Top
110°

GoozerNation: To DLC or not to DLC?

While First Strike for Call of Duty: Black Ops is released today, Mike D from GoozerNation looks at the broad scope of DLC. What makes good DLC? Is some DLC just a waste of time? What could DLC have been?

Read Full Story >>
goozernation.com
The story is too old to be commented.
betrayed gamer2791d ago

how about you make your own choice? i mean most of us are adults right?

jim2wheels2791d ago

Well it could of been a way extract feedback from fans of said game and make it even better. This would in turn increase revenues and swell loyal fanbase numbers, who would end up buying anything from said studio because quality counts right?

Instead we get "DLC" that was already on the disc and is promoted before the game is even launched.

I have never bought any DLC, and I never will.

Darkfiber2791d ago (Edited 2791d ago )

I have explained this to people 100 times but they never listen, so I'll explain it again I guess. DLC on the disc DOES NOT MEAN it was completed prior to the game's completion. ALL games must undergo a process of rating and certification, which takes an average of about 1-2 months. During this time, developers either start on a new project, or create DLC. Usually if it's a small piece of DLC, it can be completed within those 1-2 months that the game is being untouched while it undergoes certification. They then add it on the disc, AS A SEPARATE FILE that is NOT incorporated into the final game and is considered DLC. If they got the game certified then added the DLC into the actual game, it would then have to be re-certified and the game would be delayed another 1-2 months.

The ONLY difference between day one DLC that you download, and DLC already on the disc is the fact that you actually have to download it, making you use internet bandwidth and waste time. If anything, putting DLC on the disc is saving you time and internet bandwidth. They are actually doing you a favour.

djcitizend2791d ago

I think the problem is, is that people saw or heard what Capcom did with Resident Evil 5 multiplayer, and now assume all DLC is on the disc.

jim2wheels2791d ago

Very well explained Darkfibre, and I admit it certainly explains things to a certain extent. But I still can't shake that feeling that it's still a rip-off. Why call it DLC? Why not additional content? It's misleading.

But I will spread your wise words when required :)

Darkfiber2791d ago

I do agree with you Jim, it is stupid and makes the game look really bad since it is often very misunderstood. I really am not a fan of DLC in general and VERY rarely buy any unless I think it's actually worth the money (which is almost never is). Just saying, there is a reason it's done that way.

Darkfiber2791d ago

"Activision has already done such a good job with the story behind Call of Duty: Black Ops" that made me lul.

Also, the addition of DLC map packs to a multiplayer shooter usually marks the point where I stop playing it. I'm not big on shooters in the first place, particularly the multiplayer aspect, so I'll usually quit before that point anyway, but on the off chance that I still actually play the game a few months after release when map packs come out, I am usually done by then. In this case, I would never buy a stupid CoD game in the first place, so no, I would definitely not buy the DLC.

sprayNpray2791d ago

I'll save my money for killzone 3, a game that was heavily beta tested by me and many others. Black Ops was the buggiest online experience I've ever had the unfortunate opportunity to be apart of. One could argue that it's really been the most expensive beta anyone on the ps3 has been apart of because the party system on the PS3 is still that broken.

Also I believe that true DLC should be more than just map packs, maps that should have been included with the original game anyway. Map pack DLC should be free to all who purchased the full game, if you want to charge those who bought it used then go for it, but I already paid $60 and I don't feel like I should have to pay more for so little extra content.

And last but not least this delayed release bull**** has got to stop. Why release it earlier for the 360? Did Micro$oft pay extra to get this? Are there that many people out there with both 360s and PS3s that this seems necessary to get those people to choose the 360 version of the game? Although, I guess they've already shown that the really don't care about ps3/pc owners anyway by how poorly the online experience has been for both so why not just keep the middle finger up at us a little longer?

djcitizend2791d ago

If memory serves me correctly, I believe Activision did work out a deal with Microsoft to get first crack on all COD DLC from here on out.

jim2wheels2791d ago

Agreed sprayNpray - on the first two paragraphs anyway.

Maps, skins and the like should be free. If you pay x amount for a multiplayer game like COD and then find out you have to buy a map pack otherwise you can't play with your mates/online friends - frankly you're being ripped off. I will happily pay for DLC when it's VFM - BC Vietnam is a good example of when DLC works well.

sprayNpray2791d ago

Ya, sorry about that last paragraph... still a little bitter about black ops