It is a common discussion (read argument) on these forums about release day dlc, and/or single player dlc options on modern games and I had the interest in sharing my change of heart. Let me preface that most of the gaming I am talking about is on a console (the xbox) and I don't yet feel the same about pc DLC since the used market is considerably different in pc gaming (or at least in my experience), however the availability to find a good deal is considerably higher.

So I am proprietor of the used game market, mostly because I really love gaming, and generally (until recently) didn't have much money. When I was younger I was a common "extended demo" player (read: pirate until I had the money), I would buy used games and sell mine again. I still search for a good deal, and do my best to get my money's worth out of gaming. As such I always hated release day DLC (I will make the exception now that I am talking about content DLC, not customization/skins/multiplayer this that or the other crap, I don't really care about any of that), partially because on limited funds release day DLC is that extra expense that ruins the great deal you just found with what little entertainment funds you had. For the longest time I didn't even know most release day DLC is included (in some form) for preorderers or those that bought new (I know stupid, but I never bought new). And once I started buying new or preordering (mostly to play multiplayer games with my buddies) it still left a sour taste in my mouth. Take the modern shooter (BF3, CoD3, Gears3, anything with a gun and a 3 on it), pay $60, get it shipped to your house, pop it into your console, update the game (for some idiotic reason the release day game still needs patching...), plug in some codes, or five, and wait a few hours for the multiple gig downloads to finish. This was just...unsettling, but I understood that this was a way to profit off of the used game market, and as a new game consumer it wasn't really hampering me (just testing my patience). I do wish some things could be different, but the DLC system wasn't hampering me from being a day one customer. If you were a used game player for the popular modern shooter you got the screw of course, but I question why you would do this in the first place. Multiplayer codes, and other such things do push gamers to buy new instead of used but let me propose this argument. At least in the console market multiplayer servers are dominated by the new and the popular, and there is a much more limited supply or opportunity for hosted server (I know I know stick to the pc gaming) so if you want the full experience of the new popular modern shooter you need to buy the game generally within 6 months to one year of release during which the games servers will be populated, not particularly laggy, and not full of achievement whores or those two guys that have played this game more hours than you went to work in the last year. As such (especially with the popular titles) the used price isn't significantly lowered by the time the game begins to get difficult to play multiplayer (and that is the key to playing a multiplayer title). I understand the marketing drive to push players towards new, while still allowing them the option for used and still get some money out of the consumer, but it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Basically it boils down to, it is your own fault if wait 6 months to save $10 on a popular title only to have to spend $15 to get the full multiplayer capability out of the game. If you are a used game buyer you would already expect to be getting into a new game roughly 2 years after it was released and what do you expect out of a multiplayer title. You should have waited for the new game to go on sale instead.

So as you can see my view on the topic as a deal seeker was a bit...unfortunate, the dlc system existed to suck money from me if I found a good deal, or to pray on the stupid who didn't plan ahead when seeking to play the new modern popular titles, and as the thread suggests, I have had a change of heart. I wanted to share an anecdote (or two) to show the crazy words I am spewing that dlc doesn't have to be terrible, or the end of the world for the consumer.

One of the games I want to talk about is Dragon Age: Origins. Now with DA:O I am not specifically talking about release day DLC, I honestly don't know what may or may not have been included in release at this point, but I will guide you through my used buying experience. I bought this game used for, well dirt cheep, I may as well have found it laying on the corner, and I do understand the argument against used games as not paying the designers and developers money for their hard earned work, but I fully support the counter argument (as a used game buyer and seller) that that used sale was money spent in the game market, it went from me (a game lover) to someone (a game lover) who will in turn use it to afford a new game. However, the extent of added content in the Dragon Age game is extensive (to say the least) and there is a large quantity of money (significantly more than what I paid for the game) to be spent on (what I am yet to assume) will be quality design and development. The key, however, is that I can pay Bioware for this work done as I choose do do so over time. If I am really into my session today I can spend some money to expand my play environment right now if I want to. Some of these titles, partially because of the DLC, or their popularity, buying used is almost like joining a free to play with microtransactions (I think the series "Extra Credits" did a nice comment on the benefits of microtransaction systems that work). I will support this again with another example, a series I am well versed in, the modern Fallout titles. I bought Fallout New Vegas around when the third DLC was released for around $10 (these games often drop in used price due to the vast availability on the market, and the premise of the game of the year edition occurring in the future), however I went and purchased every (high quality) DLC for that game at full price. I could have waited for the game of the year edition, I could have waited for the game of the year edition to droop in used price, but I only spent $30, and I got to play a high quality game, and pay directly to Bethesda $20 for great development. In the end Bethesda got paid for its work, I purchased the game for a price that was encouraging to me (especially for what I got out of it), an most importantly even if I was low on entertainment funds, I spent that money over a period of time that never broke the bank.

Now what about you, the dear consumer who spent $60 on the game at release, who (correctly) feels stilted by the used consumer like my spending the same for the expanded content. I am not sure how to solve this problem. It would be lovely if there was some "customer loyalty" system that allows cheaper prices for those loyal followers paying full retail for the product, but I am not entirely sure that system works either (It was tried on Gears 3 for example, but I don't think it worked too well...). There must be a way, but consider that (assuming you don't consider old game expansions as DLC...since they generally lacked the DL portion) these questions haven't been around for very long, yes a few companies are gouging, some are trying to restrict used markets, and some are specifically out to kill Gamestop (rightly so), but usually they get called on it, and it can take some time to learn, but DLC doesn't have to be a bad thing, and it certainly isn't the end of the used markets. Books survived used books stores and lending libraries, movies survived blockbuster and netflix, gaming will not die because of used game sales, and perhaps DLC is infact the right way to go , but only if it is done in a sensible way.

Wow that got waaaaay too long, sorry about that, but thanks for reading and:
tl;dr? -- Modern day DLC schemes don't have to be the screw on the consumer anymore, especially in the used game market (and when you don't have to have the new game right NOW).

With those codes is getting worse, no i enter a store and see a game i dont know if i like and then be told by the shop that i cant exchange the game because it got an unlock code and a game called final fantasy 13-2 wich i heard has a terrible ending and dlc is coming to get a good ending so this is what the marketing is going to, its like buying a movie or a book where the story suddenly ends with loose ends and you got to buy a 30 page extra book where the ending or the dvd where the ending is. Stupid.

I kept thinking and came up with another title to talk about in just as long winded a fashion, so if you want to keep reading about the topic (I am sorta on a roll), a commentary on Burnout Paradise. Burnout, is a little different than most of my other experiences, but I think it is an intriguing marketing campaign that I sort of wish I could see happen again. Of course one of the big things about this game was that it had in game advertising, it was sold advertised as such (at least when I got it relatively new), and it did it right. Release day the game was sold at a reduced price (I remember seeing $30 or $40, but I don't remember, I do remember getting it at least in the first month or two and paying $28). The game sold as cheap for two reasons, release day dlc, and in game advertising. Generally I hate in game advertising, but I have to admit, this game did it right, and it may be the only game that can successfully get away with it. Let me explain. The realism in the Burnout universe is relatively high, the graphics are nice and the driving physics are commendable, but more importantly, the environments and the roads on which you drive feel realistic, the design of the world feels like you are driving through a relatively populous mountainside city that gradually expands into a rural (road friendly) environment. So part of any such environment (in the US at least) is billboards and semi truck, and these just so happen to be in the game with actual advertisements. They aren't intrusive, they don't distract from the game, and I remember seeing a trailer for the game that didn't have them yet and it seemed a bit unsettling looking back on it (like it lost part of that realism). Now I certainly am not encouraging all games to start using in game advertising, but this worked, and more importantly, they lowered the sale price as a direct result. Now to the dlc, I was so mad at first that the local multiplayer of Burnout Paradise was locked out unless you payed $10, this seemed insane, until I realized I was paying $38 total for a brand new non-budget title (instead of $60) only if I wanted local multiplayer, I wasn't being charged extra, that $10 was already not part of the sale price. Lower the starting cost of the retail game and the option to pay for features up to the price of a full retail game seems much more reasonable for the consumer (you pay for the options you want, and often will pay less than the total $60), and the company will likely sell more titles with the reduced starting price. I think "Extra Credit" did an episode on this idea too, perhaps in the same discussion as the microtransactions. I have heard arguments against this before consisting of "well local multiplayer shouldn't be a bonus feature you have to pay for" and I agree, it shouldn't, unless of course you haven't payed for a full game yet, which if the full retail price is half that of a AAA title (with the intent that you pay for the future features yourself) you aren't buying it as a bonus feature, you are customizing your purchase to best fit you, and with software being so versatile, why not do this, I commend this format for DLC, it sells more units because it has a manageable price, and it keeps money coming in for the game from the used market (if used prices end up reasonable, the used market is a fickle beast) to developers.

Holy wall of text Batman!

Okay, you had some good things to say, but since you're talking about DA:O I had to chime in:

1) DA:O is a pretty mediocre game. The DLC was even more subpar. I may have been the only one who liked Warden's Keep and didn't like Leliana's Song (usually it's the reverse). Now, with that said, DA:O can be a fun game, but it's not a particularly good game (sort of like it can be fun to watch a Jason Statham movie but no one would argue it's a good movie).

2) DA:O had launch DLC (The Stone Prisoner), this was free to new buyers. They also had The Warden's Keep available within the first week or two. A quest giver appeared in our camp and while trying to accept the quest you actually get an in game message "This quest is included in content you have not yet purchased." Yeah, here's a joke about it http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/06 Yes, it was about that lame. Yes, they eventually incorporated the name "Barkspawn" into some bit of Dragon Age media somewhere (because, you know, it's fucking clever!). I don't mind DLC in general, even subpar DLC, but that kind of shit deserves the ridicule heaped upon it.

3) DA:O Ultimate, with almost every piece of extra content ever made (excluding a few rings and stuff for being involved in social media surrounding the game and the like, and even those can be enabled with a quick edit to a file in the game) was on sale multiple times over Christmas for as low as 7 USD. I hope you actually have this copy, you should not be paying Bioware a huge amount for it.

4) If you don't have Ultimate, I ended up with an extra copy. It's a 27GB (yes, you read that right) download from Origin. You can seriously have the keys, don't waste your cash.

5) In general I'm with you, DLC, even launch DLC, doesn't have to be bad. It's the companies' presentation of DLC, their attitude, and the content that makes DLC good or bad. Going back to Warden's Keep, the party stash chest should have not been in the DLC, that's sort of a "fuck you" to your actual players. Bioware actually has kind of a spotty record on DLC, imo.

6) Project 10 Dollar always sucks. No really, it's indefensible in my opinion. For precisely the timeliness reason you mention about shooters it's mostly worthless, there's a really limited amount of used copies for sale (which is why they command such a high price), since you seem to work in/own a used shop you must know this, unpopular used games sell for very little.

I appreciate the commentary on DA:O, but I hope that doesn't cloud the point, the quality of the game itself is...well irrelevant, in a sense (and yes I know that the Ultimate version had everything, and that was sorta the point). My understanding of project $10 is more of getting that extra $10 from each game new or what have you (basically pushing the total game retail to $70) but I might be wrong. If I am correct, yes this is crap. But the idea of used versus new game price adjustments to maintain the retail game price at $60, or even effectively lower it, while raising the used game effective price to (lets say) $25 is a more reasonable, and defensible strategy for both the buyers and sellers.

problem with dlc is that they can make the story strange as well, mass effect 1 good example you got a dlc where you have to save an alien race from extintion and in 2 they all wandering around but shouldnt they be extinct if you dont had the dlc and didnt rescue them?

If you still have that extra copy of DA:O Ultimate I'd be happy to take it off your hands... let me know if you want a trade or something :P (not sure what if anything I have though...)

sorry i dozed off after the first sentence :p

I'm posting so I can remember to come back and read this later. Maybe. You probably made good points, and thanks for thinking this through so thoroughly!

And it was was fitting in the lore very good, as it introduced the batarians as players on the field. (A very minor retcon in the database occured though). Pinnacle station was rather lame, tbh. But bring down the sky was a very well done mission. And wasn't Pinnacle Station free on the PC?

Bring down the sky was free but IRC Pinnacle Station wasn't.

Yeah. Put a plenty of random newlines to divide that horrible thing up and more people will read it and respond, including me. Yea I know you tried. You didn't succeed.

BDtS was free PS is £4 (but often hits just 99p)
But yes the much needed Batarian intro was in that DLC would have been better if they had been in ME1 proper but meh the DLC was good enough to ignore them being missing.

You're just old and grumpy because you had a host of technical problems ;-). But yes the DLC sale in the camp was a massive desaster, I don't thing we will see anything like that again. And the day 1 free for new games DLCs included also "Return to Ostaghar" and some other stuff.

As a player of the Utimate Edition I enjoyed all DLC, as I wasn't put of by the shortness of Witchhunt e.g.

All in all, I really, really enjoyed DA:O because it was imo the love child between '90 RPG and next gen RPG.