Topic: Downloadable Content. Yay or nay?

[Ramzal]

Since Ninja Lou gave a decent idea of starting a thread about Downloable Content...I decided to start one. However, I am not quite sure if it should be here of in other stuff. So if it doesn't belong here and belongs there, can it please be moved? (Thank you. ) But I digress. The thread is meant for talking about if Downloadable Content is good for the gaming community or if it is a negative issue for the community. I for one, think it's positive. Gaming companies work hard on the content that is already in game discs and their work costs. With the extra content they make, they work even harder and longer to offer them to the gaming community. I can't help but think it's a fair trade of paying the cost for downloadable content. The idea that extra content should not be paid for, but included in the games we purchase is unfair as we are buying a product that costs millions of collars for 50-60 dollars. (Depending on your currency that is.)

DLC COULD have been made as a method of making more money out of a product that is already out in the market. I will not object to that. But with our choice to buy it or not, and the fact that the more money they get, the more and better games OR content they can make for us to play and enjoy until our consoles -explode-... I'd think it's a fair trade. Yet, with opinion, there is another to challange it / agree / bring a new perspective. Begin!

[Satoryu]

Of course it fits here. It is a gaming subject, right?

I agree that DLC is a good thing. In addition to the stuff I said in the MvC3 thread, I'll also add that DLC adds replay value and longevity to a game. It keeps it fresh and prevents comments from people tired of playing the same thing over and over again. Having to pay to unlock content that is already on the disc, I'll admit, is shifty. And having to buy the higher difficulties on Mega Man 9 was dumb. But everything else makes sense.

[Fxeni]

DLC can be a good thing, assuming it's done right. Stuff that's created and added down the line is a great way to use DLC. Taking stuff off the disk or even leaving it on there but locking it up so that you have to buy it via DLC... not so much. I am a strong dissenter of Day 1 DLC, as it were. It's just a way to get more money off of people for stuff that by all rights could have been in the final build of the game before it shipped. Extra missions/campaigns/characters that are created down the line and added to the game? That's perfect.

[Ninja Lou]

Ramzal beat me to it, I was going to add a poll too for people to choose whether or not DLC is good or bad for gaming. If Ram is ok with that can we get a mod to add it on?

Anyway for me DLC can be a good thing or a bad thing. It all depends on what the company does with it. For example I think companies like Bioware and Gearbox do a great job. Mass Effect + ME2 have great DLC, you have DLC come out for $10 which adds on about 5 to 6 hours of gameplay. This DLC can be done even after you beat the game and helps bridge the gap for part 3. For this type of DLC I will gladly hand over $10. Gearbox is similar with there Borderland DLC which are pretty large for $10. The bad comes in when a company makes DLC which supposedly adds content but when you start the download you realize that it was only 15 Megs for 8 missions. Clearly it was an unlock and that I just can't stand. I hate the idea buying something and then being forced to pay more to unlock it. I am also not a fan of DLC that can be bought day one, something like that should be on the disc, this sucks because this is just companies trying to be greedy. MvsC3's DLC doesn't really effect me.  I plan to get the collectors edition like I tend to do with games I love and since I am the DLC will be included with the purchase. I can understand why people are annoyed about the DLC, if it's ready then it should have been on the disk, I can't understand though why people are complaining about characters being added in later on in the future. Before DLC you had to buy a new game for those characters, trust me I have bought every version of street fighter and I rather pay $10 for characters then drop 40 to 60 for a game for those same 2 characters. Like anything it can be done well or it can be done poorly and it's not going to go anywhere. It just comes down to whether someone thinks its worth it or not.

[HokutoNoBen]

Alrighty...to basically re-iterate my stance from the MvC3 topic:

My problem with DLC is that, too often, it's used as a means to section-off content that was once a default part of the package deal for games, even up to a mere generation ago. When I'm basically paying for what boils down to "unlock codes" on a disc/program that I already paid for, that just screams scamming, and there's no amount of corporate-slanted rhetoric than can disguise that much.

Back in the MvC3 topic, Sato tried an analogy relating to cars, that tried to point to DLC as a luxury item akin to rims. I see it quite differently.

The way DLC is usually incorporated now-a-days is more along the lines of how a next generation model of an automobile has lost features that may have been a default feature in the previous one. For example, if you're a fan of a luxury sports car, such as a Lexus LS, you would come to expect certain things being part of the package deal, even before we start talking about adding on more luxury options, am I right? Do you honestly think Lexus buyers would not be the least bit perturbed, if they lost out on some of the creature features they've come to expect, historically?

Imagine if Lexus introduced a 2013 Lexus LS model that sported only 4 gears, when most models on the market today sport 8, at least. And worst yet, in order to get the 8 gears that you are used to having? That is now an "additional luxury" item that you have to pay extra in order to get. Lexus would get laughed right off the trade show floor, and their devoted customers would (rightfully) feel that Lexus is trying to gyp them of features that they've been used to for years, now.

Video games, as well as the consoles they are played on, are just as much of a luxury item. And as a longtime consumer of such luxury items, YES, I am quite disappointed that some developers are trying to short-change us content that, once upon a time (re: up to a generation ago), were default features, along with whatever "extra frills" they want to add on later. So as far as I'm concerned, the way that DLC is used now is just as much a slap in the face as how Sony patched out "OtherOS" functionality on the PS3. How DARE you limit/deprive me, the consumer, of content that I already paid good money for?


I'll grant you this, though. If DLC were ever implemented, such that it would render yearly updates for the likes of Madden, as well as pretty much every other sequential release pattern for almost any other game you could name, completely obsolete? Then that would be something closer to how a MMORPG continues to change dynamically, which would actually do more to warrant the requirement to continue paying for a game that in itself truly continues to update. For example, imagine if, instead of Mario Galaxy 2 being a disc game that cost full price at retail, Nintendo instead offered it as an Episode 2 "DLC expansion" download, for some what less? (That would be the day...but imagine it all the same!)

The end result would be something that would be much more in line with something that would benefit developers, publishers and consumers alike. Hell, I'm sure Blizzard can attest to how such a thing has worked just fine for them in the last few years alone, without the need for the DLC strategy that the console market has adopted here lately. 

But, of course, most console developers/publishers in their right mind are NOT going to actively contribute to the possible obsolescence of their products in such a way. So for now, DLC is used more for the sake of running a game on their fans, as opposed to approaching a digital expansion solution that's actually worthwhile.

[Ramzal]

I'm completely fine with a poll being present, Lou. Poll it up. (has not read all of the post, will comment in a bit on those.) EDIT: Okay. Now it's time for me to respond. I agree overall with the opinion that DLC is great if done right. Problem with that is that comes down to perspective. However, the basic idea of DLC adding to a game for replay value is the best kind. However, I do not agree with the notion that DLC is a scam. A scam would require people to spend money and not get what they pay for, or nothing at all. Then again, I'm arguing semantics there. My biggest problem is your (HokutoNoBen) idea of expanding sequels from the first disc game. It would be a faster way of making a game, but it would be expanding onto another 40 hours of gameplay with no change to the core of it. No change to a game's core over time will make it stale and unappealing. WoW survived this long due to the addictive nature of the game itself. However, sooner or later that will burn itself out.

What you propose is what Dragon Age: Origins did with Awakening. A new adventure, new characters... but the same core gameplay and set-up. The cost for that was the same for buying the disc itself. The only difference is that it saved me a trip to Gamestop. And the gaming industry without change, evolution of gameplay or it's core is a failure waiting to happen. Annnd you kinda picked wrong as using Blizzard as an example, because they ride off DLC for mounts, equipment, and items that come at the price of using credit cards to get them. So, your point is invalid there. But, I find myself confused as to what your actual opinion is. You say you hate DLC, however you only want it under the standards that you wish for... that would cause games to become stagnant over time. So... are you saying you think it's a scam? Or you dislike it because it's not how you wish it to be...which by the by, it is for several games already. But that can become tiresome easily. I'm just confused as to what you actually want. I'd like it if you could be clear without being so...contradictory.

[Ninja Lou]

I get what you are saying but there are good forms of DLC out there. I just found out Mass Effect 2 is getting more content added on before part 3 comes out and I couldn't be happier. I get to play a game I really enjoyed and keep it fresh in my mind before the 3rd one comes out. Bungie likes to put out maps, for someone that plays Halo online alot I look forward to new maps whenever they are announced. Usually its 3 maps for $10 and I think thats a steal.


Ok PB I know you are hovering around here somewhere. Get to work.

[Ramzal]

Poll up. Happy voting and debating/opinion stating.

[Flame]

Pretty much this.


it SHOULD be just a way to add extra things to an already full and finished game, but it is mostly used to sell unfinished games and then sell you material that should have been in there from the start.

[Protoman Blues]

To me, it depends on the DLC. I personally feel that a huge majority of it is bullshit, because from what I've seen a lot of DLC is simply unlockable crap. It ultimately depends on the crap though. Like I posted in the Marvel Can Suck My Cock For What They've Done To Spidey vs. Capcom topic, it really depends on what it is, like with the YuGiOh packs. For me, it's useless because I'm not paying for something that I can get by just playing the single player game and trying out new, fun, and ultimately unbeatable decks. But for someone who can't build a winning deck, can't get the cards he wants, they are somewhat useful for them. LoL, also, it's also really really really really hard for me to buy virtual cards after spending so much (waaaaay too much) on actual cards in my younger dueling years.

With MM9 & MM10, even with the DLC, the game is still $30-$40 cheaper than the previous MM NES cartridges, and I'm technically getting more than the cartridges gave me in terms of gameplay options, like for example, gloriously sexy Playable Blues, and now moderately okay Playable Forte. This is why they can keep making MM11-MMetc this way, and I'd buy everyone of them with a smile on my face cause they're cheap & fun. I've said it before and I'll say it again: anyone who complains about a [tornado fang]ing $1 add on to a Hamilton game is simply. [tornado fang]ing. cheap. There's a very fine line between "principal" and "cheap."

However, I do agree with Ben's "Lexus" example from the Marvel Needs Superboy To Punch Reality For Them vs. Capcom topic (and now this one). The sad fact is that Game Consoles are a whole new different type of luxury items, and honestly, the gaming public is a very unique breed of consumer. To be frank, a huge HUGE majority of gamers are suckers, and the best, most primal & easy example of this simple fact is the XBox 360. A video game console is the only, repeat ONLY piece of hardware EVER MADE than can have a 54% failure rate at one time, and have people not only continue to buy it, but actually defend it and continue supporting it. No one would buy a car, a fridge, a camera that failed that much. People would not buy a [tornado fang]ing toaster that failed 54% of the time at one point. So the simple success of the 360 really tells you all you need to know about the gaming public and what they're willing to put up with/pay for.

[Flame]

Well the console example is fine, but not exactly accurate. because while all cars can take you where you want to go, (style and preferences aside, the basic machine itself-) not all consoles have the same games. Which is why Multi console releases are so great, but dont always happen.

Also, it does depend on DLC. Though something that often bothers me a bit, and it was mentoned here already, but ill say it again, is when that "DLC" is really already in the game and you are pretty much just paying to unlock it.

[Aresian]

You guys are gonna have a pretty big discussion about this. I don't want to play the long version so... here's the TL;DR side from me.

Honestly? I think DLC is a way to pander for more money. Sometimes it is a good idea, I think Fallout 3 did it pretty well, for example.

Uh... lets see. Star Wars: The Force Unleashed? Terrible idea. Overpriced and you really didn't get anything out of it.

Basically, if it is done right, DLC is not a bad thing. Otherwise, it is a waste of money.

[HokutoNoBen]

My biggest problem is your (HokutoNoBen) idea of expanding sequels from the first disc game. It would be a faster way of making a game, but it would be expanding onto another 40 hours of gameplay with no change to the core of it. No change to a game's core over time will make it stale and unappealing. WoW survived this long due to the addictive nature of the game itself. However, sooner or later that will burn itself out.

You say that, and yet, we have games like Pokemon, Madden and (MOST CERTAINLY) "our t3h Rockman". Game series that basically get away with quite a lot, since what you end up paying for more often than not is a disc/cart/program containing a roster update, new levels/layouts and possibly a few new engine perks. If these series have survived long enough as they are with "no change to the core" as it is, I fail to see how a DLC expansion operation would jeopardize these markets at all.

Annnd you kinda picked wrong as using Blizzard as an example, because they ride off DLC for mounts, equipment, and items that come at the price of using credit cards to get them. So, your point is invalid there.

Not really, I believe. In those cases, those types of DLC truly ARE an example of a luxury premium. If we're going along with my Lexus idea, these would be the equivalent of a "No Touch Parking" or "OnStar Assistance" add-on. In both cases, neither of which are necessary to enjoy the singular car/game to its fullest, and neither of which are default features from a previous release that were later turned into some thing that Blizzard wanted to nickel and dime gamers with later.

Again, quite far removed from how companies like ASW and Capcom have turned last gen's advertising bullet points into things they wish to exploit now for more money. We've gone from how MMPU and MHX included extra characters, stages and difficulties as part of the package deal a few mere years ago, to now being expected to PAY for the "right" to use Protoman and Bass, as well as get access to higher difficulties and other stages, in the recently released 9 and 10. THAT is the difference. 

But, I find myself confused as to what your actual opinion is. You say you hate DLC, however you only want it under the standards that you wish for... that would cause games to become stagnant over time. So... are you saying you think it's a scam? Or you dislike it because it's not how you wish it to be...which by the by, it is for several games already. But that can become tiresome easily. I'm just confused as to what you actually want. I'd like it if you could be clear without being so...contradictory.

What's to be confused about? My basic thing is that I feel that the way that the majority of the console market likes to use DLC as a scam that only does more to segment the base (and for fighting games like MvC3, this much will only become more apparent once the game is out). For all that the console market has been making appropriate baby-steps in avenues that would certainly stand to benefit the industry as a whole, they hold themselves back when they would rather go for gimmicky things like how DLC is handled now, as opposed to going for more appropriate digital solutions.

[Align]

I don't think it's inherently bad, but have yet to see anything worth buying for the given price(s).

[Protoman Blues]

Not really, I believe. In those cases, those types of DLC truly ARE an example of a luxury premium. If we're going along with my Lexus idea, these would be the equivalent of a "No Touch Parking" or "OnStar Assistance" add-on. In both cases, neither of which are necessary to enjoy the singular car/game to its fullest, and neither of which are default features from a previous release that were later turned into some thing that Blizzard wanted to nickel and dime gamers with later.

Again, quite far removed from how companies like ASW and Capcom have turned last gen's advertising bullet points into things they wish to exploit now for more money. We've gone from how MMPU and MHX included extra characters, stages and difficulties as part of the package deal a few mere years ago, to now being expected to PAY for the "right" to use Protoman and Bass, as well as get access to higher difficulties and other stages, in the recently released 9 and 10. THAT is the difference. 

Except that, like I've stated before, MM9 & MM10 only cost a Hamilton each. They are not a $30 UMD game, nor a $50 console game. They are cheap downloadable games, and after all the DLC is said and done in both of those games, you are still paying less for the "right" than you did with MHX & MMPU. Going back to the sammich analogy, that's literally like complaining that you pay for all the little fixin's that you continue to put on the sammich and still wind up paying less for the sammich that tastes just as good, if not better, than going to a sammich place that doesn't charge you for the fixin's, but you still wind up paying more for.

Hell, lets use the Lexus analogy in this case as well. LOL, if MHX & MMPU are Lexus games, then MM9 & MM10 are Toyota games. Despite what you pay for the extra add-on's in a Toyota (and just to be clear, harder difficulty, Playable Blues & Forte, extra stages are just extra add-on's in an 8-Bit MM game) you are still paying less for that Toyota than you are for a Lexus, because Lexus' (or Lexii ) are more expensive Toyota's. In fact, you are paying less for these particular Toyota's and all its add-on's, than you paid for a Toyota 15-20 years ago that had little to none of these add-on's at all.

[CephiYumi]

The main thing I dislike about DLC is how cluttered PSN DLC is, and how MUCH there is x.x  Looking at say, a JRPG, there's tons of item packs.  Sometimes there will be 50 different ones for jus items, sure they are like 100-200 yen or so but that really adds up.  And the worst thing is I think a lot of the time they are items you can already get in the game, which really confuses me and makes me not sure which ones to get o.o;

The other thing is if all the DLC for one game adds up to more than I payed for that game, then that really sucks.  I already have lots of games, please don't make me start paying double ; ;

Other than that, DLC doesn't really bother me.... x3

[Gaia]

Let's say, it all comes to the point where if it's satasfactory. DLC for a game you already own can be quite cumbersome at times.

Say, you've beaten Sonic 3 with all the save files. You hear that it's on VC. Boom. You are gonna have to start from scratch. On the other hand, there's downloadable boss fights if done properly (AKA: PRINNY's stage + boss packs) by having an extra part of the game that's unavailable until you download that particular stage.

DLC just for difficulty? What madness is this? DLC just to unlock content already on the friggin' disc? What's the point of that? Eh. Gotta hand it to ya though, fighters and games like PRINNY (again, just using this game as an example here) usually have extra characters, items, secrets, bossfights, and whatnot.

To me it's how a game is played, and if I wanted to add extras, I'd go look up Gamefaqs or Youtube for the best DLC of said game I have out there.

[Ninja Lou]

The main thing I dislike about DLC is how cluttered PSN DLC is, and how MUCH there is x.x  Looking at say, a JRPG, there's tons of item packs.  Sometimes there will be 50 different ones for jus items, sure they are like 100-200 yen or so but that really adds up.  And the worst thing is I think a lot of the time they are items you can already get in the game, which really confuses me and makes me not sure which ones to get o.o;

The other thing is if all the DLC for one game adds up to more than I payed for that game, then that really sucks.  I already have lots of games, please don't make me start paying double ; ;

Other than that, DLC doesn't really bother me.... x3

I notice that lately with some of my RPGs. To be honest though unless it a new quest/mission/character I tend to ignore those updates.

[ViperAcidZX]

I'll say that it's depends on how its made and is it even worth the money. It has to be something that can give the consumer more to their games, like adding a new quest on something like Fallout 3 or Borderlands, or even an entire expansion to a said game like The Shivering Isles for Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion that's going to give someone sort of (proper) incentive to purchase extra content for their games. For the time I that got MM9 & MM10, I like to leave no rocks unturned since I downloaded Blues, Endless Attack, the extra difficulties, and Special Stage for MM9; Forte, and Special Stage 1 ~ 3 on MM10 (lacking Endless Attack for MM10 though). Since they were in the $1 ~ $3 range, I didn't mind that much for them. As for these map packs for an FPS game, why didn't they put them into the game in the first place if it's so expensive? If people are already happy with the multiplayer maps they play with, why make more?

I actually have an issue of Game Informer that brings up the whole issue of DLC. The developers shouldn't just throw something that would feel so "tacked-on" (as GI brought up Mad Moxxi's Underdome Riot DLC for Borderlands being guilty of that). They should make something that's new but wouldn't take the consumer out of their game. I also would like to point out that a downloadable content kiosk would be a good idea in case people can't get internet on their consoles but can go to a store like GameStop buy the content and store it on something like flash drive and install it when they get home, as GI suggested.

[Flame]

Except that, like I've stated before, MM9 & MM10 only cost a Hamilton each. They are not a $30 UMD game, nor a $50 console game. They are cheap downloadable games, and after all the DLC is said and done in both of those games, you are still paying less for the "right" than you did with MHX & MMPU. Going back to the sammich analogy, that's literally like complaining that you pay for all the little fixin's that you continue to put on the sammich and still wind up paying less for the sammich that tastes just as good, if not better, than going to a sammich place that doesn't charge you for the fixin's, but you still wind up paying more for.

Hell, lets use the Lexus analogy in this case as well. LOL, if MHX & MMPU are Lexus games, then MM9 & MM10 are Toyota games. Despite what you pay for the extra add-on's in a Toyota (and just to be clear, harder difficulty, Playable Blues & Forte, extra stages are just extra add-on's in an 8-Bit MM game) you are still paying less for that Toyota than you are for a Lexus, because Lexus' (or Lexii ) are more expensive Toyota's. In fact, you are paying less for these particular Toyota's and all its add-on's, than you paid for a Toyota 15-20 years ago that had little to none of these add-on's at all.

I still dont qite GET the whole idea of having to pay for DLC that isnt even DLC. Its "UC"; "unlockable content" You are buying something that is already included in the game you bough, but locked until you purchase it separately. Why? Having to pay just to unlock something already in the game, just seems messed up, regardless of costs.

[Protoman Blues]

I still dont qite GET the whole idea of having to pay for DLC that isnt even DLC. Its "UC"; "unlockable content" You are buying something that is already included in the game you bough, but locked until you purchase it separately. Why? Having to pay just to unlock something already in the game, just seems messed up, regardless of costs.

Because it's a bonus feature. You don't have to buy it if you don't want to, because you still get the complete game without it. It's optional. What would you prefer? Paying $20 for the game with features you don't want or really care for, or paying $10 for the game and having optional features you can choose whether to buy or not to buy?

[Karasai♪]

I hated that you had to buy Bass and the other Rockman killers in Mega Man 10

...Why couldnt they have been unlockable or just in the game in the first place?

[Flame]

Because it's a bonus feature. You don't have to buy it if you don't want to, because you still get the complete game without it. It's optional. What would you prefer? Paying $20 for the game with features you don't want or really care for, or paying $10 for the game and having optional features you can choose whether to buy or not to buy?

Paying $20 for the complete game and not having to pay to unlock them later

[Ephidiel]

I also voted for "depends how its done"
since i too think its stupid to charge for getting an unlock key for stuff thats already on disc.
I don't mind it if its items you can get during a playthrough, but i hate it if its stuff you can't regularly get while playing a game!
DLC should be used to expand a game with additional stuff thats not "locked" on the disc.
but they shouldn't use it to sell unfinished games like the "Prince of Persia" Celshaded game for which they released the ending seperatly.

[Dexter Dexter]

Frankly, I think that DLC should be included if developers have ideas to add to their already-released games. Otherwise, put it in the game as an unlockable, unless it's for a game I am REALLY loyal to. If the latter is the case, I WILL buy on impulse.

Also, PLEASE don't release DLC for a game on the same day as the game itself. That's like Microsoft when it put a price on Xbox Live membership.