Is there too much DLC in the industry?

[Spirit]

Not every game has DLC but it feels as if most do, which means most games cost more than the base price.

Sometimes DLC can be decent and sometimes it genuinely isn't content torn out of the base game to be sold for extra cost on day one...

Do you think there is too much DLC out there?

 

[Jirohnagi]

Yes, but that's down to consumerism they know that even if they release an unfinished product people will still lap it up so long as it has DLC on it and a few positive reviews

 

[CynicalSquid]

DLC isn't that bad, in my opinion, because I get to play more of a game I love. Unless, of course the DLC is a cheap cash grab and nothing more. That's more of a problem with the DLC itself though and not the concept of DLC. So, in the end, if the DLC is good and adds on to the main game instead of it feeling that it was torn out of the main game, then I am completely for DLC in games. It's jsut scumbag companies like Activision have been giving DLC a bad name, I feel. However, I hate microtransactions with a passion. Those can go straight to hell.

 

[Caramel H]

The DLCs in Skyrim are amazing, but I do think DLC's are mainly for making more money. I'm glad many developers try hard to make it worth it though.

 

[Princess Niki]

I only find DLC acceptable if it is done they way Nintendo does it, FINISH the game and then see that fans love it soo much that you offer a little more to the game with DLC. I agree that Microtransactions and Lootboxes need to die in a trash can fire.

 

[Dio]

Yeah there is too much of companies releasing an incomplete product and then selling you the whole thing for extra money.

I have said this a hundred times but the only acceptable type of DLC is the way Witcher 3 does it. Free cosmetic DLC's and Two paid ones featuring whole new stories, hours of content and even a new world bigger than some whole games, in the case of Blood and Wine.

The Way Nintendo does it as far as I can see is incredibly bad. Amiibo cost as much as Witcher 3's Hearts of stone which has an 8 hour story. No amiibo offers this. In the case of TPHD they offer modes that should already be in a game for free or just cost £1 would be acceptable.

 

[Castle]

Yes.

The only acceptable form of DLC is any contact pack equaling roughly 1/2 the content of the base game, provided the base game is shipped complete.

If we're charging so much as a nickle for skins, or boosts, or weapons or armor or trees - any piddly thing the game can and should and almost certainly does already include, that's unacceptable.

If we're cutting content from the base game - even unessential content - so it can be sold later, that's unacceptable.

Just navigating the sheer mass of DLC commonly available to every game now is insane. The time it takes to sort through it all isn't worth the effort on its own.

I just wanna pay my game up front, press start, play to the end, and either play it again or move on to the next. Doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

 

[Usurper King Zant]

I don't mind DLC as long as there is more to it than just some skins and a newgame+ version of the game.
Give me more quests with story that connects to the existing one and I will buy it.

 

[the8thark]

The issue about DLC is not the DLC itself. It's about the main game.
Release a fully featured game with no cut or delayed content for one fixed price (without the need for any microtransactions) and people are happy. Add DLC later to this and it's ok as people have enjoyed a full game before this.

However release half a game and expect people to pay more to get the full game. Or release half a game and expect the playerbase to be happy with dripfeeding the other $30-$50 worth of content over the nest 1-2 years. People hate this.

My point? DLC when used to enhance a full game is amazing and people like this. However DLC used as a way to pay more to get the content that should have been in the sticker price of the game is just lazy or greedy developers at work. People really hate this.