How Do You Feel About DLC?

[Dustmop]

I know I'm only echoing what others have already stated, but..

If it's a decent price for the amount of content it adds, then I'm supportive of it. And do note "content." I want the length of the game extended at a reasonable price, I don't want to pay for a texture pack or a new map.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas, or Skyrim DLC, as examples. New quests, new regions, lots of new things get added. They don't necessarily need those in the base game to feel complete, but the DLC makes for a nice addition to it later. It's something I can look forward to, to go back to a game I had already enjoyed with a few new experiences.

 

[Kuroh]

I do not like DLC that you have to pay for. It's greedy for companies to do that and it should be free since the player already purchased the game.

I stay away from Xbox games a lot because sometimes a game is $60 and then they want you to pay an extra $10 - $20 for DLC? no thank u

Also to play online it's already $60 a year. I used to have Xbox Live but a lot of the players online were unpleasant anyway so it's not worth it imo

 

[Tao]

I do not like DLC that you have to pay for. It's greedy for companies to do that and it should be free since the player already purchased the game.

I stay away from Xbox games a lot because sometimes a game is $60 and then they want you to pay an extra $10 - $20 for DLC? no thank u

Also to play online it's already $60 a year. I used to have Xbox Live but a lot of the players online were unpleasant anyway so it's not worth it imo

The player bought what is 'on the disc' at time of release though. If the content was made after the game was released, the customer hasn't paid for it at all. If they were going to give away all DLC for free, what would the incentive be to release DLC in the first place rather than just releasing a quickly thrown together 'sequel' for 4x the price instead?

 

[00jachna]

Day One DLC can go to hell .-.

 

[Jawile]

Mario Kart 8 did DLC flawlessly.

Half of the default game + new characters + new modes + less than a quarter of the price of the original game = GREAT

 

[Kuroh]

The player bought what is 'on the disc' at time of release though. If the content was made after the game was released, the customer hasn't paid for it at all. If they were going to give away all DLC for free, what would the incentive be to release DLC in the first place rather than just releasing a quickly thrown together 'sequel' for 4x the price instead?

Companies sometimes make semi-finished games, such as Destiny, and then want the players to buy expensive DLC later. Destiny's DLC Expansion pack is $35.00, which is quite a lot considering that the original game did not even have that much content to play. Most players just visited the same places over and over to upgrade their characters from what I've seen.

Also there are often season passes on sale during the game's initial release date (I believe Borderlands was one of them). The season pass for "Call of Duty: Advance Warfare" is $49.99 which is the price of the actual game. So basically to play the game with all of its features would be $100.00

But if a pack is around $10 or less it is not that bad. Just as long as there are not multiple DLCs that need to be bought with it because then it adds up.

 

[Pokemanz]

Mario Kart 8 did DLC flawlessly.

Half of the default game + new characters + new modes + less than a quarter of the price of the original game = GREAT

Finally someone mentions it. Their timing was perfect too what with the original DLC release of the Benz right around when it was starting to get boring.
It definitely revived the game for those who were playing it non-stop. Not only that, there was free content (200cc) available to those who didn't buy the DLC, so there was something for everyone.

I hope it continues. Nintendo does DLC right.

 

[Cress]

I've never had a problem with it, I buy DLC for every game I have that has DLC available. I almost never buy ALL of it, (unless it's Hyrule Warriors or Mariokart) but I'm fine with spending extra to get extra content.

 

[Elise]

I pretty much agree with what the majority have said. I really like DLC if it's good value for money in terms of cost compared to how much you get and that it's truly an add on to the game and not what should have been part of the game itself. I also think some companies are a lot better than others with DLC.

Having said that, I think DLC can be a huge rip off at times, especially when you get the game at release and buy each bit of DLC as soon as it comes out. That's why I like getting some games when they go down in price and/or have a special edition come out with DLC included. I find most 3DS games have cheaper and less frequent DLC than most though so I tend to get 3DS games closer to release and wait a bit for my playstation and Sims games.

 

[Steelfang]

I think that you should only have to buy the game once to be able to enjoy the story and its characters in its entirety, but I'm not against purchasable DLC if it's something that doesn't devalue the main game and is just something that might enhance the experience, like a special edition costume or something, but then, it also depends on the type of game itself. I don't feel a need to buy any of the DLC in Awakening, since I get enough enjoyment out of the base game, and I don't feel cheated by not having it. Also, I've been burned by digital purchases before, so I'm hesitant to pay for DLC in general.

Actually, one of my biggest peeves is the supposed "free games" that you can only play for a little bit of time before they ramp up the difficulty so severely that you have to fork over money to pass a level, but then you have to keep paying to pass more levels. This is generally for iphone and kindle games, which I don't play for that reason, but it's such a dirty tactic that it feels worth mentioning to me. I'd rather see a flash game listed for a few bucks than a "free" game that costs someone a hundred dollars to complete one time, you know?

 

[Tao]

I want to point out the 'physical DLC' that's made it's way in the past few years since a lot of people are usually okay with it, yet they do a lot of the negative things that have been brought up here.


Yano, things like Skylanders, Disney Infinity, Amiibo or the upcoming Lego thing. They're all variations of content butchered from the finished product (or 'cut content'), day-1 DLC, on disc DLC and to an extent they could also be seen as a variation of a season pass. I'm sure I'm missing a few other negative traits but so far, they definitely hold the 'big 3' "no no's" when it comes to DLC (cut content, day-1, on disc).


You get the little figures for your trouble but it's still content hidden behind a paywall at the end of the day. Even then, should I really have to pay ?10 to play as Stitch or Vanellope? Should Toad come with an entire game mode attached to him? Did the Spinner really need to be exclusive to people who spend an extra ?10 on a Link figure they may not have even wanted otherwise?
This only becomes more of an issue when you take into account that some of these figures are 'rare', so if one specific figure does something you really want, you better be prepared to cough up some significant money to play that content that is already on the disc you bought!

I think the figure itself is sort of irrelevant in a way since no matter how you look at it, you're having to pay around ?10 for certain things that should have been in the game by default, especially if the content was available for release. If any other game tried to charge ?10 for a character or a weapon people would lose their **** but attach that to a cheap mass manufactured toy? Suddenly ?10 for a weapon is a good deal.


I own quite a few of these so I'm guilty of supporting it. I would have bought the ones I have regardless of what they do simply because I like the figures, so it doesn't really even effect me but they're still an awful type of DLC.

 

[stitchmaker]

Finally someone mentions it. Their timing was perfect too what with the original DLC release of the Benz right around when it was starting to get boring.
It definitely revived the game for those who were playing it non-stop. Not only that, there was free content (200cc) available to those who didn't buy the DLC, so there was something for everyone.

I hope it continues. Nintendo does DLC right.

It helped that they had an offer of a free digital game when you purchase Mario Karts. 60 dollars for two game was a good deal so buying DLC for MK was easy.

I think Nintendo does a very good job with the DLC. At first I was sure with a 3DS game but than found out what I got. Paying a low price for DLC is cheaper than going to McDonalds to get the item. It costs more to go to McDonalds.

 

[Eldin]

If it's day one DLC that is extra content they could've added to the damn game anyways, then it is just a money-grab imo.

If it's costumes/weapons released later on and it's not something necessary to the gameplay/storyline, then I have no issue with it.

 

[Nay]

I'm ambivalent on the concept of DLC bc I'll pay for it LOL

The only time it makes me mad is when the game company promises "an update" & it turns out to be for payment, like wth man, don't do that

 

[KaydeeKrunk]

It's pretty awful, there are games where it makes sense, or it's small enough things that it's understandable, for instance I can see paying extra for another Sims 3 expansion since it comes with so much extra stuff, and they aren't very expensive, I don't like when you buy a game and you just get the bare basics and HAVE to buy stuff to do much of anything, I've bought my boyfriend Map Packs for a few games because nobody even plays the starter maps... which is really stupid in my opinion. It's just getting worse and worse with more games.

 

[shayminskyforme88]

It depends, if it is additional content like more levels or such, sure if it comes at a reasonable price, but if it is something you're forced to buy in order to progress, then I'm really against that.

 

[PinkWater]

I'm fine with DLC as long as it's done right like in Smash. New fighters, costumes, and possible new modes are more than fair with how much crap the game already has.

 

[Ramza]

I like the concept but not the execution.

 

[mizzsnow]

DLC that is made after the game is created, because of demand
like an extra story mode or fanservice
is okay to be charged in my opinion, as long as the price is resonable, because people had to make the content and they have to be paid somehow

I hate it when people charge for DLC that was intended to be in the game anyway, because they literally trying to grab for more cash. It makes the intended price even more if you want everything the game is supposed to have
The new fire emblem is doing that and it makes me so mad. You can't just take an entire half of the story, and price it... and a third path is DLC as well ?! DLC like this is getting so ridiculous and I wish it would stop because the players all hate it

 

[Tao]

DLC that is made after the game is created, because of demand
like an extra story mode or fanservice
is okay to be charged in my opinion, as long as the price is resonable, because people had to make the content and they have to be paid somehow

I hate it when people charge for DLC that was intended to be in the game anyway, because they literally trying to grab for more cash. It makes the intended price even more if you want everything the game is supposed to have
The new fire emblem is doing that and it makes me so mad. You can't just take an entire half of the story, and price it... and a third path is DLC as well ?! DLC like this is getting so ridiculous and I wish it would stop because the players all hate it

I think the main problem is players are paying for it regardless. Whether or not we like it, as long as the money keeps rolling in the developers/publishers will still do it because why wouldn't they take our money?
Look at Ubisoft, they pull this stuff with pretty much all their games and people complain like crazy, yet all their games see massive profit and big sales. Or Warner, they do this all the time yet people don't seem to care because they publish the Batman Arkham games, therefore they get a free pass apparently.




What's worse is that people are trying to legitimately justify this sort of stuff now.

"Games are expensive to make! They need to make their money somehow!".

If games are that expensive to make that they need to slice bits off and sell it separately, maybe devs should stop focusing so much on having better graphics, blockbuster scripts or top notch voice acting and instead focus on making a good game. All that other stuff feels like a crutch to hold up an mediocre game in my opinion.