DLC - Good or Bad

[Purple Yoshi]

So, what do you guys think about DLC. Is it a good way to include features that would otherwise not fit in the game? Or is it a lame way to get extra money, and to purposely create incomplete games.

I think that DLC can be good, but they need to be careful with how they make it. My rule is, if I was a game designer, DON'T think about DLC during game production. Finish the game, and when it's done, say "Hey, I wonder if people would be interested if we included an epilogue, or a backstory chapter, ect"

 

[Pokemon DP]

Things DLC are good for: Adding reasonably priced extra content well after the game's initial release to those who want to get more out of a game that has already given them a good, satisfying playthrough.

Things DLC are bad for: Overpricing; being built straight into the game instead of being additional content, begging the question why it wasn't just a part of the game to begin with; taking advantage of a short game without much content by selling a fucktonne of useless DLC just to manipulate the consumer into trying desperately to get their worth out of an underweight game; being released within the very first day of the game's release for seemingly no reason other than to mooch off hype rather than because you genuinely wanted to give the consumers a little extra to do after they've finished the game.

 

[MCS]

The only DLC I'm really familiar with is DLC for the Rock Band games, which is definitely good, because without those extra 1,600+ songs released over the past 5 years, the games would get really stale with just the on-disc setlists throughout the games.

I can't really speak for other games, but I'd obviously assume that not all DLC for games is great.

 

[Purple Yoshi]

Also, DLC encourages game companies to release their games incomplete so it'll be fixed through DLC.

I remember when Final Fantasy XIII-2 came out, everyone thought the good 'true' ending would be given through DLC. Of course, then it turns out even THAT was wrong, and the reason it had a bad ending was to hint to the next game. Which was really stupid.

 

[chillv]

I hate DLC when companies bombard their games and their fanbase entirely with it. Just look at the presentations nintendo did for new super mario bros 2 for the 3ds. They basically gave they self up that they were going to hand out DLC very frequently on that game and make you pay for it before the games release. That's why I didn't buy it. I don't support scams when I see them. Do companies think money grow on trees.

I think DLC is irrelevant in most cases and they be used for another game. It seems like companies only use it because they are too impatient and want even more money really quick.

(NO FLAMING)

 

[Purple Yoshi]

I hate DLC when companies bombard their games and their fanbase entirely with it. Just look at the presentations nintendo did for new super mario bros 2 for the 3ds. They basically gave they self up that they were going to hand out DLC very frequently on that game and make you pay for it before the games release. That's why I didn't buy it. I don't support scams when I see them. Do companies think money grow on trees.

I think DLC is irrelevant in most cases and they be used for another game.

It's ironic that NSMB2, a game about collecting money, was one of the first Nintendo games to support paid DLC (not including Fire Emblem in Japan)

 

[Ray Trace]

Things DLC are good for: Adding reasonably priced extra content well after the game's initial release to those who want to get more out of a game that has already given them a good, satisfying playthrough.

Things DLC are bad for: Overpricing; being built straight into the game instead of being additional content, begging the question why it wasn't just a part of the game to begin with; taking advantage of a short game without much content by selling a *bleep*tonne of useless DLC just to manipulate the consumer into trying desperately to get their worth out of an underweight game; being released within the very first day of the game's release for seemingly no reason other than to mooch off hype rather than because you genuinely wanted to give the consumers a little extra to do after they've finished the game.

Per this. Summed up exactly what I was about to say about DLC. So my poll option is that it depends on who handles the DLC and what content the DLC has and how much it costs.

Companies like Capcom can go *beep* themselves after introducing the term "disk-locked DLC" into our gaming jargon.

 

[chillv]

I hate DLC when companies bombard their games and their fanbase entirely with it. Just look at the presentations nintendo did for new super mario bros 2 for the 3ds. They basically gave they self up that they were going to hand out DLC very frequently on that game and make you pay for it before the games release. That's why I didn't buy it. I don't support scams when I see them. Do companies think money grow on trees.

I think DLC is irrelevant in most cases and they be used for another game.

It's ironic that NSMB2, a game about collecting money, was one of the first Nintendo games to support paid DLC (not including Fire Emblem in Japan)

That's what I mean. I'm not sure what they said in the presentation (I might be wrong) but I think they said that they were giving out a new DLC level every week. WHO HAS THE MONEY TO BUY A LEVEL EVERY WEEK. If they are going to charge people, could they at least charge at a reasonable price? Like $30 like they are doing with the trial campaign.