Stan says: "DLC has almost become the standard for big releases, but in my opinion, it really shouldn’t be there in the first place."
If there is one game that absolutely needed DLC it would have been GoW. It's actually ironic that one of the best games this gen didn't receive any.
We've heard the developers say they had ideas/plans for additional content, but it would have been 'too ambitious'. So hopefully, instead of selling it separately as DLC, they'll use the best of those ideas in their next release.
I was thinking that the realms they put in but didn't allow access to were ones they were half considering for DLC, but then decided after launch that they wanted to make at least one follow up so saved them for that instead.
Yeah, I read that. But as I said, this is one game where it would have been great to actually have DLC for.
Please tell us what DLC it "absolutely needed"...we're waiting.
Oh I don't know...the other realms that were shown that were unavailable.. You know like people we're discussing on forums when the game was released. https://gamefaqs.gamespot.c... Was the wait worth it? @Sixfragz Can we please stop the "oh wait..." internet gag. Shit was funny back on Yahoo messenger, but now I'm sure there's been brand new asshole material released since.
I'd have loved to throw down with Thor personally. Still, given that he's a son of Odin, a battle with him is best left for the sequel.
Multiplayer DLC for RDR2. FREE but needed.
No. Whatever extra that couldve been added should just be in a sequel. The game already has a great amount of content by itself and not to mention some that were added free via updates. Something many AAA games should do. Be a complete full game on launch.
Why in the hell any game need DLC??? @ 60.00 a pop it should come Complete!!
Because the game is complete did what they intended to with the game now we just have to wait for a sequel...
I like DLC where it's so big it acts like an expansion to the point developers sometimes let you play it as a stand-alone experience. You do one or two big DLC expansions and you move on.
I think npbpdy has a problem with DLC when it's done right (for example; The Witcher 3), but let's be honest, 80-90% of DLC is either mediocre or poor, simple quick cash-grabs. If every developer supported their releases like CD Project Red, we would buy far more games on Day 1 for full price... I usually wait for complete editions, but with Witcher 3 I bought it day 1, and with Cyberpunk 2077 it will also be a day 1, simply because I know they won't nickel & and dime me...
Witcher 3 DLC is the 1999 part of that infamous Mona Lisa pic that gets updated every few years. That's how it should be, unfortunately its too easy for these larger businesses to take advantage of the fact people don't add up what they spend in small increments.
Very well said!
Dishonored Series does that really well. Old school expansions, not really DLC.
Only issue with Dishonoured I have is their DLC for Dishonoured 2 had you *Spoilers* Dealing with the Outsider as Billy and Daud, when really a huge character such as the Outsider, a character who's mysterious past, could have spawned over to the next game or even more. Worst part is Corvo had no part in it, the Outsider and Corvo had a certain relationship aswell so I don't see why they didn't make one last game in a trilogy then wrapped up Corvo's and the Outsiders stories together. it's so silly the Outsider was dealt with in a short DLC, and I say short compared to a full on main game.
I think that is because they didn't sell well enough to get a third in the series but were allowed to finish it with the expansion. I also think your complaint about wanting it to be different has nothing to do with your complaint about DLC, which is what's being discussed.
Yep Witcher 3 comes to mind for great DLC. A bunch of free stuff and then DLC almost as large as the main game. That's an expansion done right.
Agreed. I think the Souls series, Bloodborne, and The Witcher III are splendid examples of dlc done well.
I like it when released as expansions, but the $2-$5 hairstyles and outfits have got to stop
DLC has made me spend less on games, not more. In general, whenever DLC is announced, I'll refrain from buying the game at launch, and will patiently wait for a steep pricedrop, and/or a complete edition to be released.
Just playing devil's advocate here, I've made the same decision before and it's obviously your money to do what you want with. But is that line of thinking, not supporting a game you would have otherwise bought just on the principal that DLC has been announced for it (whether it looks good or bad) add to publishers feeling like they need to get more money from the player base. Kind of a cyclical problem but just a thought.
To be honest, I think I spend more money on gaming than most, except it will be spread around far more, and because I'll wait for sales, I'm also buying games in genres I otherwise might not have tried. I can spend 120 bucks on 2 brand new games on day 1, supporting those 2 devs, or I can pick up 120 bucks worth of games in sales, 10-15, maybe 20 bucks each, thus supporting 8-10 devs.
Yup, I usually wait too for a GoTY edition too...
that's what i do with fighting games in years, waiting the complete edition. i'm still waiting to street fighter 5 and tekken 7 to stop adding stuff.
That's exactly what I do and most times get them on sale during Black Friday.
So you would rather have all the content at a higher price instead of the base content at a lower price with the option to buy more? No thanks, I would be less upset if the game sucks @$59.99 than if it sucks @$79.99
Or a sufficient amount of content at a typical price, instead of just random content created to increase revenue, which could have made it into the game if the devs or pubs cared enough.
Yeah why is so it so hard to see that some companies don't do these types of practices yet they still pour millions of dollars into a games development. They release full games at the standard price yet there are those who do the opposite! When things get tight you pull back on spending and learn to do more with less or not. Ninja Theory demonstrated this during Hellblade's development. I get tired of the it so expensive we have to nickel and dime you to make up for it. Maybe cut back the scope of the title then. But let's be honest with most dlc you can see the quality isn't as up to par as with the title. Be it narrative or it being cosmetics that could've been unlocked in game. Maybe not having s bloated budget would help with some of that costs. What gets me is that a lot of the ones who claim it's so expensive have the most capital. CDPR and GG did great with the expansions for Wild Hunt and HZD and in instances like those I'm more than ok with it. But the other garbage is just that garbage.
It's not about budgets needing to be recouped. It's that they will do everything they can to increase revenue. A AAA game designed to require these to return a profit is designed to increase revenue, as never is there a situation where the game won't recoup costs from the initial sale. If it can't do that, then it will flop regardless.
@rainslacker Yeah but most games have plenty of content at release. I feel games have actually gotten longer over time to the point that it's getting harder to complete as many games. I really don't care that much if they put in a few trivial things people can buy if they want to. And if you don't care about it you can just skip it. Very rarely have I felt it hindered or detracted from my enjoyment of games.
No, what he saying is that developers should focused on giving players the full game experience in the base game. DLC should be an after thought. There are too many times where developers cut content from the game to make into DLC. Purposely giving player incomplete games only to fill the gap with DLC. Good examples of DLC done right are The last of us: Left Behind, Uncharted Lost Legacy, Infamous last light, Spiderman Silver lining,
I enjoy DLC that adds to the story of a game. I just finished the Jack the Ripper DLC in Assassins Creed syndicate and I liked it almost better than the whole reg game.
When done right DLC is great. Sadly it's rarely done right
Good examples of DLC done right are The last of us: Left Behind, Uncharted Lost Legacy, Infamous last light, Spiderman Silver lining and maybe Assassins Creed.
I never play the DLC of any game, even my favorites, once I finish the game I don't tend to stick with it a lot more of time... so many backlog.
DLC is fine as long as its developed after the main game raps not stripped out of the game and sold back like ME3 day one DLC or destiny DLCs have been. I had an awesome DLC, ME2 had good DLC and DLC is away devs and pubs can make extra money after the sale of a game instead of bullshit BO4 ridicules for 1$ or 2$ but game extending worth while events and missions, extensions to the story. Those are all acceptable versions of DLC.
dlc is just cut content that shoulda been in game day one. Especially when they talk about dlc before the games even out.This is why its rare i buy games day 1. If i get the game at say 30 i can use other 30 for dlc if I choose. It dosent take long for price drop. Need another article called im sick of patches lol
Even if they talk about it before the game releases doesn't mean it was cut or held back from the game. Companies plan and schedule their work, they have a release date, then a post launch content plan. The idea for DLC may already be in place before launch but it doesn't mean the content is already created. Although it is possible that this has happened, I just don't know of any definitive evidence of anyone doing this. I'm curious if anyone know if someone has absolutely been caught, with evidence, doing this.
The irony when God of war had none. I think Auras wrath was the biggest DLC d*ick move in history
I said the same thing. GoW is one game that would have been welcomed for DLC. And yeah, nothing beats Asura's Wrath, having to pay for the real ending?? Capcom at it's boldest! And I loved Asura's Wrath too, but no way was I paying for any of that.
I didnt even know Asura's Wrath had a DLC. This whole time, i was wondering is that the ending. Now i know.
That true ending dlc was supposed to be for the sequel but since that got canned CC2 had to resort to DLC. Otherwise it would have been AW2
Things that “add into” a game are better then things you “add onto” a game. For example, I have no problem with a fighting game adding extra characters, it’s adding something into the base game. Opposed to the useless far cry 5 dlc which was an add on outside of the base game. Add in can be done right, add ons are stupid and a waste of money.
I liked Assassin's Creed Origins DLC.
I haven’t played it. I just beat origins when odyssey came out lol.
So..... Don't buy it? I usually don't unless it's something I actually want. Usually it isn't. Some DLC is good.
I'm sick of dumb gaming headlines. I mean, was that the best that you could come up with?
Amen give the full game at launch and if something pops up do it like CDPR with Witcher 3 or GG with HZD.
Gee. After 10+ years of bending over for DLC, NOW you have a problem with it? Blame the eager sheep that were on board, along with paying for internet access for multiplayer, from the very beginning.
Easy solution play retro games.
DLC, and DLC disguised with the word "expansion". It's almost always just cut content anyway, don't know why people can't understand that if it was being worked on during the main game development then it's just stuff that was taken away to be sold later. Which is why devs almost never listen to suggestions for dlc cause it's all just planned out and after they collect their money they move on
Like I said before and you just said, it's planned, but that doesn't mean it was intended or even ready in time for release.
Is that why most end up releasing just a couple of weeks after the release of the main game? Cause that seems pretty ready if they're able to release them so quickly afterwards
there's many examples of great dlc and many of terrible dlc. It's all Down to the quality of the product. I prefer dlc that's standalone so I don't have to still have the original game.
I disagree. When done right, DLC is absolutely amazing. Look at the great expansions we’ve had this generation. Hearts of Stone, Blood and Wine, Far Harbor, Mooncrash, The Following, Frozen Wilds. When done right, DLC enhances and expands your favorite games. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Free dlc and good legit expansions are welcomed. Every other dlc is a no no.
Me too Stan, me too. Even more so of shady microtransactions but characters left out to be sold later on as DLC in fighting games infuriates me to no end.
so, this blogger reportedly doesn‘t like dlc but yet he is advertizing them. don‘t buy dlc and don‘t blog about it/advertize it. unless... clickrevenue :/
If you don't like it than just don't buy the dlc. Very simple matter that you don't have to give your money for something optional.
They play on our gaming fomo especially on some fighting games. . .teasing us with characters you can fight against but can't fight with. )ick move. . . Season pass/forced to hyper grind bs. Looking at you street fighter and tekken.
Sick of crappy opinion pieces moaning about things that just don't matter
I'm meh with dlc, why not go back to the old days when games had everything in them you just had to unlock them by doing the game on hard/completing it in certain time etc so much better
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.