A rising trend, hatred towards DLC.

[The Director]

I've noticed a rising trend in people who hate DLC lately. I did some digging, and this is the results.

 

The original thought behind DLC was for game creators to add stuff to their games that they either didn't have the time to during production, or couldn't due to limits on budget and technology. Of course, game developers got greedy and started charging for DLC. This was understandable to most people, however, because people do deserve to get paid for their efforts in making a better game.

 

Recently however, a few companies have begun to purposefully segment their games so that you do not get the full story without paying not only the cost of the game, but the price for the DLC. Recent hikes in prices of DLC have also caused some outrage among consumers.

 

Another think that has begun to get gamer's blood boiling is that certain games have come out with DLC on their release date, blatantly confirming abuse of the DLC system. The DLC that was released was actually an integral part of the main story, and in many opinions should have been included in the games.

 

There have been a few public outcries by a couple of gaming celebrities, including Dan Bull, who created a song explaining his own frustrations about DLC. Here's the video:

 

 

Thank you for reading this. Have a good day.

[Lᴜᴋᴇ]

I can see what you are saying. A lot of times, however, companies have to provide DLC because there is just not enough rooms on discs to put everything on.

[The Director]

I can see what you are saying. A lot of times, however, companies have to provide DLC because there is just not enough rooms on discs to put everything on.

That's not what Bioware said about the ME3 fiasco. lol

 

"It takes about 3 months from 'content complete' to bug-fix, certify, manufacture, and ship game discs, in that time we work on DLC. DLC has fast [certification] and no [manufacturing], so if a team works very hard, they can get a DLC done in time to enjoy it with your first playthrough on day one."

 

Not to mention that the DLC wasn't that large of a download and would have easily of fit on the ME3 disc. This is but one example of a handful that have popped up recently.

[iTz KeeFy]

I totally agree. This DLC bs is ridiculous. They are manipulating the system and purposely leaving part of the game off of the final copy. This doesn't have anything to do with being unable to fit everything on the game disc. It's all about making that extra money just like everything else these days. What a JOKE! We should boycott DLC lol, otherwise it will continue. Microsoft could implement a "No DLC for first 3 months of the games release" or something simIlar but doubtful since microsoft is money hungry as well.

[SHAMAZING T4CO]

I to hate DLC, the prices are to high and since I can't purchase it I feel like I'm missing out on multiplayer especially when you have 8 out of 10 people in a lobby vote on a map you don't have. If they made DLC free or lower the price (10$ for 3-4 maps) I mean that's a lot of money your spending on just more maps.

[xC6VETTEx]

I agree that the recent price hikes in DLC are frustrating. Having DLC being separate from a title launch, but also being necessary to complete the game, seems rather silly -- but as Luke pointed out, it is sometimes necessary. And it's never fun when you are kicked from a Reach lobby because a map from a DLC that you don't have gains the majority vote.

 

For a rational solution, one need only turn to Halo's long history of DLC. Back in the days of Halo 2, in my recollection, I seem to remember that the DLC was at first available for a price, but after, say, eight months, the DLC became available for free. I think this would be a fair compromise, considering most sales for DLC eight months after its debut are only a mere fraction of what the sales were when it was first being sold. This way, everyone wins -- DLC makers get their money's worth from gamers who want to pay immediately, and gamers who'd prefer to wait in order to gain access to DLC can wait.

 

Another aspect not previously brought up is the fact that some Achievements are unable to be, well, achieved, without DLC. Players who want to complete all the Achievements for games which come out with DLC-based Achievements are forced to buy the DLC. This is especially frustrating for titles like Marble Blast Ultra, whose DLC (and the arcade game itself) are no longer available on Xbox's online marketplace, causing players who have the game, but not the DLC, to be stuck, particularly if they are completionists who cannot stand the thought of having an uncompleted game on their Gamercard.

[Archangel Tyrael]

I've noticed a rising trend in people who hate DLC lately. I did some digging, and this is the results.

 

The original thought behind DLC was for game creators to add stuff to their games that they either didn't have the time to during production, or couldn't due to limits on budget and technology. Of course, game developers got greedy and started charging for DLC. This was understandable to most people, however, because people do deserve to get paid for their efforts in making a better game.

 

Recently however, a few companies have begun to purposefully segment their games so that you do not get the full story without paying not only the cost of the game, but the price for the DLC. Recent hikes in prices of DLC have also caused some outrage among consumers.

 

Another think that has begun to get gamer's blood boiling is that certain games have come out with DLC on their release date, blatantly confirming abuse of the DLC system. The DLC that was released was actually an integral part of the main story, and in many opinions should have been included in the games.

 

There have been a few public outcries by a couple of gaming celebrities, including Dan Bull, who created a song explaining his own frustrations about DLC. Here's the video:

 

 

Thank you for reading this. Have a good day.

 

Also when you buy DLC, for example, look at Reach, it is ina different playlist, and you rarely play them at all man!

[The Director]

Myself, I do not mind buying the DLC when it is legitimate (like Dragon Age Awakening, which was almost it's own game in and of itself), and also don't mind when it is something like map packs or extra costumes, but when they literally take a mission that normally would be in the main game and charge you extra to have that mission/character/weapon/armor, then there's a problem. Halo does DLC right (so far). They give you a storyline, a set number of maps, access to multiplayer and forge, and a whole bunch of other things for the price of the game. Then, when they get time, they come out with some new maps as DLC. They don't put armor or weapons or abilities as DLC, just maps and some avatar items. Everything else is in the game. Other games, however, have been taking huge chunks out of their games and then charging extra for people to get them, and I think this is what has people frustrated.

[The Director]

Also, I'd like to point out that in Halo 3 and Halo Reach the DLC maps don't even show up in voting unless everyone in the party has downloaded them.

[ShockGazm]

 

The meme says it all really, I hate the fact that DLC overall can add up to someone buying 2 copies of a game. Good example, Deus Ex Human Revolution DLC "The Missing Link" was awesome, well worth the money. Call of Duty Map Packs, are NOT worth the money.

[MCPO Mayh3m]

I've noticed the hatred. It was fin in Halo 3, because people looked forward to when a new set of maps came out every 6-8 months. With Reach, Bungie spit out new maps every 2-3 months, and other companies did so as well, like UbiSoft with Assassins Creed, and even CoD.

 

Slow down the new content for the games and I think people will accept it more, when you spit something new out every 10 seconds for the same game, you seem money hungry.

[Auramyst]

I've noticed the hatred. It was fin in Halo 3, because people looked forward to when a new set of maps came out every 6-8 months. With Reach, Bungie spit out new maps every 2-3 months, and other companies did so as well, like UbiSoft with Assassins Creed, and even CoD.

 

Slow down the new content for the games and I think people will accept it more, when you spit something new out every 10 seconds for the same game, you seem money hungry.

I've noticed the hatred. It was fin in Halo 3, because people looked forward to when a new set of maps came out every 6-8 months. With Reach, Bungie spit out new maps every 2-3 months, and other companies did so as well, like UbiSoft with Assassins Creed, and even CoD.

 

Slow down the new content for the games and I think people will accept it more, when you spit something new out every 10 seconds for the same game, you seem money hungry.

 

Yeah, I agree! I get to the point where I say "Okay you know what? It isn't worth it...!"

[The Director]

I wouldn't mind it if they slowed it down a bit, that's for sure. Another thing they can do is instead of making parts of the story DLC, just include them in the game. Armor and weapons that you have to buy should also be better than what's in the game, so you can actually use them IN GAME. If it's just costumes, that's fine, but it REALLY gets on my nerves when I spring for some DLC weapons and they are barely stronger than the starter weapons. A for instance would be Fable 3 and Dragon Age. Dragon Age, to it's credit, had a good deal of decent DLC, but some of it was just ridiculous.

[Zuko 'Zarhamee]

They should make old DLC map packs free when the next map pack comes out.

[The Director]

They should make old DLC map packs free when the next map pack comes out.

But then no one would buy them lol

[Ghandi]

I agree, it really seems like DLC has become an after-purchase cash hog that you "dont have to buy", but you know you're not getting the full experience that you thought you were getting with your $60. I too bought the "From Ashes" DLC for ME3. It felt like I paid for another portion/fraction of the game that was obviously ready day 1 and developed at the same time as the game, as well as being already on the disc, but simply held at arms length from you like some kind of carrot-on-a-stick.

 

I understand that Microsoft, Sony, and game publishers almost demand DLC from their developers/creators. It helps boost console popularity and holds/regains game interest after the initial purchase (when released later than launch), as well as getting the extra $$ out of their games for some financial longevity. Its capitalism. Do I like it? No, I'm poor and barely have time to play the $60 version of my games these days. Heck, I haven't bought any MW3 maps. Luckily BF3's Back To Karkand stuff was free. Maybe I'm just mad cause I know that I'm still going to shell out cash for something that I most likely already paid for and there's very little I can do to change that.

[Mr. DJ]

I'm fine when the DLC cost that 80 extra microsoft points you had left over from some major DLC.

[ArrowHyphy]

This is why I miss the days of pc gaming. Cs and quake games like that had more "dlc" weapon skins maps everything totally free. The good ol days

[Zuko 'Zarhamee]

But then no one would buy them lol

Actually most people would probably buy them so they could get them fast without waiting. People are impatient like that.

[The Director]

One thing that I have seen that I like is what EA is doing with BF3. They have a "premium" thing, which costs 50 dollars. However, the bonuses you get with premium are far more than 50 bucks worth. They have 5 map packs that are going to be released (two so far), and each map pack costs around 1200 MSP. BF3 Premium costs 4000 MSP, and let's you have early access to the map packs and have them for free. With the map packs alone, they allow you to save about 2k MSP, but you also get weapons that you would normally have to purchase as well. All in all, $175 worth of DLC for $50.

 

The DLC in BF3 also enhances the game, rather than just having new maps, which I think is what DLC should actually do.