DLC

[Snow Queen]

This thread is in regards to what sort of things should be in the finished product of the game, and what things should be DLC.

How should that be in your opinion? What sort of things should be mandatory in the final product, and what things are allowed to be put up as DLC?

 

[Ventus]

Bottom line for DLC is that the base game has to feel complete. Is the main story lengthy enough and yet well grounded? If so, then story DLC gets a pass. Is the multiplayer gameplay functioning? Is there a wide variety of feasible (read: usable ingame and not hypothetically) items to choose from? If so, then item DLC gets a pass. Does the game feature a wide variety of locale? If so, then map pack DLC gets a pass.

 

[Djinn]

I like DLC, but I do not like it if it comes at the expense of the main game in the box. If the game is painfully short and very obviously missing content so that the developers can "release more" at a later date then I simply view it as releasing an unfinished game.

What I am really not a fan of at all is locking on-disc content so that the developers can sell you what is already on it at a later date as DLC.

 

[Mercedes]

Bottom line for DLC is that the base game has to feel complete.

Pretty much this. If it feels like a game has been skimmed down/content cut to make room for DLC then I dislike that, but thankfully that doesn't happen very often.

And at the end of the day, for me it's always just been about pricing. Plain and simple. I've found some DLC to be a rip-off, sure, and you often hear about instances of it, gamers love a good ol' whine about DLC, but then I've also found some entire games to be a rip-off. As long as the price matches the content available, in regards to both the base game and the DLC, then I really couldn't care less. If it's more content for a game I enjoy, and the price is good, then I'll buy it! Take Dark Souls 2 and Payday 2, I've bought every single bit of DLC for them because I love those games and want more, and I've felt the price has matched the content of the DLC. This ridiculous notion that DLC is inherently bad is as stupid as the people who try and shame other gamers for buying into it. Thankfully that seems to be dying down in recent times, if you stay away from r/Gaming.

So yeah, I love DLC. More content, and it helps us in ways others tend not to think about. And it's optional content too, so who the **** cares, really.

 

[Ventus]

More content, and it helps us in ways others tend not to think about.

The biggest thing that a lot of DLC naysayers fail to recognize is expansion of the game world/series/lore without having to fork more money into a brand new title. I can't begin to explain how many expansion packs that have released for games at the $10-$20 price point that really expanded their games' depth not just gameplay wise but storywise. It's something that so many games nowadays should take advantage of but don't.

 

[Turo602]

Pretty much what has been said already. As long as the content you're getting on the disc matches or exceeds the length/quality of most decent games in their genre, then paying for DLC is fine. So long it isn't content being withheld from the game itself like important story missions and whatnot. Borderlands IMO has had a great track record with DLC. What we pay for on the disc is already jam packed with hours of great content that tells a tale from beginning to end while their DLC offers separate standalone storied content that isn't essential to the experience you already paid for. That's why it's called an add-on because it's additional content and that's exactly what some people fail to see. A game like Borderlands is much larger and just as well-made as say a game you were willing to pay 50 dollars for on the Wii or previous generation. Is the 60 dollar price tag not justified? Maybe for some games but in this case as with many other great games of the last generation, it is. So why do some people feel entitled to free extra content, especially in Borderlands' case, that is the size of practically another game? You already got your money's worth the first time, so stop being cheap.

That aside though, I do find the more minor DLCs like skins and upgrades to be rip-offs even if they are just a dollar or two a piece. You'd think something as trivial as character or weapon skins would be in-game unlockables but these days, you have to pay for it. For example, Gears of War 3 has 30 dollars worth of weapon skin add-ons which is just criminal. Granted, you don't have to buy it but it's still such a rip-off for those who did. There's honestly no excuse why something like that should cost anyone an additional 50 percent of what they already paid for the game itself. While I have found great add-ons and expansions during the last generation, there's no denying that DLC has been and will continue to be abused by greedy companies. But does that mean the hell with the concept altogether? Of course not. Like Mercedes said earlier, plenty of retail games themselves have jiffed many consumers throughout the entirety of gaming's exsitence, but that doesn't mean gaming as a whole should go away either. It just means that it's our job to wise up about the things we choose to purchase.

 

[Justac00lguy]

DLC is fine when used right. If it adds a significant amount to an already good game and if it's worth the price, I'm down. Fallout is a great state example, you essentially pay, what, £5 and you get a new area (essentially a small open world) to explore with a storyline, new content, enemies etc. Most range between 5-10 hours, which is amazing given the price and can be integrated within the main game.

An other good example is GTA V, they essentially had around 10 small DLC packs, which added new vehicles, clothes, guns, game modes, properties etc. and guess what, they were all free. That's not the end of it either, two major components to online (game mode creator mode and online heists), that weren't finished upon release, were also released down the line for free as well. That's a great gesture from Rockstar, yes they have have microtransactions, but they balance out with tons of free content and regular updates. You feel like you're not losing out.

So two great examples above, but that's not the bulk of DLC. A lot of it is a cash grab, especially when the game is lacking content and then they release that content as purchasable DLC; I hate that. I judge DLC on a case-by-case basis, if I throughly enjoy a certain game, and they release DLC, then I'm going to buy it most likely. If I'm playing a game I'm enjoying, but the DLC seems lackluster and overpriced, then I'm going to back out. Simple.

 

[Seth]

An other good example is GTA V, they essentially had around 10 small DLC packs, which added new vehicles, clothes, guns, game modes, properties etc. and guess what, they were all free. That's not the end of it either, two major components to online (game mode creator mode and online heists), that weren't finished upon release, were also released down the line for free as well. That's a great gesture from Rockstar, yes they have have microtransactions, but they balance out with tons of free content and regular updates. You feel like you're not losing out.

A bit on a tangent, but R* is really good about stuff like that. In RDR as well their big one was Undead Nightmare, and that was an amazing DLC. It used the same map, but added a whole new story and tons of extra stuff to make it all new again. It also better utilized areas and some mechanics that weren't as expanded upon in the original. GTA IV also had two DLC that added new stories and characters and many extra hours.

You also mentioned Fallout, Bethesda in general is great with making game sized DLC. Like Shivering Isles could have been released as a game on it's own and it would have been worthy of a GOTY title.

 

[Fig]

When it comes to DLC, it has to be extra content that wasn't part of the core game during development. There should be a purpose for the consumer to be enticed to purchase the DLC as it provides enjoyable content without feeling you are being swindled with your money. With that said, I personally believe that while DLC adds longevity to the game, it shouldn't always be the case when creating a video game. Games such as Mario Kart 8, Hyrule Warriors, Super Smash Bros. are games that can truly benefit from DLC as it's exciting to have new characters and/or stages to further give the games a stronger lifespan. I personally believe there are games that also benefit from not having any DLC. This is what I hope for new installment for The Legend of Zelda. I'm certain the game is going to be phenomenal and judging from the fact that Miyamoto has stated that this game can be played both long-term and short-term due to the amount of content in the quest, I don't want DLC to affect the game even in a positive light. Obviously the amiibos will give you something minor, but it isn't as grand as say new characters and stages like they did Mario Kart 8, Hyrule Warriors, and soon Super Smash Bros.

 

[misskitten]

The best DLC I've played has been option extra quests, areas, etc that weren't necessary for the main game to offer a complete experience. I'm alright with DLC that offer post-The End type quests, that prolongs the game, as long as the original ending to the game felt like the proper ending, and they didn't just chop of the end to sell it to us after-the-fact.

Fable 3 did this well (yes, the game itself had a bunch of issues, but DLC wasn't one of them), with having one DLC quest open up this whole underground town area. It was a complete new place to explore, but was not necessary for the game to feel complete. Another was the DLC quest that they tacked on at the end. The game itself felt complete as you had beaten the big bad threat that you had been anticipated for that whole in-game year. You had saved your kingdom, either completely without loss of lives, or partially losing some lives. The post-The End DLC more tapped into what happens once you get back to the regular life of ruling a kingdom with the attempted assassination plot, which then took you to completely new areas to explore and investigate.

I also think Mario Kart 8 does DLC well, as it offers a complete game experience, but then offers the option of getting even more tracks and some additional characters. I'm completely fine with that type of DLC as well.

I however, find DLC that just give you some item, article of clothing or whatnot to be complete BS. I mean, people are free to spend their money as they choose, I just think it's a complete waste of money. If there's added clothing items, etc, that I can download for free, then okay, I will. If they charge even a single bit of money for it, then I ignore it completely. If I'm to pay for DLC it needs to give me more gameplay, not just a new skin to add to existing gameplay...

 

[Iridescence]

Whether DLC's are good or bad depends on the game itself. If a game is good, I'll buy the DLC for it if it interests me. If a game is rushed and/or lacking in content, then charging for DLC is just insulting.