Does anyone else feel like DLC is the worst thing to happen to PC gaming?

[Slayn]

I am going in to rant mode here. Fair warning. Total rant.

I think DLC is a horrible, horrible concept that has came up in the gaming world.

Let us take a look at one good example, Dragon Age: Origins. The main game is pretty good, has a good amount of content, if you like the game it will probably be well worth the $50ish dollars.

Then what do we have here? Tons of DLC being constantly released. Now that all of the DLC is released, how much does it all add and how much does it cost?

There is 7 total DLC for a grand total of $51 USD. My god, that is as much as the actual game itself! How much content does this actually add? I have not played them all, so I cannot say. Most DLC seem to be in the 1-2 hours catergory. So lets be generous and say all 7 of them add 15 hours of gameplay.

The worst part? The game actually HAS an expansion already! $40 retail for the expansion. I mean the xpac actually does add decent amounts of content, but $50+$50+$40? Isn't this just rediculous?

Does no one see anything wrong with this? Not just Bioware games, but take Fallout 3. The game has 5 dlc at $10 each. So again, $50 for the game + $50 for DLC. Again, the DLC is 2 hours maximum. So we are adding 10 hours of gameplay for $50.

How about Modern Warfare 2? Adding 2 DLC for $15 each to a $60 game. The DLC isn't even that great, some of it is rehashed maps. Considering that World at War, Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops are all coming at just about 1 year apart . . .

I am just astonished at what the gaming community is letting these people do. I know that no one is forcing me to download all this DLC, and mind you I am very stingy on it... but I feel at this point developers just get lazy making a game or plain ol' leave stuff OUT just to get more money. It is sickening.

Am I just a whiner here, are the majority ok with this? I mean it must be, because they keep pumping out the DLC and people are buying. I HONESTLY think this is the way that game devs are getting back their money lost to piracy. They are saying that instead of worrying about thousands of people downloading the game for free, lets concentrate on getting as much money out of the people who actually DO pay.

 

[Adragontattoo]

DLC isnt the worst, DRM and the constant on DRM is.

DLC if done correctly, will improve/extend a game. If done wrong, you end up buying a game and then have to purchase the full game in increments.

DRM on the other hand, is requiring way too much involvement, an always on connection, and in some cases, the inability to reinstall the game due to HW failure, upgrade or whatever.

 

[boris_37]

Yeah i completely agree it is a waste. It's like mini-expansions they charge a serious whack of money for.

I have never and probably will never buy any DLC since for me the cost vs gameplay is not worth it unless i totally love the game(and let's be honest games aren't quite what they used to be). PSN is good because for example once i became a + member i got all of the expansions for magic orbz free. I played them and realized they were incredibly short compared to the base game and i was never so happy i did not buy them.

If they make an expansion that is another story but DLC content is incredibly limited.

Also yes DRM sucks but that is more a situational security thing rather than a money grab like i feel DLC is.

 

[Firey_chasm]

DLC is definately awful. Its after the MMO world showed developers they can charge constantly for a game and make more money rather than just the initial purchse cost.


DRM is also very poo, however at least it doesnt leave you out of pocket most of the time.

 

[insanemonkey]

I will buy a DLC depending on what you get with it. If it is just a few map packs or some new equipment and it only adds an hour or two of more play time. Then it is not worth it. There are times when it is done right. Take borderlands for example. They have 3 DLCs out and a fourth on the way. Now all three of them have added hours of play time to the game. I have probably spent as much time in the DLCs as I have spent in the main game.

So it can be done right. You just have to make the decision on a per DLC bases. If done correctly it can really help to bridge the gap between full game releases.

 

[ratbuddy]

When done right (Hi, Borderlands), it's a great thing. When done wrong (Hi, Dragon Age), it's an abomination. All depends on the implementation.

 

[jediman]

agree with a dragon

I'm going to agree with adragontatoo. DLC isn't the worst but the DRM that enables them to do most dlc (along with other unspeakably evil things) is the worst. For the most part you know what you are getting into with DLC and they are almost always ripoffs. I don't even buy new games anymore because its easier and cheaper to wait for all the DLC to come out and be packaged up for less than the new game while playing my backlogs of "old" (read: last years) games.

 

[insanemonkey]

I'm going to agree with adragontatoo. DLC isn't the worst but the DRM that enables them to do most dlc (along with other unspeakably evil things) is the worst. For the most part you know what you are getting into with DLC and they are almost always ripoffs. I don't even buy new games anymore because its easier and cheaper to wait for all the DLC to come out and be packaged up for less than the new game while playing my backlogs of "old" (read: last years) games.

I do the same thing. Very rarely do I buy a game when it comes out. I have to really want to play it to pay $50 for a game. Plus more and more we are just paying to beta test a game. So if you wait a while, even 6 months most games go down in price and there are a few patches out to fix the big issues.

 

[Leviathan41]

When done right (Hi, Borderlands), it's a great thing. When done wrong (Hi, Dragon Age), it's an abomination. All depends on the implementation.

I agree with this statement, it depends on how it's implemented. If done right and priced right it can be better than the previous system of $30 expansions every 6-12 months, if you can break down those expansions and still give players the same amount of content for the same amount of money, it works pretty well. However, most developers have increased the price and decreased the content ($15 for 5 map pack??). The other downside is that now most developers (pretty much everyone except for Valve) charge for EVERYTHING now, no more free maps, free updates or anything. It's a shame. Ultimately, the OP is probably right, DLC has been a net negative for PC gaming, but it is more about the poor implementation of it rather than the actual concept of DLC.

 

[X0d1@k]

Its a Catch-22. Yes, you are paying massive amounts of money for a game, but if the game is great, people(and I) will pay it. Its also much cheaper to extend the life of a game, then to re-invent a new engine and content and hope its a success. Seriously, have you noticed in the last 4 years (while world and US economies are having erm, financial difficulties), how many sequel have come out? I think a driving force is that people have less money to spend on entertainment, so Gaming companies are just milking their top sellers for all its worth, grabbing what money the consumer has.

I am happy with the DLC i have bought, for Borderlands and Fallout 3. Although i have racked up 140 hours on MW 2 in the last 9 months, i will not buy the DLC. I am content with the maps i have, and i wont pay $30+ on top of the $59 i already paid for a 6 hour game. Lesson learned.

If 1 out of every 6 dollars spent in the US comes from a Government subsidized program (welfare, unemployment and social security), Gaming companies will find the best way make the most that they can with what they have.

America, you Spent A LOT of money on Video Games
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/05/america-you-spend-a-lot-of-money-on-video-games/
If i were to complain about the gaming industry, it would be having to buy games and register through Steam. That sucks. I guess i could create other accounts on Steam and if i dont like the game, sell them off, but, housing them all on one system really makes me nervous.

 

[BenF]

Do you guys dislike DLC because of how it has been implemented or because of the concept itself? I personally like the concept of DLC: being able to have a mini expansion for a small amount of money. I haven't seen DLC implemented in a way that has persuaded me to buy it though. As you guys have said, it seems like recent implementations have been poorly done or or have provided too little value for the money.

 

[cmichaelt]

I don't buy DLC because i think it should've been included in the game to begin with. If it's not there not buying it. Legit expansions that add another level or a significant amount of game play hours may be worth it.

 

[jediman]

oooh another point many (though not all) companies releasing downloadable content make it a point to not include or not allow 3rd party modding which has always been a heavy staple of computer games

 

[TheGreySpectre]

I liked expansions better then DLC. Expnasions always seemed to provide a worthwhile story to go and play whereas DLC is usually just one quick mission that seems more like an afterthought. My biggest problem with DLC stems from companies like activision who limit map making abilities of modders in an effort to sell more dlc. Also A lot of DLC is just a pain in the but to install. I never was able to get my stuff for Mass Effect 2. I liked expansions because you installed them and they just worked as long as you had the original game.

I think DRM is a bigger issue then DLC.

 

[SteveLord]

DLC also includes things like additional player models, skins, etc. Items not essential to the game, just cosmetic stuff. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Aynjell]

DLC can add value to a game, but because DLC has become a buzz word, and an excuse to leave content out of a game so that you can charge more for it later IS the worst thing to happen to PC games.

It's a close tie to paid faction changes in World of Warcraft.

 

[X0d1@k]

oooh another point many (though not all) companies releasing downloadable content make it a point to not include or not allow 3rd party modding which has always been a heavy staple of computer games

No kidding, that is a great point. Didnt MW 2 do this with a nuclear war map or something? It was in the game as it shipped, but unplayable till later? I heard somthing about that, but i never followed closely enough to see if they finally unlocked it for those that bought their DLC.

 

[SteveLord]

DLC can add value to a game, but because DLC has become a buzz word, and an excuse to leave content out of a game so that you can charge more for it later IS the worst thing to happen to PC games.

It's a close tie to paid faction changes in World of Warcraft.

Agree with the part about it being a buzz word.

It's a close tie to paid faction changes in World of Warcraft.

How do you know something like that doesn't require a considerable amount of a technician's time to do? Especially if it was not built into the game to begin with. And especially if there is hundreds or thousands of requests a day.

Do you agree with paying to change a toon's gender/hair style etc? Apparently there's plenty of weirdos that are willing to...so why not profit from it?

 

[Twigbutt]

My disappointment with DLC came with Mafia 2. It seems like they intentionally took out parts of the game just to have DLC for latter sale. It made the game feel like it was missing something. Plus, there was no free ride in the game unless you bought the DLC.

Remember when episodically released games were supposed to be the next big thing? That never really took off so now we have DLC to try and get a little extra money off players.

 

[Slayn]

Good to see I am not alone. I am surprised to see that people named Borderlands as the exception. I have all three DLC, but I also got them cheap, all three for $10.

For those that think Borderlands did it right, did you pay $10 for each of the DLC and feel that it is worth it? I am not saying it isn't, I actually only played the zombie DLC. It was fun. Not sure if it is worth $10 alone. If you consider that you play the game multiple times online with different difficulty/characters it certainly is.

The main reason I do not like DLC, the NUMBER one reason, is that I feel the amount of content added just isn't worth it for the price. Remember the Diablo 2 expansion? It added a 5th act to the game, so basically added 1/4th content. It also added two brand new characters, new weapons/armor, runes, jewels, charms, 800x600 resolution ( cutting edge, man! ), and some other significant changes.

You can say the same for Dragon Age: Origins with the items/characters, but they are basically just new models. It doesn't completely change gameplay. And you ended up spending $40 on an actual expansion pack anyway. All of that DLC couldn't have been either in the original or the expansion, right? Bleh.