Top
140°

Is downloadable content necessary?

Is downloadable content necessary? As each console generation passes, DLC becomes more and more prevalent. Is it because technology is advancing or Publishers see an opportunity to cash in on blind customers? I say it’s a mixture of both. With consoles these days, it is very easy to receive content from developers/publishers without even leaving your house. At the same time, many customers will purchase anything that is thrown their way.

Read Full Story >>
thextremepulse.com
The story is too old to be commented.
PopRocks3592279d ago

Not entirely; not for all games. But it can be extremely beneficial to both publishers and to consumers if done properly.

slayorofgods2279d ago (Edited 2279d ago )

Paid DLC is turning into a [email protected] Whatever happen to true expansion packs that are made to make games better. Now developers want people to pay out for very little extra work on their end.

Note, this isn't true for every paid dlc, but it is starting to trend.

PopRocks3592279d ago

Then you simply don't buy it. That's my philosophy. The less money they make off of it, the less inclined they are to continue doing business that way.

Vitalogy2279d ago (Edited 2279d ago )

@PopRocks359 Yea I act like that too but unfortunately there will always be lots of people buying them hence the devs keep doing this. The saddest part is the fact that a bunch of games are being made "incomplete" because of DLC's, I mean, they make the game and they shorten it or something and make the DLC and launch it a few days later after the game or even the same day, this isn't how DLC's should work. They're are becoming too greedy over the digital era thing IMO.

colonel1792279d ago

It is not necessary. It is great when the DLC expands the game without having to make a sequel for it. The problem is that publishers are using it to rip off gamers. What happened to the times where you had to complete the game to unlock new skins or new stages?

Also, the reason that they are cashing in on gamers is that the are making the DLC even before the game releases... so why not include it in the final game? Especially when the content is lame like new colors or something that we used to get in past games by unlocking them, cheats, or passwords.

DLC is getting way out of control. What started as a good idea, ended up being abused by developers and publishers to charge for everything and give gamers incomplete games. They don't care anymore if a game releases with bugs and/ or mistakes because they can just "patch" it later. They don't care to include only half of the characters just to sell them later.

And what is a slap to the face for the gamers is that they get screwed over when they release the "complete" edition (the one that was supposed to be released originally) later on.

SeekDev2279d ago (Edited 2279d ago )

It's fine if the developers had an idea for DLC, and coded some of the necessary structure for it to work into the main game, then began coding the DLC after release. But I generally disagree with DLC when it takes away from the game experience, as in DLC weapons in a multiplayer game, or story-centric episodes that are very beneficial to the main story.

Basically, I agree with you.

Nerdmaster2279d ago

That's the problem right there. People say that good DLC are those that expand the game, that are meaningful, that seem like expansion packs... But they don't want DLC that relates to the story, saying that it should be in the main game. How can a DLC be all the things you want if you don't want it to relate to the story?

I saw it happen to Alan Wake. I played the game, finished it, and it felt like an acceptable ending, horror movie-like. And then they released a DLC that continued the story. And people got angry saying that it was the real ending that should be in the main game, and that it was an example of bad DLC. It was a good DLC, that expanded the game, had a reason to exist story-wise, and people still complained.

SeekDev2278d ago

If it relates to the story, simply make another game. A "sidequest" that relates to the story is ok, because the original story line is not affected in anyway, but if the DLC is required to experience the original story in full, then it is unacceptable DLC.

CyberCam2279d ago

Great post colonel179, I agree with you 100%! This topic among other glaring issue with consoles, is the reason why I'm skipping the next generation of console & sticking with PC gaming.

The good news about PC gaming is that some devs allow the community to mod their game, so the lasting appeal is much greater than that of consoles.

I'm specifically looking a ArmA2, GTA4 & Skyrim those games have a ton of mods and can even have completely different experiences, so the dev's dlc are insignificant!

mananimal2279d ago

No its not neccessary, due to the inherit fallen nature of humans, it has become a tool for abuse by the INDUSTRY.

TheModernKamikaze2279d ago

It is if it can expand gameplay and story. For costumes not much.

Nerdmaster2279d ago

In the beginning, I tought the DLC idea was great. Sadly, I can't remember a single DLC that was worth the price. In fact, I can't remember a single DLC that was that good, paid or free. The Portal 2 ones seem great, for those who like multiplayer and making stages. It's not my case, so...

Nerdmaster2279d ago

Oops, when posting another message above, I remembered about Alan Wake's first DLC. It was good. Didn't remember it because I played the PC version and the DLC came with the game. Well, now I remember one single good DLC.

Ducky2278d ago

I've found Rockstar to make a lot of worthwhile DLC.
Bethesda as well.
BC2:Vietnam wasn't all that bad either.

Show all comments (16)