GameBanshee Forums

I thought this skit was pretty funny.. because it's sadly becoming true for many games (..Dragon Age series in particular):

Mega64: DLC THE GAME - YouTube

must admit i agree

I don't see what the problem is with DLC. Its really nice to get additional content thats too small for a proper sequel and often released more frequently.

I don't have a problem with the additional cost, because I happen to have a job and therefor have money.

I don't have a problem either when the DLC is well done. I tend not to buy weapon or appearance packs, but grab up more story where I can. For instance, I have all the story expansion packs for ME2, but none of the custom appearance packs nor the weapon packs. By contrast, I have bought everything for Fallout: New Vegas individually because it is all what I want in DLC.

The only DLC that typically gets me upset is the DLC that comes at release that is interwoven into the game in such a way as to where it is obvious that DLC was developed alongside the rest of the game but it was pulled out to make more money. Pretty much anything else I can decide if I want or not, but this type of DLC oftentimes feels like they are making me pay extra for a game I just bought.

People constantly talk about the rising prices of video games, but they haven't really gone up by much at all in the US. Diablo II for instance was 60 US$ retail when it was released. Most big PC games at that time were closer to 50 US$. Going back before I had a PC (Well, I had a Commodore 64, but no games for it and any time I turned it off I had to reprogram the few games I knew) to play on I was paying forty to fifty normally for a NES game at Walmart.

Today we tend to pay fifty to sixty US$ for a new PC game. Pretty much everything in the US has gone up in price while reducing quantity, but games are still close to where they were price wise. DLC is a means to make money on extended content for those that want it without raising the price of the basic game. It provides a means of income to help keep the company developing both new content as well as patches. Like anything, DLC distribution (or lack thereof) can be abused and it is sometimes. I feel that is a problem with the companies involved at the time as opposed to the concept of DLC itself.

I would rather have full expansions, but I'm not going to begrudge a company for creating smaller, more manageable pieces of content for a more steady income source. It keeps people employed between big projects and has them working on past projects at the same time. I would like to see some slightly longer story driven DLC than what some companies have been putting out and wouldn't mind paying more for such content. That type of content takes longer to put out however and while the companies involved might make the same money or even more over time they would have to go longer between those spikes of extra income than in comparison to smaller content packs.

Lord Chaos wrote:I don't see what the problem is with DLC. Its really nice to get additional content thats too small for a proper sequel and often released more frequently.

I don't have a problem with the additional cost, because I happen to have a job and therefor have money.

It is sad that i have money problem, because i am a poor student now.

I also don't mind "DLC's", as I like having more to do in games I've played to death. Paying a little extra to extend a games longevity just makes sense.

My only gripes would be the games that already have the content included on disk, but require additional payment to "unlock" it. I find it rather insulting as a consumer. That, and the games themselves that aren't truly concluded until you "buy" the ending. Mafia 2 comes to mind.

Though, I still fondly remember when Bethesda released Morrowind, then released free plug-ins to the community. I thought that was awesome. I also miss the days of expansion packs that really added something substantial to a game, as opposed to the $10-almost-insignificant quests.

DLCs are just not cost effective as far as I'm concerned, unless they are part of the "ultimate" or GOTY edition.

Pay $60 for a game with a campaign that lasts 20 hours (or more in some cases) and then pay $10 for a DLC wish a mission that lasts 2 hours (or less in many cases). The ratio is clearly not in my favor.

I have a job too, and I make enough where I'm not too worried about wasting a few bucks here and there, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to just throw it out.

Having said that, I still don't mind the existance of DLCs, if you're willing to throw your money at it, it's your choice. I don't agree that it's a good choice, but I respect people's right to disagree with me. And I still buy them myself, but only when they are budled.

Ok i can see how DLC can be good,i mean let me pay $10 for abit more to the game, O we used to call them expansion packs. yes we did have to pay $30 or so for them, so yes done that way good deal.
But when its like $5 for some swords $6 for abit of armor $10 some spells.(that was called a patch i think )
then for $10 more you can get to walk from A to B kill a few things,then you get to meet that new NPC (well if you payed $5 more you can),and so on
Could be wrong but i don't think this is in the favor for the player.