"DLC" or "This topic would be better if it came on a disc."

Jonman wrote:

I still have some Mass Effect DLC that I've not played, so that was a waste of $5.

I think MASS EFFECT has to win some kind of award for the being the best game with the sh*ttiest DLC. I got the "Bring Down The Sky" mission for free with the Platinum Hits edition, and that's about how much it was worth. The second pack, which appeared to be nothing more than a space arena, I still have no desire to buy.

This is a massive shame, too, because after beating Mass Effect I would have paid darn near anything for a few more QUALITY missions.

SommerMatt wrote:

I think MASS EFFECT has to win some kind of award for the being the best game with the sh*ttiest DLC. I got the "Bring Down The Sky" mission for free with the Platinum Hits edition, and that's about how much it was worth. The second pack, which appeared to be nothing more than a space arena, I still have no desire to buy.

This is a massive shame, too, because after beating Mass Effect I would have paid darn near anything for a few more QUALITY missions.

I may be alone, but I really liked "Bring Down the Sky" -- both storywise, and even gameplay-wise. Not the best of the bunch, or anything, but I felt like there was some quality content there.

Which shows to go ya on the "different strokes" nature of DLC, I suppose.

RSPaulette wrote:
SommerMatt wrote:

I think MASS EFFECT has to win some kind of award for the being the best game with the sh*ttiest DLC. I got the "Bring Down The Sky" mission for free with the Platinum Hits edition, and that's about how much it was worth. The second pack, which appeared to be nothing more than a space arena, I still have no desire to buy.

This is a massive shame, too, because after beating Mass Effect I would have paid darn near anything for a few more QUALITY missions.

I may be alone, but I really liked "Bring Down the Sky" -- both storywise, and even gameplay-wise. Not the best of the bunch, or anything, but I felt like there was some quality content there.

Which shows to go ya on the "different strokes" nature of DLC, I suppose.

I think BDTS was pretty good, too... but it certainly wasn't worth paying $5 for. If they could have given me 4-5 missions like BDST for $10 or so, I think that would have been a nice sweet spot.

The funny thing is that I am fine with some DLC, but sort of iffy about the rest.

For example, I have no problem dropping cash to buy Rock Band songs. Yet, I sort of hemmed and hawed for a few days before punking down the $5.99 for Watchmen costumes on LittleBigPlanet (only justified it because I got the game for less than $35 used).

I *LIKE* the fact that a lot of the big ticket DLC so far has made it to disc-- I bought the GTA IV DLC disc for around $25 used, and also picked up FALLOUT 3 GOTY used. As a consumer, I like having that choice between downloaded OR physical media, and like being able to buy used and sell the disc if I ever so desire.

I am not a fan of zero day releases, for all the reasons already mentioned. Ideally, you'd release the game, then release the DLC right around the time people were finishing the original content. However, most gamers seem to be pretty "play and forget" when it comes to new games, so getting the DLC out while the original game is still "hot" also seems to make financial sense.

SommerMatt wrote:

I think BDTS was pretty good, too... but it certainly wasn't worth paying $5 for. If they could have given me 4-5 missions like BDST for $10 or so, I think that would have been a nice sweet spot.

Yeah, the current one, "Pinnacle Station," I haven't even tried, based on the nature of it -- it seemed to me like content was one of the worst parts of Mass Effect, and to have an entire DLC based around it seemed too much for me.

Which, come to think of it, keeps things on track, right? I mean, BDTS had a fairly decent amount of story involved with it which, as a Mass Effect player who was signed up for that, made the value proposition worth it for me.

And isn't that, ultimately, what we're coming down on -- how much are you willing to pay, and for what amount of content?

I bought Pinnacle Station a few days ago. Mass Effect is my favorite game of all time, but Pinnacle Station confirmed for me that it was certainly NOT because of the combat. This and the character I'm trying to get ready for Mass Effect 2 is an evil infiltrator and this DLC isn't really aimed at stealthy snipers.

Coldstream wrote:

I'm right there with Quintin, as a PC gamer with PS2 carrying the console flag in the house, so I'm somewhat disconnected from the modern console experience.

BFF!

Quintin_Stone wrote:

That said, by their nature most DLC is not available at retail, on physical media, so they need to have a good system for making microtransactions before I'll even consider them. While I had a great time with Fallout 3, charging for DLC to undo the stupid ending, and originally having to use GFWLive to even get the DLC (later released on disc) really soured me on those mini-expansions.

I'm trying to rack my brain for DLC I've in fact paid for. As a PC user whose most advanced console is a PS2, there's not as much of a DLC market for me. Not until Valve starts charging for hats.

I've only just finished (as in yesterday) Fallout 3 because school was taking so much of my time, and I remember reading quite a few comments about the terrible ending, but... what's wrong with it? I know that's a tangent, but I thought it it was an appropriate and "Fallout-esque" ending, and it even hearkens more back to Fallout 1, which is the tone the devs said they were trying for. Is it because it didn't let you play on after you end the game? You can just not take that last mission. In Fallout 1 you couldn't even do that because of the time limit. And Tactics didn't have a "play on" feature either.

Reading the thread, it appears I have the less common viewpoint of DLC in that it just doesn't matter to me unless it feels like the game is unfinished or incomplete without it (as in, the game is functionally nerfed if you don't have some premium content). And even then, if that's how the pricing is structured, as in episode by episode, it doesn't bother me either. And for games that do feel broken or incomplete, I simply don't buy them (the benefit of never buying release day games because I'm too broke or always working/in school.)

Which is why I find DLC interesting, objectively. There's a lot of "new missions" DLC, but most of it seems so... trivial? And if people are willing to pay that $6, good for the company, I say. Costumes, armor, weapons, NPCs, it all just seems so meaningless to me. And I'm a compulsive RPG player. The locker in my Fallout 3 house has one of every weapon I've found over the course of the entire game, repaired to 100% whenever possible. Same with Oblivion. But not having the horse armor in Oblivion just didn't matter to me. Maybe it's because game purchases are always a decision I make based on time available and frugality, because there's almost no content worth that $6 to me. Exceptions being map packs that contribute to the group I game with, like GoW2, where I'm getting the GOTY edition so I can play with you guys. If everyone I play with never used those maps, I wouldn't buy those, either.

Which brings me to the one exception of DLC that bothers me, is when it gives one player an advantage in a multiplayer context. And we're talking an absurd advantage. Like if you could buy Oddjob in Goldeneye, that'd be ridiculous. I can't actually name a concrete example of this, however.

Malor wrote:

So I don't buy DLC, and I don't buy games that don't provide enough for the initial purchase price

Scratched wrote:

As long as the base game is complete by itself and you don't need to make additional purchases before you even get started, I don't see a big problem.

This is how I view it, pretty much. Although even 0-day DLC doesn't bother me. Content for me is an estimation of value. Is this game, as in the one I'm holding in my hands, worth my $60? Is this movie worth purchasing, or should I rent it? When I see a movie in theaters, I'm not thinking about what scenes will be added on the director's cut DVD. When the movie sucks, and it's re-cut to a palatable product later on DVD I may be irritated, but when it's just bonus features I don't tend to care. Although with movies each version can be its own unique vision, so that's slightly different.

If the answer to the question "Is this game worth my 30/40/50/60 bucks?" is a "No", you have your answer. If it's "Not without DLC", then that becomes part of your purchase price. So "Is this game worth my 70/80/90 bucks?"

moosicle wrote:

I think another reason why gamers get mad is when the original game is severely buggy, but they're pumping out DLCs instead of fixing these issues.

I can see this, I suppose. Or being sold content that functions as a patch, that would be extremely irritating.

Thinking about it more, and to put it in a way that owes more to brevity: I don't feel entitled to entertainment.

I enjoy the hell out of it, and I try and make my dollars count and to support creators I believe in, but I'm not investing in a game, book, or movie. I'm not buying stock in Bioware or Random House. I make purchases based on perceived value for my money, not "completeness".

When I bought the first book in Stephen King's Dark Tower series, I didnt' think that somehow meant I should be entitled to every book that followed as well, even though I think you could argue that he had envisioned the overall story already. Seeing Kill Bill 1 made me want to see Kill Bill 2, but I still felt like the first movie was still a distinct and worthy product despite the original movie being split into two. In that case, I realize that many people disagreed and did feel cheated.

Entertainment is not utilities. It's not food, or shelter. Paying rent on your apartment shouldn't be a crapshoot, where you have to wait until next month (the sequel, the expansion, the "premium content") to get that clog in the kitchen sink looked at or your air conditioning fixed.

unntrlaffinity wrote:

I've only just finished (as in yesterday) Fallout 3 because school was taking so much of my time, and I remember reading quite a few comments about the terrible ending, but... what's wrong with it? I know that's a tangent, but I thought it it was an appropriate and "Fallout-esque" ending, and it even hearkens more back to Fallout 1, which is the tone the devs said they were trying for. Is it because it didn't let you play on after you end the game? You can just not take that last mission. In Fallout 1 you couldn't even do that because of the time limit. And Tactics didn't have a "play on" feature either.

Probably a topic better brought back to the dedicated FO3 thread. There's a number of posts there detailing the problems with the ending. And it's not the lack of "play on".

I have no problem with DLC. As with the full game, some are going to think the DLC is worth the cost, some aren't. I've bought my share of DLC (Prince of Persia, Fable 2), and I've passed up on other DLC because it simply didn't appeal to me (GTA 4, half the SF4 costumes, Gears 2). To each their own, but I'm certainly not going to skip a great experience (Dragon Age) just because it offers day 1 DLC. I might not pay for the DLC, but that doesn't take away from the core experience.

Reaching back up the thread a bit...

mrwynd wrote:

I was perfectly ok with DLC at day one or whatever day it came out until Dragon Age. I don't care that the DLC was released on day 1, I care that there's a guy with an exclamation point above his head in my camp at ALL TIMES. Advertising your DLC right in the game while I'm playing it after paying full price is ridiculous. I can understand advertising it in a game that makes it's money through microtransactions (League of Legends). I can understand day 1 DLC to try and get more sales rather than rentals.

This is not a DLC problem, this is an advertising problem. Publishers do have the problem of figuring out how to get the message out to customers about DLC. It's especially important that advertising be inexpensive and high performance, since that market is just a segment of a segment. Frankly, I don't see advertising for anything game-related getting any subtler any time soon. In the future you'll probably be looking back at the guy in the Dragon Age camp and wishing DLC advertising was like that again.

I agree with all the those who are more concerned with getting a good wealth of content on the retail release. If you feel like you want more, I don't see a problem with developers offering more for a reasonable price.

I personally have no inherent problem with the notion of DLC. I've been paying for disc-based expansion packs since the days of DOOM II - The Master Levels. The concept of selling content past the initial release is not new, and in many cases not any more expensive then it used to be, for both consumers and producers. And it's not limited to any region or developer. It's been my observation that Japanese developers have been the worst offenders when it comes to day-one DLC, and in some cases on the disc pay-for content (Ace Combat 6, Blue Dragon, Resident Evil 5, Beautiful Katamari, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Gyromancer). Even the directors of Final Fantasy XIII have talked about DLC, and I'm certain you'll see it. But they're not alone, everyone is trying to emulate the success of the micro-transaction crazed Korean market.

I'm currently playing League of Legends, which is technically free-to-play but as soon as I see another $5 discount on the boxed game I'm going for it.

When it comes to Dragon Age, I find it interesting that some folks are very quick to include The Stone Prisoner in the argument against it's abuse of DLC. It's often left out of the conversation that this is include for free with the purchase of a new game. I think it's a brilliant way of driving new game purchases. Warden's Keep is $7, for about 2 hours worth of gameplay and what I found to be an interesting storyline. For some, $7 is out of the question for that ratio, for me it's skipping lunch for a day to get more of a game I was obsessed with. I can live with that.

BadKen wrote:

This is not a DLC problem, this is an advertising problem. Publishers do have the problem of figuring out how to get the message out to customers about DLC. It's especially important that advertising be inexpensive and high performance, since that market is just a segment of a segment. Frankly, I don't see advertising for anything game-related getting any subtler any time soon. In the future you'll probably be looking back at the guy in the Dragon Age camp and wishing DLC advertising was like that again.

IMO, the gripes people had with this could have been avoided if Bioware had done something as simple as wording the dialogue choice differently so it's not breaking the 4th wall quite so much. Just an NPC standing around with a few 'tell me about...' options, and perhaps triggering a tutorial style message to highlight the purpose of the NPC if you buy the expansion. If anything I hope they find other ways to trigger DLC instead of NPCs standing around in camp, like adding a situation in a city or an ambush, even giving you a little bit of a taste with a short quest where once you've bought the DLC you get the next development.

I really enjoyed "Bringing Down the Sky" for Mass Effect. Even for $5. My main issue was that I wanted more stuff like it and nothing ever came.

Scratched wrote:
BadKen wrote:

This is not a DLC problem, this is an advertising problem. Publishers do have the problem of figuring out how to get the message out to customers about DLC. It's especially important that advertising be inexpensive and high performance, since that market is just a segment of a segment. Frankly, I don't see advertising for anything game-related getting any subtler any time soon. In the future you'll probably be looking back at the guy in the Dragon Age camp and wishing DLC advertising was like that again.

IMO, the gripes people had with this could have been avoided if Bioware had done something as simple as wording the dialogue choice differently so it's not breaking the 4th wall quite so much. Just an NPC standing around with a few 'tell me about...' options, and perhaps triggering a tutorial style message to highlight the purpose of the NPC if you buy the expansion. If anything I hope they find other ways to trigger DLC instead of NPCs standing around in camp, like adding a situation in a city or an ambush, even giving you a little bit of a taste with a short quest where once you've bought the DLC you get the next development.

I don't mind the NPC breaking the 4th wall, I actually think it's strangely charming. And innovative.

The fact that the exclamation point never goes away is a bit annoying, a dialogue option of 'Maybe later' that turns off the marker would be great.

I think Post-release, value-added content (how's that for a new name?) is a wonderful idea on paper. Let's not ignore the incredible investment developers make in the technology they develop. They dump hundreds of thousands of man-hours and tens of millions of dollars into art, design, and engines. They then get a two week window to recoup that. Can you blame them for trying to find a way to get more money? The current AAA business model is terrible.

Unfortunately, the only PVC (even better) I've really consumed are the Team Fortress 2 updates. I thought they were fantastic. The crazy thing is I never paid for them. What if Valve had found a way to charge $1 for each or some of the updates? Of course Valve has found other ways to profit from TF2. The updates are still driving new sales, and according to the update they posted on the blog today, TF2 seems to be a bit of a research playground for other tech.

I did get a couple of the Fallout 3 PVCs, but I bought them on disk because I refuse to participate in Microsoft's space-buck program.

I think a big part of DLC being successful is avoiding the perception that so many people in this thread have of it being throw-away or a money grab.

Possibly a non-sequitor, but I just read this quote in a Wired article posted in this thread by Lex Cayman:

When Miller was in his twenties, he invented the shareware model of selling games...: He’d break a game into chunks, release it for free on BBSes, get people addicted, and then charge them for the remaining parts.

I'm old enough to remember shareware, and I don't know why I didn't think to bring it up before. I recall that shady guys used to come to my college and sell you shareware (with poor disclosure) for $5 per disc. I don't think that's a viable job option anymore. The market will reject paying for incomplete games.

That kind of ties with what Strauss Zelnick (Take Two) saying "The safest place to be is in triple-A". People want it all, they want the big package with *everything*, at least in western countries.

I don't like the fact that if I sell a game, I now have a lump of useless associated DLC sitting on my 360 hard drive that will never be used again.

Basically, if I buy DLC, I'm holding onto the corresponding game indefinitely.

Of course, even if I jettison a game before DLC is released (Brutal Legend), I still feel a little bit sad when I hear they're coming out with new content and consider reacquiring the game, so it's not like I can ever win.

Clemenstation wrote:

I don't like the fact that if I sell a game, I now have a lump of useless associated DLC sitting on my 360 hard drive that will never be used again.

Basically, if I buy DLC, I'm holding onto the corresponding game indefinitely.

Of course, even if I jettison a game before DLC is released (Brutal Legend), I still feel a little bit sad when I hear they're coming out with new content and consider reacquiring the game, so it's not like I can ever win. :)

And that's exactly what they want, they don't want you to sell your game second hand, and if they trickle out DLC slowly people keep the game longer. In addition to bundled day-zero DLC (like DA stone prisoner) it makes a new copy worth more than a second hand copy.

Scratched wrote:
Clemenstation wrote:

I don't like the fact that if I sell a game, I now have a lump of useless associated DLC sitting on my 360 hard drive that will never be used again.

Basically, if I buy DLC, I'm holding onto the corresponding game indefinitely.

Of course, even if I jettison a game before DLC is released (Brutal Legend), I still feel a little bit sad when I hear they're coming out with new content and consider reacquiring the game, so it's not like I can ever win. :)

And that's exactly what they want, they don't want you to sell your game second hand, and if they trickle out DLC slowly people keep the game longer. In addition to bundled day-zero DLC (like DA stone prisoner) it makes a new copy worth more than a second hand copy.

It presumably targets renting as well. I know I've regretted renting a couple of games because there's been decent DLC released after I've returned the disc.

The carrot of DLC is better than the stick of DRM if the publishers want to reduce the second-hand market, IMO.

I rarely spring for DLC. In fact, knowing that a "Complete" edition of a game is likely to come out eventually with all that stuff bundled in actually keeps me from buying stuff at full price. I know if I wait long enough I can either get the original game sans DLC on sale, or the full game including DLC at the original price.

Well, sales of the expansions for Dragon Age will be determinative. Problem is, their release schedule is too choppy to justify the in game characters. If they truly made a game I could keep playing with one character, a la Diablo, or like an MMO with major end game dungeons and PPV, it would work better. But what they expect is that I not only keep the game installed, but that I keep checking for content now that I have finished.

beeporama wrote:

I'm old enough to remember shareware, and I don't know why I didn't think to bring it up before. I recall that shady guys used to come to my college and sell you shareware (with poor disclosure) for $5 per disc. I don't think that's a viable job option anymore. The market will reject paying for incomplete games.

Nah, it's called "episodic content" instead. Telltale do it, and by all accounts they're doing rather well from themselves.

Zelos wrote:

The carrot of DLC is better than the stick of DRM if the publishers want to reduce the second-hand market, IMO.

I'm surprised more haven't sweetened the carrot with occasional free DLC packs. Like, Mercenaries 2 (please someone give a better example) gave out a pack with some little stuff like alternate costumes for no cost. If a gamer knew that in sixth months they could get something to breathe life into a replay, they might be more likely to sit on their used copies.

I don't expect whole huge swaths of content to be free, but it would seem easy enough to give out new skins, maybe little things like a new weapon or something.

Floomi wrote:

Nah, it's called "episodic content" instead. Telltale do it, and by all accounts they're doing rather well from themselves.

An interesting point. They are very upfront about what they are doing. I don't buy it (it's why I've skipped the Penny Arcade game), but I guess a lot of people do.

beeporama wrote:

I'm surprised more haven't sweetened the carrot with occasional free DLC packs. Like, Mercenaries 2 (please someone give a better example) gave out a pack with some little stuff like alternate costumes for no cost.

Uncharted 2 gave out a free, and pretty kick-ass map over the Thanksgiving weekend.

As in all things, I think balance is key. Some DLC is good, some is bad. DLC itself...it just is. I do think as we get further and further along we get more good, with fewer pay-for horse armors, and more Lost and Damneds.

I get more game from DLC. If choosing to buy a developer's extra content allows me to continue to get more of their games now, and can somehow help fund them for future projects, then so be.

I am, however, against useless Horse Armor downloads that add literally nothing to the game besides new textures. I'm looking at you, Street Fighter IV "costume packs".

beeporama wrote:

I'm surprised more haven't sweetened the carrot with occasional free DLC packs. Like, Mercenaries 2 (please someone give a better example) gave out a pack with some little stuff like alternate costumes for no cost. If a gamer knew that in sixth months they could get something to breathe life into a replay, they might be more likely to sit on their used copies.

Burnout: Paradise is a much, much better example -- for about a year-and-a-half after the initial launch, they simply released major, deep content updates -- things like the bikes, day/night cycle, et cetera -- before the Big Surf Island expansion, and then they started monetizing it.

The fact that the game is still awesome without those updates is proof enough that developers can add smart content to a game after release.

I just 100% my bikes license. They are awesomely fun.