DLC is announced beforehand, I don't find that in itself an issue. In a lot of cases, it isn't really a surprise that the game will get DLC, and the devs usually have an idea on what the DLC is about. At least it lets me know beforehand, and I can decide whether to buy the game or wait for a "GOTY" edition

[bubblebeam]

@FatOldMan

I have the GOTY edition of AC2, and those missions felt rushed, like a filler episode of an anime.

What they did was disgraceful. I don't think it was on the disc though. My theory is that they purposely left out 2 DNA strands so they had an excuse for DLC, not that they had already made it and later made you pay for it.

Don't know the circumstances behind it, but either way it highlights everything that is wrong with DLC. If publishers and developers take it upon themselves to be honest, they might just have a stronger fan base.

Your point about Portal 2 and Mass Effect 3 is spot on. Valve did it for fun and fan service, while ME3 dlc is trying to win back fans or at least keep them.

[KingMe42]

I don't want to defend dlc as I too hate it when its over used sometimes. But not all dlc is made in time to be released with the game. Its mostly about WHO does the dlc rather than the dlc itself.

Example Capcom and BioWare will screw you with their dlc, yet companies like RockStar and FroSo can be respected (from what i have experienced). Of course there can be more examples but that's all I have for the moment.

And I have mixed feelings towards Gearbox's Borderlands 2 dlc for now.

[LiquidSword93]

Greedy devs love dlc. It should be banned unless proven to b worth the money. Otherwise, get lost.

[jambola]

i would agree but nobody is forcing anybody to get dlc

[Perjoss]

This is the truth, nothing speaks louder than poor sales, if enough people skip DLC they will stop making it.

I think the Burnout devs got it right! didnt they release free DLC for a while to get people to not only hold onto their copy of the game but also make a good name for themselves so that when they decided to eventually release some DLC that cost money people would actually want to buy it.

[MariaHelFutura]

Suckers is generally the answer to that question. Asides from from a few D/Ls, DLC has generally been designed for suckers.

[jambola]

it's designed for people who want it.

[wallis]

Who happen to be suckers.

[nevin1]

"Suckers is generally the answer to that question"

That was my 1st guess.

[wastedcells]

DLC is designed to make money and keep people from trading in games while keeping the game relevant for as long as possible. If you can keep people interested for long enough by the time they are done with the game news of the next one is out and you have an almost guaranteed sale.

[bubblebeam]

True. I wish The Darkness 2 got DLC, as it was too short. I'm all for DLC, so long as it is good quality, priced accordingly and isn't sneaky (on disc, day 1 etc.)

[FarCryLover182]

Designed for wallets!

[No_Pantaloons]

Sheep.

[Sarcasm]

DLC is ok if it isn't extracted from the game and sold. If it's something like a few months down the line where they worked on it afterwards, I think it's good.

But clearly we see publishers take advantage of this with their pre-order crap and "exclusivity" nonsense.

[fatstarr]

people that want to pay 5$-20$ for content thats already on the disk.
DLC is a big scam if you ask me. and its going to be one of those things that break video games after a while. why not offer the story mode foe 20, online for 10 and piece/part out the rest of the game like that. thats what DLC is.