Has anybody here seen the latest Jimquisition? He touches on the subject of DLC in the market today and it's something I've wanted to bring up here for a while. I've heard gamers protest "evil" DLC more frequently as of late. Destructoid brought up how much it would cost to obtain all of Mass Effect 3's DLC an Kotaku has a weekly post called This Week in Evil DLC.

I personally don't think it matters how much DLC is available for a game or how much it costs as long as long as the player is getting $60 worth of content from the start. And I don't think it matters if parts of the content are already located on the disc as long as what you get for your initial $60 purchase was substantial. How the content is delivered to the player seems to me like quibbling semantics when the real issue is that players simply aren't getting as much as they used to for their dollar and I think that's the issue that should be raised with publishers.

Think of the Marvel vs. Capcom series. MvC2 had a much bigger character selection and it's sequel had a significantly smaller roster and many more characters had to be purchased later. Is it fair that an older title that was released at the same price had more content than it's sequel? It wasn't just characters, there were more stages and gameplay modes as well. But even with the substantial difference in content I'm not sure it's fair to call foul.

Developing games costs a lot more than ever before and publishers are using DLC to artificially inflate the cost of games. I think it could be argued that developers should charge a bit more for their titles when accounting rising costs and inflation. If you buy a Call of Duty game, a few months later will see the release of a $15 map pack. I think publishers are trying to make closer to $75 for each title and the release of on-disc DLC and day-one DLC makes that happen. If gamers didn't buy any DLC I'm certain they would start charging $75 a game.

Anyways, what does everyone think? What is and isn't ok when it comes to DLC? What kinds of changes would you like to see when it comes to game delivery? Do you think it makes a difference when the content is on-disc or released on day-one? Should publishers simply raise the cost of a retail copy and forget hiding the extra costs behind DLC? Are new games too expensive or do you think it's time for an increase in price? I honestly can't settle my mind on a solid opinion yet, I think there are too many sides.

Its funny you wanted to bring this up here, since we talk about it every other day already :P

Anyway, I like substantial content that basically replaces the expansions of old. Stuff like New Vegas and Mass Effect 2 got. Not as large as expansions but similar and cheaper.

I don't like the small stuff and tend not to support it.

Though really what is evil is up to the market and the market seems to like small stuff and pre-order bonuses.

I'll just make a short comment on the ME 3 DLC article. I hope this is supposed to be funny, because not only are they listening promo deals, not DLCs. They are also listing the same ingame item five times.

The first two post release DLCs are free, especially a MP pack that would cost 15$ for CoD. Mass Effect as a series is, imo, a good example of well done DLCs. All the "substantial", as in story related, DLCs were well worth the buck and the rest was not only rather cheap, but also optional. And you can get Bioware points for 50% off quite often, making them even better.

Basicly dlc that are like old expansions are ok with me. More content worh money is always welcomed. Cheats dlc and automatic unlock stuff is no in my opinion. Also I'm not a big fan on skins and costumes but if someone feels its not a waste of their money ....


I would love idea of DLC besing some kind of testing ground for ideas that may not work as full game and stuff like that. For example missions from enemy perspective in fpp games.

To be honest I don't mind DLC when it's actually substantial. The problem is that the definition of substantial is fairly loose. Example, you can spend $10 to download the alien UFO maps in Fallout 3, that means weapons and play time and story. But then you have something like EA which has at times asked you to spend $3 for a gun or a map or a skill bonus. Why? The point of having new content is to actually have new content, not shit that won't be noticed or remembered for more than a couple days after you purchased it. The thing about locking content on the game disc is also annoying, but at least it actually opens up usable content that adds more to what you can do in the game.

It depends on the intentions. With the Fallout games the intention was to provide a mini expansion that offered pretty good value for money and the means to use some of your new toys in the game proper.

But when it's cut content, overpriced map packs, removal of mod-ability, attempts to cripple the 2nd hand market and other such underhanded bullshit then it's clearly a problem.

All new levels, maybe a storyline expansion = OK
Horse Armor = NOT OK

stop creating useless threads.. thank you :)

dlc is pure evil no matter what. Games should have expansions not dlc. dlc is the way to tame gamers into small game updates and prevents gamers to demand expansions that has real value story wise, gameplay, and new content.

It depends on the implementation and who's in charge of making the decisions about what goes in the main bundle and what gets put into separately purchased DLC.

You have purchased: Bad-muther fire arrows. Attack bonus: 0. Fire bonus: 0. Visability Bonus: 0. Stealth Bonus: -30. Rage level: Angry German Kid.

It's beyond me that somehow enough people purchase guns and weapons and customization that companies actually have incentive to make more of them. Though, I guess when you already have all the data and it takes maybe a couple day's work to spit out a handfull it's not really an expensive or risky idea.

Yup. I thought it was appropriate. As it turns out he was making fun of german game censors and politicians.

I like DLC for The Witcher games, They're free and good!

Fallout New Vegas DLC: Eh, okay I guess, new storylines and interesting locations. not too bad for the price, although the content could be a bit longer.

DLC that add to the central plotline (that should be concluded in a single game), Item DLC, and Day one DLC? Burn them at the stake, I say.

it depends a lot on the DLC itself, as others have said. Not all DLC needs to add something substantial, but DLC should absolutely never be "cut content". Day one DLC is an issue, as it quite often is just that, cut content, that they expect you to pay extra for. Remember, that effort spent on making that DLC could have been spent on either adding that to the game itself or bugfixing.

I won't buy any DLC that does not add something that I feel is substantial. If they are mini-expansions, like the DLC for say Fallout 3 & New Vegas, then I'm interested. I've also bought the music packs for HoI 3, because I felt that they actually added to the overall feel of the game (I got two in a collection, then decided to buy a third because I was happy with them). But a new skin or a slightly different character model, that is not something that I care about, though DLC like that can be used to make sure that the art department don't just sit around, doing nothing during coding/beta-testing, so I don't see any real harm in that form of DLC:

You could check and see if someone already made a fake set of 'translations' for that. It's like the 3 minute scene from the World War 2 movie with Hitler in a bunker with the survivors of Berlin yelling at everyone. In fact see if someone did one for him too.

Aside from that horse armor business, what exactly is the worst DLC content you've seen?

What is ok?

What CD Projekt does.

What is not ok?

Everything else

:p