Why You Shouldn't Pay for DLC

Downloadable Content, otherwise known as DLC, is this year's top gaming buzzword. Last year it was episodic content which gave us the Half-Life 2 episodes and a heap of discarded series, *cough* Sin Episodes *cough*. Throughout modern gaming, modders have sought not only to customize their games but also to preserve their longevity and appeal. So how has this seemingly harmless update system evolved into the next fat cat con?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Why dis3527d ago

because you're not getting it?

Bladestar3526d ago

damn... exactly what I was going to say...

lociefer3527d ago

M$ started this stupid trend , and now everybody is copying them, they seriously are the worst thieves in the world, + if you pay 60$ for a game , i think thats more than enough for u to get all the stuff without further payment

outlawlife3527d ago (Edited 3527d ago )

while i agree to some extent, things like the lost and the damned are no different than going out and buying an addition disc, or expansion for a pc game

some companies take it too far, everything can be abused but i think for the most part MS is one of the better companies about DLC

they aren't like EA and Namco selling you things that are already on the disc

and i really can't blame MS for starting it either, it all started with pay to play games ad honestly sega is more responsible for bringing PSO to dreamcast because that it where it was realized that micro transactions through consoles via the internet could make money

MS didn't start DLC until well after the release of halo 2 where they released a map pack over the then very primitive xbox live, but those became free eventually just like most microsoft game studios games

they seem to favor a more of an early adopters tax as opposed to charging for every tiny thing

it was bound to happen, microsoft just gets blamed because they created the service that made it easy

I have no problem with DLC, some of it has extended game lifespans far beyond what they would have been before

there are really only a handful of things i regret buying(ie cod4 map pack)

it all comes down to being informed, if you don't buy DLC on impulse or on a whim you'll never regret it

currently i'm weighing the burnout legendary cars, but i'm still unsure

Ninja Viking3527d ago

lociefer, you do have free will and don't have to buy any DLC. So if you dont want to support DLC, dont buy it and allow those people that like it to buy it. it's their choice. companies are in it to make money, and you cant fault them for that.

lociefer3527d ago

@Ninja , i know what you mean , but when i pay 60$ for a game , i expect it to be perfect , just like all ps2 games , and i dont buy dlc, but some companies take it too far to exclude normal players from paying ones ex: konami with mgo / cod4 with their extra maps and i no most ppl didnt buy the map pack , but u get my point

Genesis53527d ago (Edited 3527d ago )

I have said this before. Developers are going to be holding back more and more content now that they know MS will pay millions for it. The ones getting screwed in this new DLC craze are the gamers.

Why wouldn't developers say well if we don't put this in the game we can pitch it to MS as exclusive DLC and get 25 mil out of them and MS that seems to be relying on 3rd party games right now will pay it just to have something exclusive.

Everybody gets ripped off. People with other cosoles don't get to play it and MS customers have to pay more to play something that should have been in the game anyways.

Chris3993527d ago (Edited 3527d ago )

Where I draw the line though, is in paying for content that should have been included on the retail disc i.e. Prince of Persia. If I want to see the real, REAL ending, it'll cost me $10.

And I wholly agree with outlawlife: nickel and diming people for costumes and items that exist in the retail code, yet are just waiting to be "unlocked" is equally as ridiculous.

It's getting worse, as well. And I don't expect it to get better.

thats_just_prime3527d ago (Edited 3527d ago )

I agree with chris how many times have we heard companies talking about what goin to be in their DCL before a game is even released ? Then they turn around and rlease the DLC a few weeks later ? That is just BS they should of put it in the game. Burnout has DLC that cost you 10 dollars and its a 100kb file. All it does in update the ui in the game

More and more I find myself waiting to buy games cause when they release the games at a lower price they normally throw all the dlc or at least some of it in with it.

Legionaire20053527d ago

Microsoft started DLC in 2002 when Splinter Cell 1 and Mech Assault came out before Halo 2.


There isn't anything wrong about producing DLC. It could end the seasoned games "rebuy per year" effect, grow longer replayability of your game and also would, maybe, stop the milking in franchises that new entry don't bring nothing new, it could just be DLC (GTAIV DLC is a good example, they could have milked us with a new disk).

The problem is in abusing the system. When developers hold part of the game to put on DLC it's a problem.

Note that I'm not implying time here, launching with DLC has nothing to do with it. Because you have cases like Soul Calibur 4, which was indeed milking (there was space and time, but also cases like LBP which was design decision (the game should have a constant stream of DLC) or Killzone 2, which we already talk about DLC but for development timeframe concerns.

There is also abusing by price, like charging you the price of most packs or full games for 1 or 2 maps or a new weapon.

outlawlife3526d ago

well halo 2 was the first majorly profitable DLC release via live i had forgotten about the others actually but i remember the halo 2 maps being a big deal

edgeofblade3526d ago

Obviously, you have an ax to grind with Microsoft. Companies have been releasing "expansions" as far back as I care to remember, but because they are downloadable shouldn't change the fact that it's the same thing.

SAiOSiN3526d ago

i might buy the burnout cars. i mean criterion has been so good to its costumers (especially the ps3 owners). they've constantly improved burnout with free updates. they deserve some money.

ChampIDC3526d ago

I don't think there's anything to really complain about when it comes to a downloadable expansion, such as the GTA DLC, but when it comes to stuff like costumes, that's just milking.

Wolf8733526d ago (Edited 3526d ago )

You make a very good argument. It is very much possible that developers might hold something back that was supposed to have been included in original game and later release it as DLC for more money.

@ChampIDC: 1.12

Yes I don't like that as well. I'd never pay for a costume or new skins for weapons like they did with Dead Space. I only paid for LBP costume pack for MGS, but only because my little brother insisted that I get him that pack. If its something like a big expansion, say what they did with GTA, than I guess it might be worth it but skins and clothes, its just silly.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 3526d ago
SpoonyRedMage3527d ago

I think expansion packs are alright to be charged for but little upgrades should really be free.

The Last Remnant's DLC only charged 100 points for one thign and that was because it was the pre-order bonus so they didn't want to annoy people, the other three DLC thingies were free.

thehitman3527d ago

extra maps should be free or extra cars in games or weapons. But things like extra missions etc things that tack on to story in games etc they should charge for. Unless they doubling the size of maps which is never the case then I dont think things like that should be charged.

Foxgod3527d ago (Edited 3527d ago )

Paying for DLC isnt so bad as for example, paying for a virtual t shirt in a virtual environment.

Anyhow, you have to give it some time, someday DLC will be used to promote a game, instead of to earn quick cash.

Boty3526d ago (Edited 3526d ago )

and DLC is the only exclusive that A certian company has to offer. Your Xbox Avitars says 'hello'

Show all comments (50)
The story is too old to be commented.