Are you sick of the DLC in video games?

1. 97

   davidlivermoreposted 3 years ago

   Are you sick of the DLC in video games?
   
   I avoided buying Destiny because of the DLC and expansions they have in video games.  The Sims 4 basically has no content because EA wants to sell it all in expansion packs.  Are you sick and tired of this trend?  Or are you fine with it because we can get as much content as we want?

   replyreport
2. 94

   satomkoposted 3 years ago

   For me it depends on the game and developer in question.  Some companies use DLC as an insultingly obvious cash-grab.  This criticism, however, can be circumvented by lowering or even eliminating the cost of any DLC (as one of the heads of CD Project recently suggested), or by making DLC inessential to the game itself, as is the case with DLC for Dark Souls One and Two.

   replyreport
3. 92

   M. T. Dremerposted 3 years ago

   I don't mind if a game has DLC so long as it doesn't negatively impact the main game. For example, if the main game as no 'unlockables' because they were saving all of it for DLC, then I get mad. One of my favorite aspects of video games are the secret characters, costumes and vehicles that I can unlock by playing the game. Without that incentive, I just beat it and never play it again. DLC has been crippling to unlockables. So, most of the time, I'll just wait until they release a 'special edition' of the disc that includes the DLC, so I don't have to mess around with buying all the content separately. The Saints Row series is really good about releasing special additions while still having unlockables in the core game.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      satomkoposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Good points.  I wish I had remembered to mention Saints Row too.

      replyreport
4. 83

   JohnGreasyGamerposted 3 years ago

   I don't just think that DLC can be harmless in some cases, I think it can actively help a game's longevity. If a game was good, you might be willing to put extra money into it for DLC which can aid developers and publishers with the sequel or additional content. This means that they get all the money as opposed to none when a used copy is sold. Take for example Shadow of Mordor, possibly my favourite game of the year - I completed it very quickly, and I'd be really glad to chew through some extra content. If it was free I might be quick to dismiss it, whereas if I pay for it I want *all* of the playability out of it because I put money down for it.
   
   That's not to say that it's perfect. Like M. T. Dremer said, if additional goodies and rewards are being held back to be sold then I too get angry. That's just scum tactics, plain and simple. Destiny has proven that both expansions' content is in the game, the second DLC - which will be sold in 2015 - has been hacked into and proven to exist in the game files. To me that's intolerable, even if it's having extra work done later it's still on the disc and therefore should be playable. So when practices like that exist I'm horrified to think of what other games are holding back.
   
   DLC is great for supporting developers and publishers, as well as getting some extra - or different - types of gameplay from the base game. It's when it's clawed out visciously to sell a quick buck that I have a problem with it.
   
   As I'm guessing you're rather passionate about the subject I recommend you see The Escapist's "Jimquisition", which has a lot of discussion about DLC practices. ^^

   replyreport
5. 83

   Phasmatisposted 3 years ago

   I don't mind the idea of DLC, of a company adding more content to a game I already love. When a game is fully finished with all features fully intact in the game, adding new areas, new mechanics, and so on, can breath new life into a game or add a few extra hours of play time. This is what I'd consider DLC done right.
   
   DLC done wrong is what I'm sick of. Aspects like cutting content to sell back later. The Sims 4 and Destiny are great examples of this. More obnoxious is when it's already on the Disk like with Destiny or when so much has been gutted it becomes apparently obvious and impacts gameplay.
   
   Or halfhearted expansions that just add new areas to go through, but somehow feel tired, or like you are just doing more of the same as you were before.
   
   A neutral zone would be content that was axed because it couldn't be finished or made to work before the launch of the game. An example of this is Dark Souls 2's first and possibly second DLC, though personally I found those both to be weak and annoying.

   replyreport