[Artemis Fowl]

Do you guys feel like the new concept of DLC this generation of gaming consoles is a good or bad thing? Do you think it is just wrong for game publishers & developers to purposely leave a game slightly in complete to cause gamers to pay extra for the missing content? Do you think it is good because you invest in a $60 game & you get to make good on your invest with small payments to extend the life cycle of your game?

let’s discuss.

[Szuter]

It really depends on game to game situations.
On a personal level I bought Fallout 3 at launch at 59.99 I believe. Now I invested over 300+ hours into so I had no problem invest another 50 dollars into DLC. Even if there were only two good DLC packs, two that were playable and one really horrible one. So paying about 110 for quite possibly even 400 hours of gameplay is quite alright with me.
Another great example Red Dead Redemption Nightmare. Just 9.99 ton of gameplay adding more hours to an already long game. Completely changing the world around.

Other games offering a couple maps for $X sometimes is a rip off and more than likely excluded from the actual game to sell later for profit.

But at the end if the 60.00 got me a lot of gameplay for my buck I wont fell bad buying more DLC.

War.
War never changes.

[Artemis Fowl]

I just don’t want game developers to habitually put out half finished products and charge for the rest of it. I like the idea of it being extra and completely optional for the full experience. I would hate most if the next gen of consoles became a case of buying games in pieces rather than getting an entire complete product and getting optional extras.

[Szuter]

With the used game market I can see developers holding out maybe the last hour of the game. If you buy the game brand new it will come with a code for it to unlock but if you get it used you will have to pay for it.

War.
War never changes.

[brooklyn]

depends. For example the DLC coming out for Infamous 2 is not anything they would have shipped the game with so im ok with that.

If its a game like gran turismo that has a shit ton of content anyway and they ar4e patching and constantly giving away free stuff (in this instance its cars for seasonal events) ill buy the dlc if I think its worth it.

MY problem with DLC is mostly the “costume” and “map pack” bullshit. Costumes that should be free or way cheaper and maps that divide the online community. Bad examples of DLC is the individual characters from the Blazblue CS2 and also arcade edition only adding a few (mostly wack) characters and no new stages. I think the arcade edition probably killed the game more than anything else.

[SpaceBarZ]

I only buy DLC for games that I’m a diehard fan of and I think that goes for most gamers (i.e. szuter and fallout). It would be nice if it were free but c’mon lets be honest with ourselves, this is a business we’re talking about. I’m a fan of call of duty and after a while as much as I love the game and it’s core mechanics I also want something fresh and new so DLC maps provide me with that and I feel the online community looks forward to their releases. Those maps aren’t patches…they’re content that keeps the game fresh and the audience engaged until they release their new title. Price is definitely an issue at times but I like add-ons especially when they’re successful at keeping me playing the game.

The flip side of the argument is when a game comes out (and is complete) and there is no DLC for it. The gaming community lashes out and says the developers are not “supporting” the title. There is no happy mediums when it comes to gamers.

[Artemis Fowl]

True spit, the DLC thing has become so common in this generation of games that fans want them and it also good for the developers too because they can get gamers to invest more. I just hope DLC’s are held up to the same standards as the full on products put out.

[Author]

Posts