How Do You Feel About DLC?

In general I disagree with DLC because so many companies abuse it. I totally understand DLC for games that became more popular than expected at release and they added new content due to consumer demand, but it seems like a lot of companies are selling partially made games for full price and charging extra for the complete package.

I'm fine with DLC that:
1. Adds to an already completed game several years after release.
2. Only effect character skins/etc, which otherwise doesn't effect the game play of the players who choose not to buy the DLC.
3. The game was incomplete but cheap/free anyway, and the DLC is also a reasonable price (such as Heroes of the Storm or LoL)

I'm not ok with
1. DLC that finishes a story that should have been complete during the main game.
2. DLC that is released the SAME DAY as the game. If that's the case it should've been added to the game in the first place, unless it's something insubstantial like a non-game changing character skin or aesthetic item.
3. DLC that gives DLC purchasers an unfair advantage over regular game purchasers. I think, if someone purchased a game, they should be on the same level as anyone else who purchased the game. I don't agree with pay to win in the slightest.
 
Day 1 DLC is pathetic, or anything like that, but other than that I like DLC. If they made more content for a game than they needed to, after releasing it, a while after it came out, for a price around ?8.00-?17.00 is good. Especially for a buttload of content, like the Lost Crowns from Dark Souls 2. So no stupid five and a half seconds after release DLC, everything else is good as long as it isn't short.
 
Last edited:
One thing I dislike about almost all DLC is that once the severs for these consoles are turned off, you can't redownload any DLC. This means you need to make sure it's on the console before that happens and that your console doesn't run into any faults.


I know there's a good chance I'll pull out my Wii U or PS3 in 20 years because I do it already with other older consoles. If for whatever reason all my Hyrule Warriors or Mario Kart 8 DLC isn't on the Wii U or I've had to replace the Wii U, well, I'm kinda screwed if I wanted to access the DLC for them. It's gone forever at that point, so begins the browsing on eBay to find a Wii U with those things pre-installed for a ridiculous price.


I know game of the year editions regularly do this but for all the other games, I wish releasing a stand alone disc with all the DLC on it was more of a regular thing regardless of whether the game was GOTY.

This also kinda goes for updates and patches and why a game should be near flawless on release to reduce them. Good luck playing some of the recent games in the future if you can't get the day 1 patches...
 
I'm fine with even Day One DLC, but that's because the release date is actually a while after it's finished being made. But even if it wasn't, I'm more an economics guy: would you pay for just the game without any of the DLC? buy it. would you pay for the DLC? buy it. would you pay for the game only with the DLC but not for the total price? DON'T BUY IT. That's the thing for me. Some companies can make horrible DLC that you hate (don't buy it), and some companies (Nintendo has yet to make a DLC that I thought was going to fail) make DLC that you like. If their DLC isn't worth it, it should fail and they should learn. If they keep it up, it either means that they are headed to massive losses or people are buying the DLC (and then most likely complaining about having to buy DLC. please don't do that. If you keep paying for it they won't care about your complaint). Make good informed purchasing decisions and hopefully the market will support it and encourage good games and DLC.
 
Personally, I'm mixed with my opinion on DLC / microtransactions.

When it comes to cosmetic paid DLC, I'm usually pretty fine with it. These often exist as only palette swaps for the characters you play as, and often boils down to "Do I want to give money to the devs and have access to this skin". There's no real REASON for the cosmetics, so this basically boils down to a glorified "Donate" button to me. I'm fine with that. (An example of this: Team Fortress 2's hats.)

Likewise, I'm also fine with paid DLC which hugely expands upon the game beyond the initial release scope. A great example of this is Don't Starve's Reign of Giants expansion, which completely overhauls the core mechanics of the game in a way which would actually spoil some of the Vanilla gameplay (and is why the DLC is suggested for more advanced players of Don't Starve) -- DLC like this is often always welcome, and I find it saddening that most games don't make DLC like this.

On the flip-side, paid DLC which seems to "lock away" content which should have been in the main game I can't get along with, especially if it's evident that content was there to begin with. Having to annoy players with lots of "Hey, here's some DLC you *don't have*! Get on that!" is just frustrating and makes me not want to play the game. Case in point: Dungeon Defenders. Once a game I loved to play, when the game was just released. Now that game is plagued in cakes of DLC and it just feels unfun to play now. Constant reminders that there's content locked away behind a paywall really ruins the enjoyment of the game.

Likewise, paid DLC which provides paying players a substantial advantage over non-paying players is outright unforgivable too. This applies to both PvP and PvE - I'll bring back the Dungeon Defenders comparison above. Even though that's a co-op game, having a partner with dual pets and unique summons with a completely different resource pool just feels ridiculous when all you have is a dinky little magic-pea shooter and some small towers and walls.

( Notice how I said "Paid DLC" in all of these. If it's free, then all the power to ya! Even the small freebies are appreciated. Although huge free addons like Shovel Knight's "Plague of Shadows" expansion is absolutely amazing, little freebies like Skyrim's HD Texture Pack is neat too. )
 
Back
Top