PDA

View Full Version : DLC- Worth it?


Vital
February 9th, 2013, 12:37 PM
So games nowadays have extra bonuses that are pretty snazzy. Whether it's a map for multiplayer use, a weapon for in-game play, or an extra add on, many companies nowadays release games that aren't complete. To complete it, you'll need to buy these DLCs. But is it worth it? Some companies Ahem, Capcom practically make half their income of DLCs. I am exaggerating, but when there's so much stuff to obtain that you have to shell out extra money, after spending a good $60 on the game itself, it can become quite frustrating. The worst part is when a GOTY edition is released about 6 months later, filled with the extra content in disc that you previously had to pay for. All for only $60.

What's your opinion on DLC? Do you buy DLC often, and if not, why not?

Mr. Avocado
February 9th, 2013, 03:16 PM
DLC is always a popular option of mine. It adds "spice" to the game, makes it more interesting, enjoyable. Games don't really feel complete for me without some DLC, it just alters the game in a positive manner. Times where I especially don't hesitate in the purchase of DLC is when I play a game with friends'; I love being unique and the different character, makes me stand out more and more recognizable. Things such as weapons and attributes you can purchase as DLC can make your in-game character more like you want it to be - it's more to your preference and you can do what you want with it.

roosterman
February 9th, 2013, 03:43 PM
i really hate most DLC. if its something that actually adds to a complete game, its all fine. but when you have to pay to get the last chapter of your game, that's just ridiculous. my friends all love modern warfare or whatever game it is now because it has "all this content and even content from past games for only 60 dollars" they don't realize that "all this content" didn't require any work from the company and by the time they buy it all, they've probably spent well over 100 dollars.

Oryx
February 9th, 2013, 03:47 PM
I think hating on all DLC is just silly. I mean, DLC for many games is just what you'd imagine good DLC to be, take Skyrim - they didn't have time to add in all the features in the DLC before launch. If we all decided as a group that we hate DLC, the extra content would have just been not created. DLC, when used right, has a great deal of use and is a wonderful addition to a video game.

rooster - what makes you say content in DLCs for CoD require 'no work from the company'? Even if it was done in an older game, it still requires a lot of work to port it over. Do you have some specific experiences in AAA game development that back up that claim?

Sweets Witch
February 9th, 2013, 04:34 PM
I don't mind DLC so long as it expands upon the game. I'd rather buy a new campaign, class, or character as opposed to a skin pack. Last DLC I bought was the Nekomata class for Disgaea 3. Last DLC I wanted to buy was the skin pack for One Piece: Pirate Warriors, but it's just too expensive for me to seriously consider. There's got to be some kind of price-vs-quality balance going on or I'm out.

machomuu
February 9th, 2013, 04:44 PM
It really depends on the game and the price of the DLC. For instance, in the case of...really, most FPS nowadays, I don't think it's worth it since the price of the DLC is usually more than what the DLC actually adds and the amount of effort to create the DLC (this is mainly the case with map packs). Then there's The Sims 3, which has its store filled with overpriced in-game objects. There's also Fire Emblem Awakening, which I love to death. It is a great game, but it's DLC is overpriced. Luckily, it's not intrusive at all, but there's not much in the way of a reward or content for the $2.50 you pay.

It's like I always say, DLC is a wonderful idea, but when the idea is exploited and used the wrong way or on excess, it becomes one of the worst things that could happen to a game. It can be used to prolong enjoyment in a game, or it could be used to gain money without extorting the consumer via obligatory means. For instance, Dynasty Warriors (the later titles) allow you to buy tracks from earlier games and costumes for your characters. It didn't do much to make you feel that you needed them, it was just something you picked up if you were interested, and the price per item was cheap.

Or how about Elder Scrolls Oblivion and the Shivering Isles? That is the most extensive Elder Scrolls addition to date (even moreso than Dragonborn and Dawnguard combined, I'd say); people even considered it to be almost like an entirely new game. That was an expansion, and while I think $30 is still a little too much too pay for it, its price was justified.

You can make good, justified DLC. The problem is that a lot publishers and developers understand that they can charge exorbitant prices for very little and people will buy the content, as has been evidenced by the Call of Duty (they are the most popular, as well as one of the largest offenders), so they often do the same, which gives a bad name to DLC in the eyes of consumers. Hating all DLC isn't the way to go, but I do recommend speaking out against injustices in the industry, it can only make things better.

Team Fail
February 9th, 2013, 07:52 PM
For me, DLC depends on the game. Some games have reasonably-priced DLC, but some games have DLC for way too much money. It'd be nice if there was a way to get some DLC for a reduced price, but I guess it's all in an effort to make money.

roosterman
February 9th, 2013, 09:06 PM
I think hating on all DLC is just silly. I mean, DLC for many games is just what you'd imagine good DLC to be, take Skyrim - they didn't have time to add in all the features in the DLC before launch. If we all decided as a group that we hate DLC, the extra content would have just been not created. DLC, when used right, has a great deal of use and is a wonderful addition to a video game.

rooster - what makes you say content in DLCs for CoD require 'no work from the company'? Even if it was done in an older game, it still requires a lot of work to port it over. Do you have some specific experiences in AAA game development that back up that claim?

no, i don't, but then again i don't think many of us do and its quite easy to lie about so lets not get into that. i do know from common sense however that more then half the work is thinking up the ideas. saying they worked on a recycled stage is almost like saying you worked on your home work if you had just copy'd someone else's. i don't know why but for some reason everything i post on pokecommunity now is a declaration of war. i'm not against all DLC but charging so much for recycled stages just doesn't seem right. i'm not in the mood for this right now and to my knowledge i haven't made my statement conflict with yours, lets just leave it at that.

Oryx
February 9th, 2013, 09:14 PM
no, i don't but then again i don't think many of us do and its quite easy to lie about so lets not get into that. i do know from common sense however that more then half the work is thinking up the ideas. saying they worked on a recycled stage is almost like saying you worked on your home work if you had just copy'd someone else's.

Well I'm not making a claim about AAA development here, you are. You said "let's not get into it" and then proceeded to...get into it. It's not common sense that more than half the work is thinking up ideas - I haven't developed AAA games but I have done game development on my own and programming is far from just plugging in ideas, it is much more difficult than coming up with inspiration and ideas. Have you ever tried to code someone else's idea?

i don't know why but for some reason everything i post on pokecommunity now is a declaration of war. i'm not against all DLC but charging so much for recycled stages just doesn't seem right. i'm not in the mood for this right now and to my knowledge i haven't made my statement conflict with yours, lets just leave it at that.

I didn't say our posts conflicted. All I asked was where you got the argument that the DLC in CoD requires no work. Your post "I don't like most DLC" and my post "I think people that hate all DLC are silly" are not in conflict at all - you don't hate all DLC, therefore you don't fall into that category. My question was unrelated to that thought, it was related to your own post. Asking for your credentials in making that claim isn't a declaration of war, it's a discussion.

Caelus
February 9th, 2013, 09:23 PM
It depends on what the content is. If its an expansion of the original game (such as the two expansions for GTA IV) and its long enough then I don't have a problem with the DLC, but if its a map pack or accessories for your Live character then I don't think they're worth the price. I mean they're not that expensive, but if I had 800 points I would rather use them on a game then on a bunch of accessories.

roosterman
February 9th, 2013, 09:27 PM
Well I'm not making a claim about AAA development here, you are. You said "let's not get into it" and then proceeded to...get into it. It's not common sense that more than half the work is thinking up ideas - I haven't developed AAA games but I have done game development on my own and programming is far from just plugging in ideas, it is much more difficult than coming up with inspiration and ideas. Have you ever tried to code someone else's idea?



I didn't say our posts conflicted. All I asked was where you got the argument that the DLC in CoD requires no work. Your post "I don't like most DLC" and my post "I think people that hate all DLC are silly" are not in conflict at all - you don't hate all DLC, therefore you don't fall into that category. My question was unrelated to that thought, it was related to your own post. Asking for your credentials in making that claim isn't a declaration of war, it's a discussion.

i can think of several "discussions" that ended up wars. look, i know coding is hard and all but when you calculate how much all the stages cost, you could nearly buy the original game on a disc. i'm just against it cause they over price it so much and fool everyone into buying it. besides, this shouldn't be based on work, it should be based on what it gives the player, and its not like the players will really notice and appreciate the work that went into it cause it looks the same as always. neither one of us have a large amount of experience in this so we both could be saying things that don't even remotely make since as far as we know so there really is no point in this argument or discussion or whatever you want to call it.

Oryx
February 9th, 2013, 09:42 PM
If you don't feel there is a point to it, you're free to stop replying. :)

look, i know coding is hard and all but when you calculate how much all the stages cost, you could nearly buy the original game on a disc.

This is stated as a fact, and it's a numerical statement - could you find a source on this so I could understand fully where you're coming from?

i'm just against it cause they over price it so much and fool everyone into buying it.

I don't understand this mindset. People who buy things aren't idiots...they buy things because they want them. If it's worth the cost to them, if they have enough free money to buy something that is too expensive for you, how are they getting fooled? Is there an epidemic of DLC that lies about what it includes?

besides, this shouldn't be based on work, it should be based on what it gives the player, and its not like the players will really notice and appreciate the work that went into it cause it looks the same as always. neither one of us have a large amount of experience in this so we both could be saying things that don't even remotely make since as far as we know so there really is no point in this argument or discussion or whatever you want to call it.

Players do notice and appreciate the work. At least I do, and my friends do. We care about the industry enough to learn about it, and are aware of the work it takes to do a "simple" thing like...putting accurate reflections in a mirror in a game. If a company feels that their DLC is worth less, then they can price it lower, and if they price it too high, then people won't buy it and they're re-price it to match. If it's making a lot of money, it's the right price for a large amount of people.

Aeon
February 9th, 2013, 09:49 PM
I can't think of a single time I've bought DLC and didn't feel like I just threw money into a paper shredder. Especially map packs.

roosterman
February 9th, 2013, 10:27 PM
If you don't feel there is a point to it, you're free to stop replying. :)

there is a fine line between being civil and being a total pushover ya know.


This is stated as a fact, and it's a numerical statement - could you find a source on this so I could understand fully where you're coming from?

as i said before, i didn't even want to have your little "discussion" so why should i put effort into it? you go find the prices yourself, if you find out they're less, good for you, but i really don't care.


I don't understand this mindset. People who buy things aren't idiots...they buy things because they want them. If it's worth the cost to them, if they have enough free money to buy something that is too expensive for you, how are they getting fooled? Is there an epidemic of DLC that lies about what it includes?


first i would like to say the idiot thing is very debatable. i begin to question if anyone isn't an idiot these days (i'm even going to stay here and have an idiotic argument with you after all). just because you say you want something doesn't mean you're not being fooled. this is how most advertisement works, fooling people into thinking they want something.
i've been hypnotized (no, i don't have proof so don't ask) and everything i was told to do seemed like a great idea but i was still being fooled.


Players do notice and appreciate the work. At least I do, and my friends do. We care about the industry enough to learn about it, and are aware of the work it takes to do a "simple" thing like...putting accurate reflections in a mirror in a game. If a company feels that their DLC is worth less, then they can price it lower, and if they price it too high, then people won't buy it and they're re-price it to match. If it's making a lot of money, it's the right price for a large amount of people


let me just burrow your thinking for a minute.
This is stated as a fact, could you find a source on this so I could understand fully where you're coming from?

machomuu
February 9th, 2013, 10:31 PM
I don't understand this mindset. People who buy things aren't idiots...they buy things because they want them. If it's worth the cost to them, if they have enough free money to buy something that is too expensive for you, how are they getting fooled? Is there an epidemic of DLC that lies about what it includes?

Players do notice and appreciate the work. At least I do, and my friends do. We care about the industry enough to learn about it, and are aware of the work it takes to do a "simple" thing like...putting accurate reflections in a mirror in a game. If a company feels that their DLC is worth less, then they can price it lower, and if they price it too high, then people won't buy it and they're re-price it to match. If it's making a lot of money, it's the right price for a large amount of people.

While I won't say that they're being fooled, I don't think the masses buy DLC because they think its worth it. From what I've seen, most people buy DLC for the content, not for the price. This may sound good, but it really just means that "so long as the price isn't completely outrageous (and by this I mean, say, more than the base game costs), they'll buy it". It's a generalization of course and it obviously isn't true for everyone, but it's not a good thing when price is disregarded. This is the reason why some games can sell Season Passes with...say, a tenth or less than a tenth of the actual content that is included in the entire game for just ten dollars less than the game itself.

There are deals, though, and they work. For instance, I remember Call of Duty Elite, which was $40 more than the base game, saved you $10 that you would have lost buying a Season Pass. And people bought it. The thing is, and I think this definitely holds true with multiplayer games, people feel obligated to buy the content. If a game is popular, or in more cases, if they like the game, the masses will buy the DLC for it. Why? Because it's there. Companies won't reprice their DLC because they never need to, it's hardly ever any skin off their bones if they keep it at the price it is. People will inevitably buy it, and the company will inevitably make money off of it.

Not all gamers are like this though, but I feel that the masses (aka the Mainstream or Core gamer) and the Casual Gamer will look at DLC as "something I have to get" rather than "something I have to pay for". It is new stuff that is advertised to make your game better, regardless of if it's a costume or a new story. The masses are undiscriminating, they are "easy to extort". They aren't stupid, though; they are undiscerning. For the most part. I can almost guarantee that an average gamer will not be a appreciative of the content as you or me, it's just more to play. This may sound "elitist", but I don't think that necessarily makes us better than them, that's just how things are in gaming today. The commercial tactics used in most DLC, regardless of whether it is overpriced or not, is made to make you feel as if your game is incomplete without having all of the DLC. "Your game will be so much better with this!" "Experience the power of this!" "Your game will not be complete without this! "Return to the land of X to take on another exciting adventure!"

Heck, sometimes it's hard for me to stop myself from buying various customization options in games because I feel that my creative abilities aren't what they could be if I did have such and such DLC. If it had never been created, 9 times outta 10, I probably wouldn't have wanted it at all. When I do download it, I might not even use it at all, but it feels good just knowing I have it...right?

That's the sort of obligatory feeling I'm talking about, though that example is fine-tuned for my own interests. At that point, it's hardly about how much I'm paying so much as it is that I'm paying at all. I'm a more frugal gamer, so I'll think long and hard about pretty much any gaming choice (especially DLC), but most people aren't like me. For them, it's a matter of "should I get it or should I not" and "will I be paying up the tailpipe to buy this DLC?"

I personally think that most DLC is overpriced, but it doesn't really matter, people will continue to buy them anyway without so much as a complaint. I like DLC, and there are a bunch of fairly priced DLC items out there, but it many, MANY cases, I've seen overpriced, unnecessary, or just plain ridiculous DLC that calls out your name simply because you have the game. It's a call that's hard to resist, but it is also a call that one will regret when push comes to shove. I really wish people would speak out and say that "$20 dollars is way too much for 2 or 3 maps" or "$10 dollars is too much for a skin pack"...but maybe I'm just in the minority.

twocows
February 9th, 2013, 11:15 PM
Pointless DLC that just adds superficial crap is fine, I won't buy it but I have no problem with it. DLC for small, self-contained stuff (like new missions or characters) is bogus; that stuff should be in the game at launch and I shouldn't have to pay extra for it. Full-on expansions that overhaul the game in some large way are fine and I'm willing to pay up to $20 if it's done well.

ZetaZaku
February 10th, 2013, 04:50 AM
DLC is killing modern gaming. Skyrim DLC is one thing. That's the same thing as expansion packs. But I really miss the time, when you had to beat the game multiple times, with different characters, different routes, do challenges etc to get new costumes. Now? You have to PAY for the new costumes. Even games that do have secret costumes, mostly offer you some lame costumes, while releasing good ones as DLC.

Example: Fist of the North Star Ken's Rage. Instead of unlocking the manga costumes after beating the Legend Mode with a character, you need to actually buy it. FOR EACH CHARACTER. Dynasty Warriors Gundam 3. Instead of unlocking some new characters after beating special missions, you need to buy them. Good thing that I don't care for Gundam 00 characters, but that's still terrible. I didn't get to play as Marida Cruz because of that. Warriors Orochi 3. HALF of the game is basically DLC. If I'm not mistaken, there are more DLC missions than Story Missions haha. Thank God, at least you don't have to buy Tekken characters (unlike SFxT where you actually have to buy 10 characters if I'm not mistaken).

Thus, I dislike them just because they became a replacement for unlockables. DLC are good if they are actual expansions, made separately, and not at the same time as the original game and then locked.

Mr. Avocado
February 10th, 2013, 05:13 AM
But I really miss the time, when you had to beat the game multiple times, with different characters, different routes, do challenges etc to get new costumes. Now? You have to PAY for the new costumes. Even games that do have secret costumes, mostly offer you some lame costumes, while releasing good ones as DLC.
Yeah, but this isn't the situation with all games. I don't really have this problem and DLC accessories like this I am alright with. As I stated in my last post with costume and blah, I said that I liked to be unique and different. The DLC for TF2 is such a good representation of being able to do this; every character I see has a different loadout and most of the time wearing different things. Also, buying a costume or whatever still doesn't cost much. DLC never really costs much unless, like Skyrim and CoD, they are major and more like expansions.


Thus, I dislike them just because they became a replacement for unlockables. DLC are good if they are actual expansions, made separately, and not at the same time as the original game and then locked.
This happens to games only with silly developers. In a lot of games that have DLC stuff, the best things are ones that you can unlock or find.

Pinkie-Dawn
February 10th, 2013, 07:19 AM
DLC can be a blessing for companies who wouldn't be able to add every content they planned to add to a game due to time constraint, but it can also be a curse for companies who purposely lock some of the content in the form of on-disc DLC, which is common in AAA titles. DLC is still fine as long as it's not required to complete a game 100%, unlike MVC3 where you need to buy Jill and Shuma-Gorath to get all the character endings 100%, as well as character archives. I still like to see DLC costumes for the upcoming SSB title.

machomuu
February 10th, 2013, 09:22 AM
DLC never really costs much unless, like Skyrim and CoD, they are major and more like expansions.

I wouldn't say that. There are alot of games, chiefly CoD, that add areas to the game and 9 times out of 10 they don't add features (or maybe one or two) at $15 a pop. I would call that a lot for maps alone, and I don't know if I'd call those "expansion" level DLCs, either; especially if all of them together cost $10 (or $20) less than the game itself. Then there are games that offer weapons for around $5, ingame objects (literally games that you are already in the game that you can get without paying) for $10, characters for $10 (which is usually 1/6th of what the game costs), and many other things that, for the number of people that are in most of these companies, probably take little time and/or effort to make.

Then you have to consider exactly how often the company releases games. I think for games like the Elder Scrolls series, it works rather well (well, not so much with Oblivion as it does with Morrowind and Skyrim) as the games add full blown expansions with new content, new areas, new storylines, so on and so forth. Even then, though, I'd say "$15" would be a more appropriate price.

The problem is that there is no standard for this kind of stuff, so developers just add what they want to and keep ideas for paid DLC. It's a great moneymaking tactic, not sure how much I like it though. It seems as if many games intentionally leave out these things for the sake of making money- they definitely do, and since they get little to no backlash, it's alright. It's not always the case, though, and there are games our there that "do it right", but, as has been said, it's the big names that usually cash in on this the most. And almost any game made by EA and Activision.

*Sigh* but I think the chance that this will change anytime soon is pretty low. I'll remain hopeful, though.

Mr. Avocado
February 10th, 2013, 09:38 AM
I wouldn't say that. There are alot of games, chiefly CoD, that add areas to the game and 9 times out of 10 they don't add features (or maybe one or two) at $15 a pop. I would call that a lot for maps alone, and I don't know if I'd call those "expansion" level DLCs, either; especially if all of them together cost $10 (or $20) less than the game itself. Then there are games that offer weapons for around $5, ingame objects (literally games that you are already in the game that you can get without paying) for $10, characters for $10 (which is usually 1/6th of what the game costs), and many other things that, for the number of people that are in most of these companies, probably take little time and/or effort to make.
I didn't mean to say that CoD DLC specifically is like an expansion-like DLC, more Skyrim. I was just saying that the expansion-like DLC are more expensive. Then again that's just the devs wanting more money, plenty of people buy CoD DLC and they know they can make easy money out of it. When you look at the other, "less popular" games, DLC tends to be cheaper so more people will buy it.

Cassino
February 11th, 2013, 07:40 AM
Ah, DLC. Where to begin... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON-7v4qnHP8)
I only have respect for full expansions.

Mr. Avocado
February 11th, 2013, 08:50 AM
Ah, DLC. Where to begin... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON-7v4qnHP8)
I only have respect for full expansions.
Not all DLC is "loadsamoney", as your link suggests. My proof? Blacksmith Pack for Castle Crashers is £0.89. I know that's not the best example to give, but I don't think that DLC is too pricey.

GreatTornado
February 11th, 2013, 12:14 PM
I only buy DLC For Just Dance 4. Is that acceptable?

Mochi
February 11th, 2013, 12:43 PM
I've always liked the option of DLC, it can definitely spice up your game although sometimes it isn't worth the price. The only games I've bought DLC for are Red Dead Redemption, LittleBigPlanet, and The Sims series if the expansion packs count.

.EJ
February 11th, 2013, 12:56 PM
I think DLC is great when done right....such as Battlefield 3's expansion packs that usually involve 4 maps, more vehicles, more weapons, etc or Skyrim's expansions as well.

However DLC released on the same day the game gets released is total BS like what Mass Effect 3 did.

Mr. Avocado
February 11th, 2013, 01:27 PM
However DLC released on the same day the game gets released is total BS like what Mass Effect 3 did.
This. Completely.

I hate when DLC is released on the same day as the game. At least give everyone a chance, let everyone play what's first issued for a few months. Adding stuff quickly is really annoying and can be a bit of a hassle most of the time.

roosterman
February 12th, 2013, 12:02 PM
Not all DLC is "loadsamoney", as your link suggests. My proof? Blacksmith Pack for Castle Crashers is £0.89. I know that's not the best example to give, but I don't think that DLC is too pricey.

true but if a million people bought a 1 dollar expansion, or probably more likely that a quarter million buy 4, the company gets 1 million dollars. and that's just with the cheaper expansions. a single NSMB2 pack will be 2.50 and nearly all my friends are buying at least 2 or 3 packs. haven't checked the first person shooter games but i know they're not too cheap.

Mr. Avocado
February 12th, 2013, 12:10 PM
Woah woah woah woah, £2.50 isn't that much for DLC. DLC starts to become pricey at £7.50+. And yes companies do get a lot of money from DLC of their respected game; not to mention they probably have more than 1 game that has DLC. It's still unlikely that 250,000 people will buy DLC for games unless it's CoD or whatever. But that's just good business, an easy way to make money once you've got an audience.

machomuu
February 12th, 2013, 12:22 PM
true but if a million people bought a 1 dollar expansion, or probably more likely that a quarter million buy 4, the company gets 1 million dollars. and that's just with the cheaper expansions. a single NSMB2 pack will be 2.50 and nearly all my friends are buying at least 2 or 3 packs. haven't checked the first person shooter games but i know they're not too cheap.
An expansion pack that costs one dollar would probably net the company much less than one million dollars if one million dollars. You have to consider the amount of time and manpower that goes into making the DLC; they have to pay their staff, and then you have to consider where the money from the DLC goes and how it's split. It probably ends up getting them much less than what the consumer pays.

Woah woah woah woah, £2.50 isn't that much for DLC. DLC starts to become pricey at £7.50+. And yes companies do get a lot of money from DLC of their respected game; not to mention they probably have more than 1 game that has DLC. It's still unlikely that 250,000 people will buy DLC for games unless it's CoD or whatever. But that's just good business, an easy way to make money once you've got an audience.
Well, it depends on the DLC. For instance, Fire Emblem Awakening sells a short scenario with 1 character for $2.50, and I'd say that's pricey given the subject matter. I mean, if they were their own products it would be fine, but these are packs among packs, and if one were to buy all of the packs, they would be paying more than 10% of what the games cost (individually it's more than 5%).

But, still, overselling is not a bad idea. Sure, I don't think CoD's DLC price is justified, but hey, people are buying it so why change it?...Actually, that's really been the philosophy behind the entire series as of late, and many other games as a result. Companies oversell when they're sure people won't resist or revolt against their prices, which is a shrewd tactic that works time and time again.

Mr. Avocado
February 12th, 2013, 11:52 PM
I agree that companies overprice a lot of their DLC, but I think they still propose a fair price. If you think about how much work they need to make it, Dragonborn for Skyrim must've taken a good while, and also how big it actually is. Then you have to consider what you said about splitting the prices between people. After that, it's the companies choice to decide how much they want for it; some companies are smart about it some just want the money straight.