DLC is a controversial topic in video games, although it certainly sells. So, what is it exactly that makes DLC something good as opposed to predatory?
While gamers usually take notice of the mainline missions, these 5 side quests deserve more widespread attention for how entertaining they are.
Undead are the peace makers.
Seriously, like even to the point of criticizing a game for being complete out the box and not dropping microtransactions on a storefront every month. Outlets were really out here mad that Hogwarts Legacy was finished and didn't need any battle pass, or "seasons" of DLC. So brainwashed they don't even know how to handle a game with an actual ending.
The first time I felt like a game got DLC right was Borderlands 1. $10 for hours of content.
I paid $5 for Sleeping dogs DLC that added an entire campaign, new fighting styles and weapons, and basically turned the whole City into a zombie survival thing. Then another $5 for a full kickass tournament parading game of death which added an island, and lots of new fighting styles
Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2 & 3, Borderlands 1 & 2, GTA IV - those are my gold standards of DLC.
Replies(1)
Something they couldn’t even give us in GTAV or RDR2
I honestly thought we’d get some Alien type of DLC for one of them at least
GF365: "Here are the best zombie games for Xbox One. Many of these post-apocalyptic zombie games are also available on other platforms. Plus, you can play any of these games on Xbox Series X and S via backward compatibility."
I would say offering sufficient new content for the price it's offered at makes it good, as does augmenting an already complete game. Overcharging for a very minute amount of content or charging for content that would otherwise be part of the main experience makes it bad.
It should be self sustainable, the price should be set to cover the costs and make a profit of the DLC itself, not overpriced to cover the cost of making the main game itself.