The Coffehouse 2/2 "DLC"

Let's talk about DLC. It seems to be a trend lately that certain publishers will sell you half a game at full price and then expect you to pay for the rest in a season pass, meaning you are paying half the cost of another game just to get the other half of a game that they should have already given you in the first place. Even worse, some games come with day one DLC. However, it isn't always bad, some games like Fallout, The Witcher, and Dying Light come out with phenomenal expansions that truly do expand upon the base game and are often just things they legitimately did not have time to cram into what was already a massive and immersive gaming experience. You do also have to think about how bloated development budgets have become with marketing and the increase in the demand for cutting edge graphics and technology. Is DLC just a way of making back up budget when the price of games is already fully saturated and cant go up any higher?

Whether it is good, bad, an idea, or a solution, let's talk about DLC.

 

I started writing a reply to this topic with the position of being against DLC, but as I wrote, I found out that I sort of actually love DLC. I initially thought the idea of DLC was a scam, as I think that once you buy a game, you should get everything that the developers of that game makes for it... if it took them longer to flesh out a concept or part of the game, we as consumers shouldn't be held accountable. Now, though, I realize it really depends on the type of game it's attached to, but I think for the most part, DLC has helped the gaming industry (and gamers) more than hurt it.

Games like League of Legends that offer what I would consider DLC in the form of new champions and skins, need DLC to help sustain their business. They provide an incredibly fun game absolutely free of charge to their players. Without DLC, I'm not sure how LoL would monetize their product, and I'm sure they wouldn't have the massive number of players that the have now if they had charged a one time or monthly subscription fee for the game.

As @Destrok mentions in the OP, games like The Witcher and Dying Light are greatly enriched by DLC and are clearly worth the cost for the new content. As someone who just recently played through Dying Light, I'm legitimately excited for their new DLC to become available. It's a fun game, with an incredible amount of content that can (mostly) be done in a co-operative online mode with friends, and being able to expand upon that experience is a great service to the fans of the game without making them wait (and pay) for an entirely new game.

Episodic games have, mostly as a result of Telltale Games, become a big thing in the last couple years. Again, I want to complain about having to pay to play more of the game I already bought, but they have pretty consistently delivered games that are well worth the total cost. I'd confidently say most of their games are very reasonably priced, even when you add the cost of all episodes or the season pass.

So, I guess I like DLC.

 

Usually I don't like dlc, I consider them a way to squeeze more money from our pockets. But as you already said there are some good exceptions.

 

I really think DLC ruined game industry.
Most of them are just overpriced and usually make me wait to get the game of the year edition or something like that, but it spoils the part in which I get the game when it comes out
Even episodic games like telltale are not in my linking, paying 9 euros for each episode is a lot of money once they reach 6 episodes given the amount of time required to complete them.

 

There are a few games that got ruined for me by DLC. The new Battlefront for example, I simply refuse to pay for half a game, there just isn't enough content in it to justify $60, especially when compared to the Battlefronts of the past. But what would you propose they do differently? They have to make money back for their increasingly bloated development cycles somehow.

 

I really dislike EA for being the kings of DLC. They will sell you the main menu for full price, but if you want to actually play the game you gotta spend another $15...

 

I have a unique eclectic collection of games, and many don't have/use DLC at all. However, the ones that do I generally appreciate and think the new content is well worth the cost. (The Witcher, Oblivion, Skyrim, Borderlands 2, Rock Band - to name a few)

For me, the big question is: Was the game broken/incomplete without the DLC and did they just try to charge me twice to buy the full game? If the answer to that is "Yes" then I'll be irritated.

In my opinion, a good example of that was Destiny when it first released. The game just felt incomplete and lacking until they released The Taken King DLC. (even had some collectables that were known but unobtainable until additional content came out) That's the perfect example of a game being broken/incomplete without the additional content and I don't think they should've even released it until they could include the rest of the game, and they should not have charged players more for it.

However, in games such as Oblivion (Knights of the Nine & Shivering Isles) I felt the game was good, complete and still had some re-play-ability "as is" but when the new expansions came out it just made something that was already great even better. They weren't required, but they added extra play time, new areas and more to do while making an already complete game feel bigger and more satisfying. Same was true for Skyrim with Dragonborn, Hearthfire and Dawnguard.

As was mentioned with The Witcher 3, I found the full game to be engaging and very much complete. However, the two new expansions Hearts of Stone & Blood and Wine, will add to the game as a whole with many new hours of play time that are stand-alone to the main storyline. I feel they're very much worth playing and adding in make the game as a whole a more fulfilling experience because there's more to do and a reason to play again. Even though the full game was very long, complete and fulfilling in it's own right.

I guess the short version: I like some DLC very much and find it has good purpose. However, in other situations I think it's a waste and a ploy for more money from companies that couldn't deliver correctly the first time around with that particular game.

 

That's my impression about DLC. I can't play any first and third player view games because of I will get severe motion sickness from it. Games that I play the most is RTS and MOBA which do not have DLC. IMO, a game that company release is suppose to be complete. If the company decide to expand the story or continue the series, an expansion is good (such like Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne). TBH, I don't know how good the DLC in those games @Destrok & @kajira mentioned (Dying Light, The Witcher 3, Borderlands 2, Fallout 4) since I can't play. Once I thought I will never fall for this DLC thingy but I was wrong. Seem like Blizzard is following this DLC trend and released Starcraft II: Nova Covert Ops. And yes, I pre-purchased it.

 

You know, I used to HATE DLC. But I have learned to see things from another perspective now. Try to think of it like this: A lot of veteran game development companies have died out, have money issues, or are restructuring to focus on more lucrative forms of media (I'm looking at you KONAMI ). Developing games is risky business, because you put your company in debt by spending $80 million to make a game like MGSV, and if your game flops, well then so does your company.

It's sad, but true - cheap casual games like Clash of Clans that don't take nearly as much resources, development, and budget make more money than the AAA titles. People don't like the idea of constantly paying for things like skins, items, levels, and expansions after already buying the game, but I think it's the inevitable future. Developers need to start thinking about sustainable development cycles (and I don't mean subscription based games) like meaningful microtransactions and episodic releases (like Life is Strange, which was a success).

Can you imagine what would happen if the industry stopped producing games like Mass Effect, Fallout, Metal Gear, Bioshock, Warcraft, and The Witcher? These games are a huge part of our art, culture, and identity as gamers. Would you rather live with DLC or have them stop making nice games, and instead, start churning out money-vacuums with shallow casual gameplay where deep story-telling is replaced by paywalls? The answer is obvious.

The big boys are losing faith because games like Clash of Clans make 900 million annually, and I don't blame them. It's just really, really sad to see a magnificent art form start regressing for the sake of money.

I think a big part of the problem is the huge starting price of a game - $60 USD. Knock that down to 20-30 bucks and find other ways to make sustainable profit.

 

I understand that the whole point of these topics are to promote wonderful discussion, but the day has taken a toll on me so I will keep this rather short and end with an image that I believe accurately describes the evolution of DLCs.

I honestly like DLC that add actual content that wasn't removed from the base game, as it can bring games back to life that may otherwise have been discarded in the corner. What I don't like is when publishers purposely withhold content that could be released with the initial launch of a game for the pure purpose of releasing it as a DLC. There are some publishers that I have come extremely wary of due to the fact that they purposely release an unfinished product so they can later release DLC content, usually offering a season pass or premium membership from the get-go. I've seen games offer DLC content being released the same week the game came out, which is absurd because it could have easily been released with the base content. As Poker72 already pointed out, EA is one of the top dogs when it comes to removing game content and then adding it back in as a DLC. Prime example is the Sims 4, they literally took the favorite professions and other popular content such as pools that were included in the base game of previous versions and turned them into paid DLCs. Games should be adding content as new versions come out, and not removing content that previous versions had only to give you the option to add them back in if you are willing to pay for them. I also remember reading about a few other games where people uncovered DLC content on the actual base game, though I am unsure what kind of magic they used, this is another example of how DLC content was already finished when the base game was released but purposely withheld for no other reason but to continue cashing in on the game. There is also the example of "special editions", that usually cost anywhere from $10-$60 extra and only come with one DLC. I can't remember what game it was, perhaps Halo 4, but I remember buying some special edition of a game that cost me $60 on top of the base game price and didn't even come with the season pass. I have come more and more inclined to wait for a GOTY edition that features all DLCs, instead of buying the base game and then shelling out a ton of additional money for content that many times should have already been included in the original base game.

So as far as DLCs are concerned, I am not asking publishers to be like Valve and release nothing but free DLCs. I will gladly pay for great content that enriches gameplay, I just strongly dislike publishers that put greed before the game and in turn ruin games by cutting content from the base game and selling it off as DLC.

As promised, here is the picture:

 

Seriously, I need my damn Hot Coffee! (I will love you if you caught the pun and reference)

I agree with pretty much everything you said. A game should be finished upon release...holding back content which was originally intended to be part of the original game and expecting customers to pay extra for those features is kinda slimy.

I seriously think they should lower the starting initial cost of games to make people more willing to pay for DLC later down the road because $60 isn't pocket change. If you think about it, all of the best AAA Platinum selling hits drop down in price after release. You can buy almost every last-gen game new for $10 now. If that's the case, just sell games for a cheaper initial cost and people will be more willing to pay for DLC. People get miffed because they drop $60 and then are expected to pay more.

It's funny because the games with $0 initial cost end up making the most money, like League of Legends and Clash of Clans.

 

Haha, you caught me. I honestly wanted to keep it short but then I felt quilty to do so seeing how Destrok was taking the time to initialize new discussions. I even took so long writing up my "short" post that SinLucifer beat me to the punch posting a DLC meme that is wayyyyyy cooler than the one I posted. Though I do want to mention that his post wasn't there when I started drafting mine! Great minds think alike?

As for the coffee reference, are you talking about special agent Cooper who is obsessed with coffee? It's either that or you are referring to the naughty GTA definition of "hot coffee". If it's neither of those, then my brain is too tired to comprehend the reference.

 

I hate DLC, I have never bought a DLC for any game except XCOM Enemy unknown(the elite soldier pack ). I think the concept of DLC is used wrongly these days. The game sold initially should be complete and DLC should only add new things like a new bonus mission that does not affect the original story or feel of the game. One example I can use right now is X:COM Enemy Unknown. The DLC only adds premium stuffs like customizable soldier outfit, additional challenge level by making random funding and so on, a VIP that joins XCOM team after rescue, and so on. The game without all these add-ons is still complete and you wont feel you are missing something. I didn't even know there was a customizable skin for soldiers until I saw my friend using them. The game was brilliant an immersive but if you want to have some more out of the game you can use the DLC. Games these days have half of the game itself as DLC and adding them changes the whole feel of the game. It shouldn't be that way.

The funny thing is LoL is the game where I have spent most money, more than 200$ on skins. The second is NFS World which is another f2p game, more than 150$ on cars and parts and stuff.

 

IMO, your meme is cooler though. Micro-transaction is another thing that ruining gaming industry nowadays. BTW, @NazgulStig 's meme should be the best one here. lol

I aware that many people claim XCOM is a great game but one of my best friend told me that it is a great game with chance to punch your screen.

Same here. The game I spend the most on is compendium from DotA 2.

 

Good news! Battlefront is half price on the EA Origin store. Pretty much what it should have been to begin with.

I don't mind DLC for the most part, but I am getting tired of overpriced and unnecessary DLC.

Things I'm tired of:

• I don't mind cosmetic DLC, but I think the pricing structure is broken. Charging $1-$2 for something that has just had a new texture placed on it is a little high. I can understand charging a couple dollars if it is a new model with new animations and voice work.
  
• Day one DLC also feels like a scam. If you had the time to complete it before release, include it. Considering developers are all about digital downloads now, its not like they didn't have time to get it burned on the disc.
• Charging for a game mode. They are not reinventing their game for the most part, why ask me to pay again.
• Pre-order bonuses. I'm ok with a pre order bonus, but not when you have 5 different stores each offering a different DLC item. Pick something, and just put the rest in the game.

 

Oh yeah.. I have smashed my keyboard many times when my main soldier died in a mission, you will fall in love with your soldiers by making beautiful kills and surprising you when in tight situation by making the most difficult shot a critical hit, all the love you have you will give it to them and then they sometimes die to the most stupid shot ever and when you analyze it you will realize its your mistake by bad positioning or something like that. Its an awesome game and all gamers must play it whether you like turn-based strategy or not. But Darkest Dungeon is a step higher in terms of smashing because it makes you smash the screen.

 

Now I know why you are looking for a replacement for your Lycosa....

 

Its still fine.. but I am in the market for a new screen lol Darkest Dungeon has taken its toll.

 

Take this! I pretty sure this one can take more than a few punches from you.