It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Is Downloadable Content Getting Out Of Hand?(74 posts)(74 posts)
(74 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 21, 2014
avatar
misteryo: Wouldn't you say that silly game consumerism has gotten out of hand? People buy these DLCs, right? And, you're talking about single player games, right? So, there's no element of extortion as there is in the pay-to-win games, right?

So, what's the problem?

When I purchase a game, I consider the actual entire cost. A game like Skyrim, I waited until all the DLC were out, so I could decide what I wanted. I didn't want the house one, so I never got it. And the rest, I got on sale, just like the base game. Sims? I've counted the cost, and I won't pay it, so I won't play it. Simple.

Game companies are giving people what they want and making darn few mistakes along the way. Sure, EA pissed everybody off recently with Dungeon Keeper mobile, but that was a mistake, and they are paying for it. Would I say Sims has made a mistake? No. They've clearly got your business, because - bitch and moan or not - you're willing to pay for a pet expansion every time a new base game comes out. I'm not, and they don't have my business.

Cheers.
avatar
RyanFialcowitz: You're not wrong- consumers enable this bad behavior on the part of companies. My point was simply that the cost for getting a complete game these days is getting a bit insane.
Define complete though. You pay for some content...if you want more, you pay more. If you think the original content is not enough, don't buy the game...
Nothing wrong from that point of view.
What's really wrong is that most of these DLC are used to milk the audience because they're either:
1) really easy to make
2) already made when the game gets released
3) silly / don't fit the game universe (zombies in every game wtf).
Posted February 21, 2014
avatar
Faenrir: zombies in every game wtf
That would be a great name for a new game!
Posted February 21, 2014
avatar
Faenrir: Define complete though. You pay for some content...if you want more, you pay more. If you think the original content is not enough, don't buy the game...
Nothing wrong from that point of view.
What's really wrong is that most of these DLC are used to milk the audience because they're either:
1) really easy to make
2) already made when the game gets released
3) silly / don't fit the game universe (zombies in every game wtf).
I think you hit the nail on the head as to what the problem is. My definition of complete would be the game and all it's content.
Posted February 21, 2014
avatar
Faenrir: zombies in every game wtf
avatar
misteryo: That would be a great name for a new game!
I lol'ed out loud.
Posted February 21, 2014
Hmmm.

No Borderlands series , Total War series ( the latest two ) , Civ V . ?
Posted February 21, 2014
It's funny how nobody yet mentioned the worst example - The original console release of Assassin's Creed II had TWO CHAPTERS OF PLOT cut out of the middle of the main storyline, and to fill them in you had to buy the DLC. This caused such an outrage that all later console rereleases and the PC version of the game included them by default.
And it's not like it was some optional side-story a-la Deus Ex The Missing Link, no the game actually told you, "hey we're skipping part of the plot here, mkay?".
Post edited February 21, 2014 by Olegdr
Posted February 21, 2014
avatar
AnimalMother117: Which is why I liked the development philosophy behind Dark Souls. I recall in an interview they pretty much said they were not gonna have DLC because they actually were trying to release a game where it was actually, you know, done.
avatar
timppu: Or the Witcher 1-2 way, where they might expand the game, but those are released for free for existing customers (as far as I recall). Minecraft is also the same case, people get new content for their initial purchase.
Oh yeah, there is that, I like that. It's good to see a company release new content for free because they feel their game lacked something as opposed to releasing a game which is truly missing something crucial, or even not finished and then having the customer pay again for the additions. I would also like to add that Creative Assembly has played both sides of my favor. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that the Greeks are not available from the start in Rome II, but I did not mind them charging a little for the 'blood and gore' for Shogun II. (Although now that I think about it that probably should have just been an option to turn on/off, but supposedly it taxed the system heavily, I don't own it.)
Posted February 21, 2014
avatar
Huinehtar: In the first Crusader Kings, you can play Muslims and Pagans, with a community hack mod to unlock them, for free.
avatar
Kardwill: Real muslim/pagan gameplay, or the "play like a christian lord, with the same events and gameplay, but anywhere on the map" kind?

The CK2 Muslim, Byzantine, Norse and Republic DLCs tried to introduce specific gameplay/events/rules for each of these factions, so that the player's experience would be different. And more importantly, I think, they introduced most of these changes as patches in the main game, it's just that you can't PLAY as those characters. For example, if you don't have the muslim DLC, you can't play as an egyptian sultan, but the special decadence and inheritence rules will be used by the IA for its muslim lords. and you will be able to play a MP game with players that use the muslim DLC.

Basically, they refine the basic game (which is complete : CK2 gave you what it promised, i.e. playing as christian lords in the Crusades era), and pay for the patch by selling bonus content. The amount of said content has become quite ridiculous, I agree (and the priorities can be a little baffling : Why make a Norse DLC for a game placed after the viking era, when the Romuva and Tengri were so much more important during the crusades), but the principle sounds solid.
True, you're right, playing a Muslim lord in CK wasn't as deep as in CK II, IIRC, but like you point it, rules and gameplay were there as parts of the AI. I understand that having several versions of the same game due to each DLC would be a mess, so they kept rules introduced with some gameplay content DLCs especially for Multiplayer. What I wanted to criticize was the fact that since rules are there with updates, but unable to play if the DLC isn't purchased, it shows how that DLC is just a lock. Something that could have been a community mod.

Adding enough content to make a big expansion (like Deus Vult did), I agree and I would buy it. But in that case, it doesn't seem so different compared to what some companies do when they lock content present in the game just to force people to buy as DLCs. The difference is that content is added updates after updates.
Post edited February 21, 2014 by Huinehtar
Posted February 21, 2014
avatar
RyanFialcowitz: Crusader Kings II
http://store.steampowered.com/app/203770/
Base Game = $39.99
Downloadable Content = $127.64
Total Cost Of Complete Game = $167.63
I wouldn't mind so much if I could have Crusader Kings II oder Europa Universalis IV (same DLC principle behind it) right here on GOG, DRM-free. I certainly would buy the occasional DLC full price, most on a severe discount, though.

With Steam, however, I do mind very much, since those games - or even my Steam account - can be taken away basically any time.
So I am quite wary of spending money on Steam, though I occasionally do so.
Example: Yesterday, I bought "Banished" here on GOG, full price. I would have never done that on Steam.

Most DLCs for CK II and EU IV do not change the actual game, they are just new skins or sounds.
But some of them are very worthwhile.

The "Total Cost" you cited is ludicrous, even more so for the other games you mentioned.
Especially for this train thingy, which is *very* far away from something resembling a reasonable price.
Posted February 21, 2014
avatar
GastonArg: train simulator DLCs are ridiculous, 20 dollars for adding just a locomotive O.o

$3,510.44 USD who would pay for that...
I too wouldn't pay 20$ for DLC and definately not 3,5k $ for any game. However if the game is aimed at train enthusiastics and is modelled accurately as possible, I can see how some would pay especially if the game is downgrade from proffessional simulator. Some of those simulators aimed for professional use have versions for enthusiastics that still cost hundreds of dollars. Bear in mind these are not designed to be entertainment software but for training actual pilots/drivers etc. to operate the real planes/vehicles simulated in the game. So in those cases it's understandable that you'd have to pay high price for any additional fully simulated vehicle/plane.

Obviously I can't say if this is the cases wind Train Simulator but wanted to point out that in some rare cases high prices are justified despite seeming small amount of content added.
Post edited February 21, 2014 by Petrell
Posted February 21, 2014
avatar
Olegdr: It's funny how nobody yet mentioned the worst example - The original console release of Assassin's Creed II had TWO CHAPTERS OF PLOT cut out of the middle of the main storyline, and to fill them in you had to buy the DLC. This caused such an outrage that all later console rereleases and the PC version of the game included them by default.
And it's not like it was some optional side-story a-la Deus Ex The Missing Link, no the game actually told you, "hey we're skipping part of the plot here, mkay?".
Nah the worst examples is making the real ending of the game a DLC(dead space 3,asura's wrath,prince of persia).Disgusting.
Posted February 21, 2014
I am a little tired of DLC, but there are some exceptions. I tend to wait for GOTY versions when I can, or at least wait till all the DLC is released and get it as cheap as I can (did this with Need for Speed Most Wanted on PC). I don't mind story DLC like The Last of Us or BioShock Infinite, but I despise characters, weapons, outfits, tracks or whatever else. Borderlands 2 is pretty egregious about this.
As far as The Sims 3 goes, I don't consider the Expansion Packs DLC. They all add to or change the game in fundamental ways. The Stuff Packs and crap on the Sims store is another matter. I've bought all the Expansion Packs but none of the other ones. Should the stuff in the Expansion Packs have been in the base game? Maybe, but that is a LOT of stuff, and I can't imagine what that would have done to the original release date. Its been 4.5 years since The Sims 3 was released and they've released 11 Expansion Packs. That really doesn't bother me. I like them, they extend the life of the game and I have enjoyed them all to one degree or another. I can certainly understand people regarding the idea of buying all that with quite a bit of trepidation, though.
Posted February 21, 2014
I've learned that when you need to buy a season pass, wait until the GOTY edition comes out. Unless it's borderlands 2 and there is more content after the GOTY edition which in that case, fuck that.
Posted February 21, 2014
avatar
JustSayin: I've learned that when you need to buy a season pass, wait until the GOTY edition comes out. Unless it's borderlands 2 and there is more content after the GOTY edition which in that case, fuck that.
Agreed.

The reason the companies do this is because they get away with it - because "consumers" keep enabling it by plunking down the cash for it.

Just say no.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Is Downloadable Content Getting Out Of Hand?(74 posts)(74 posts)
(74 posts)