Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: My view on DLCs

  1. #1
    Network Hub slick_101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    50° 51' 43" -1° 15' 21"
    Posts
    227

    My view on DLCs

    For me. DLCs are probably the biggest gripe of modern gaming. Well I say modern. Rather in the last 5 years or so. Let me explain what I mean. To me it feels as if when you buy a game, you aren't actually buying a full product; you're buying a product about 80% done ( Fallout 3 springs to mind straight away). or in some cases you're spending £10 on a few maps *cough * CoD *cough cough* and it just doesn't seem right. Now don't get me wrong here, I know some of you will say "but expansion packs have been around for ages!" Yeah. that's the thing EXPANSION PACKS! Take for instance Red alert 2. you have an entire game with a whole story line to play around with. With the release of Red alert 2: Yuri's revenge you get not only an entire new faction, new maps, new story line and new units for both the Allied and the Soviet. the same could be said about Age of mythology (by the creators of Age of Empires). Even Call of Duty 4 (when it felt like Activision were the good guys) gave away the maps for free on the PC.

    So then I look at the games post 2009 and they are all filled with DLC content, though might not be expensive (say £5 or something) it feels as if you are missing out if you don't have that special player skin everybody is talking about.

    Another issue is when the developers say they would of added the content/put it on the disk but they didn't have time to implement it or it wasn't finished in time to be put on the disk.... And then they charge for it.

    (And yes for the references to the games above I did look at my game shelf of which ones I have been playing recently)
    Official RPS Thread argument catalyst.

  2. #2
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Grizzly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Archbishopric of Utrecht
    Posts
    1,817
    But if I say, look at Fallout New Vegas, those are four expansion packs right there. DLC allows people to continue working and producing content for a game with much more 'focused' planning then Expansion packs did. (Since with an expansion pack, its like "We have to include all this content or people will smash it!", not so with DLC).

    Also... it has been going on a bit longer then you think. I think BF2 also had some DLC packs already.

  3. #3
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus sabrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    GMT-7
    Posts
    3,293
    When they start pricing it relative to its value, I'll start buying it. Usually I just wait for the GOTY or Complete pack though.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by sabrage View Post
    When they start pricing it relative to its value, I'll start buying it. Usually I just wait for the GOTY or Complete pack though.
    Agreed. At the moment DLC operates as an incentive not to buy a game at release.

    It's strange thinking back to when DLC was an exciting concept. Continued support and new content for a game sounds great, but it comes at a high price, and sometimes the DLC is ripped right out of the game's original content.

  5. #5
    Network Hub slick_101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    50° 51' 43" -1° 15' 21"
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly View Post
    Also... it has been going on a bit longer then you think. I think BF2 also had some DLC packs already.
    yeah, there was armoured fury but that was after 2 expansion packs (special ops and Euro force)
    Official RPS Thread argument catalyst.

  6. #6
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Althea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,457
    Why does Fallout 3 spring to mind? You have 5 high quality packs for a low price with a LOT of content. New Vegas is 4 packs with a similar price-to-content ratio. Your FO3 and New Vegas experiences are no less complete without the DLC, but they enhance various aspects of the fringe lore/story - even Broken Steel for FO3 really doesn't do all that much for the main story beyond 'fix' the ending - and even then I presume it can be 'fixed' via mods. And generally, Bethesda seem to not work on DLC until after the game has gone gold - They'll plan for it and so on, but it's a post-launch thing.

    GTA IV from Rockstar did the same - TLaD and TBoGT added to the experience, but in separate ways. They all intertwine in a way I felt rather clever of Rockstar, and unlike some DLC they didn't affect the main game at all.

    DLC is great if it's done right - Item packs, cosmetic items, story additions - and they can enhance or compliment your game experience. But if it's done wrong, it can leave you sour or perhaps even 'ruin' the game. DLC needs to come with management tools (Bethesda have these for the PC via the Data Files option) to allow you to enable/disable it, and it also needs to seamlessly integrate itself if possible.


  7. #7
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by UnravThreads View Post
    Why does Fallout 3 spring to mind? You have 5 high quality packs for a low price with a LOT of content. New Vegas is 4 packs with a similar price-to-content ratio. Your FO3 and New Vegas experiences are no less complete without the DLC, but they enhance various aspects of the fringe lore/story - even Broken Steel for FO3 really doesn't do all that much for the main story beyond 'fix' the ending - and even then I presume it can be 'fixed' via mods.
    Mothership Zeta enhances the lore?

  8. #8
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Althea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Wizardry View Post
    Mothership Zeta enhances the lore?
    I never got that complaint. FO1 and, especially, FO2 had rather bizarre moments like aliens and so on, so I don't get the hate for MSZ. Yeah, it wasn't particularly great, but your NPCs gave some little hints about parts of the Wasteland or even pre-Great War.

    Was it FO3's finest moment and Bethesda's wisest choice? No, I don't think it was, but taken as an experience? I think it outshone a lot of DLC, and the gear you got was fairly useful depending on what you'd done before that point.


  9. #9
    Network Hub SMiD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Langhorne, PA, USA! USA! USA!
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by Wizardry View Post
    Mothership Zeta enhances the lore?
    Ha! I was thinking the same thing. +rep
    Game Library Completion: 212/246 - 86.18%

  10. #10
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by slick_101 View Post
    To me it feels as if when you buy a game, you aren't actually buying a full product; you're buying a product about 80% done

    Which is stupid. You're in no position to determine whether a game is done or not, any more than you can determine whether a book is finished or a movie complete. It's also the aim of marketing DLC - they do the same thing with consumer electronics, cars and similar.
    Take for instance Red alert 2. you have an entire game with a whole story line to play around with. With the release of Red alert 2: Yuri's revenge you get not only an entire new faction, new maps, new story line and new units for both the Allied and the Soviet.
    But what if I only play skirmish, and don't need or want a new campaign? What if I don't like the third faction? The problem with expansion packs is it's all or nothing, at least with DLC you can choose which additions you want exactly, and it's usually cheaper than an expansion pack would be. To reverse the example, if all I wanted was some extra maps and units for multiplayer mode Yuri's Revenge is a rip off, justified solely on the basis it includes a campaign I'll never play and a faction I have no interest in.

    Another issue is when the developers say they would of added the content/put it on the disk but they didn't have time to implement it or it wasn't finished in time to be put on the disk.... And then they charge for it.
    Don't really see why that's an issue. After all, they're not obligated to give you the content, and unless you happen to live within walking distance of their house and are happy to loan them a USB stick distributing said content isn't free. Would you prefer it if they said they didn't have time to put the content on the disk, so you're not getting it?

  11. #11
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gwathdring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,702
    Quote Originally Posted by UnravThreads View Post
    Why does Fallout 3 spring to mind? You have 5 high quality packs for a low price with a LOT of content. New Vegas is 4 packs with a similar price-to-content ratio. Your FO3 and New Vegas experiences are no less complete without the DLC, but they enhance various aspects of the fringe lore/story - even Broken Steel for FO3 really doesn't do all that much for the main story beyond 'fix' the ending - and even then I presume it can be 'fixed' via mods. And generally, Bethesda seem to not work on DLC until after the game has gone gold - They'll plan for it and so on, but it's a post-launch thing.
    The memorable part of Fallout 3 for me? Operation Anchorage. Hands down. Still, your main point stands. Fallout 3 wasn't handicapped by the DLC development process as far as I can tell. Elements of certain DLC just happened to outshine the main product.

  12. #12
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Heliocentric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    9,442
    I paid £1 pound for Magicka: The Stars Are Left
    It is crazy fun, I've got my money's worth out of it already and I've got though little of its contents.
    DLC that lack that kind of value for money is a great way for a fan to get more of a game they admire. For example traps and maps in sanctum=ace. Much dlc is just to make money with little value, but so are many games.
    I'm failing to writing a blog, specifically about playing games the wrong way
    http://playingitwrong.wordpress.com/

  13. #13
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus gwathdring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    3,702
    Quote Originally Posted by archonsod View Post

    Don't really see why that's an issue. After all, they're not obligated to give you the content, and unless you happen to live within walking distance of their house and are happy to loan them a USB stick distributing said content isn't free. Would you prefer it if they said they didn't have time to put the content on the disk, so you're not getting it?
    Agreed. :)

  14. #14
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Althea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,457
    Quote Originally Posted by gwathdring View Post
    The memorable part of Fallout 3 for me? Operation Anchorage. Hands down. Still, your main point stands. Fallout 3 wasn't handicapped by the DLC development process as far as I can tell. Elements of certain DLC just happened to outshine the main product.
    Yeah, pretty much. I think the same went for New Vegas - They certainly added to the game, but I think you could easily play without them. The Courier's Stash pack for NV does disrupt the balance a little, but only at the start and I'd say it actually enhances the experience if you're rolling melée or explosives as it dampens the difficulty curve a little.

    I also hate that "but the DLC is on the disc!" argument. I think there's times when it's acceptable to be annoyed, but largely? No, I don't think so. When you get a Magicka patch after the DLC releases, do you not have it on your PC? Should Arrowhead give it to you for free? No, I don't think so. DLC on the disc (or in patches) is a great way to ensure balance and to stop the community being divided. With BioShock 2 it was on the disc so that people with the Sinclair whatsit pack could play with those who don't and vice versa - it allows the community to be united. With Magicka, it allows a group to play that pack or see those costumes/items even if they don't own it, and that means the cost of entry is lower. Someone could buy the game for £2 on offer and join in with their friends on the latest pack, and perhaps even go and buy it later. If that system isn't used, you end up with something like Fable 3's system where if you want to play co-op properly, you need to download some free packs of DLC that give you the files so that you can play with those who have it - you don't get it for your character, though. That's a poor system, it's cumbersome and ridiculous in my opinion.

    And when you think about it, five or ten years ago, didn't we have to enter codes in-game to unlock "exclusive" content? Maps, costumes et al? That seems a little bit more ridiculous, does it not?


  15. #15
    Network Hub FuriKuri!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    UK of A
    Posts
    235
    My main complaint is a lot of DLC is just awkwardly crowbarred into the main campaign. The main campaign I probably completed 6 months ago and deleted all the saves for. At the very least you're forced to replay the opening segment of the game which I sometimes have no interest in doing. The 'expansion pack' paradigm, if you will, usually (but not always) let you play that out of the context of the main game. Even when they didn't they usually dovetailed onto the end in a manner which 'fit' better, e.g. Diablo 2 - starting the expansion act without an existing character would've been problematical in terms of balance. There are often balance issues in DLCs as they're sometimes just in the gameworld and its up to the player to decide whether to go there near the start of the game or near the end - which can make stuff sometimes too easy/too difficult.

    Best example is Fallout 3 for me - I bought the game at release, played it, finished it but didn't really have a strong desire to go through the campaign again. I later bought the edition with all the DLC included but have never got around to reinstalling it to do the DLC since (as far as I'm aware) it's all integrated with the main campaign. Lesson learned, I don't buy that sort of DLC any more unless I have a strong desire to play through the entire game again.

    I can appreciate the argument against the 'all or nothing' nature of expansions but I much prefer that method of deployment.

  16. #16
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Althea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,457
    Quote Originally Posted by FuriKuri! View Post
    Best example is Fallout 3 for me - I bought the game at release, played it, finished it but didn't really have a strong desire to go through the campaign again. I later bought the edition with all the DLC included but have never got around to reinstalling it to do the DLC since (as far as I'm aware) it's all integrated with the main campaign. Lesson learned, I don't buy that sort of DLC any more unless I have a strong desire to play through the entire game again.
    What do you mean "integrated with the main campaign"? Broken Steel is the only one you need to play through the main game for, whereas the other four can be attempted at any time - but "mid level" is recommended, with Point Lookout really needing a fairly well-developed character as it's fairly hard.


  17. #17
    Network Hub FuriKuri!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    UK of A
    Posts
    235
    Does 'any time' mean as soon as I'm in the game menu or after I've played and left the vault again? I honestly don't know but wasting even 1/2 hour doing that boring expositional junk again is a tall order when I've still got New Vegas on my drive unplayed! If I can dive straight in I may give it a go...

  18. #18
    Lesser Hivemind Node DigitalSignalX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    USA, Missouri.
    Posts
    934
    I like expansion type DLC ala FO3/FO:Vegas etc, where you get several hours or more of game play and some expanded items etc for the main campaign, all for 5 or 10 dollars.

    In the vein of some of the previous comments though, I don't like DLC that feels distinctly like it was ripped from the game and then sold separately. Catwoman in AC is a recent example. Further back there's Shale in DA:O, not to mention the Wardens keep which places an NPC in the game asking the player to buy DLC for christs sake.

    I don't mind nickel and dime type addons for clothes, skins, or certain weapons. But when it's actual play time at stake, I wish developers would respect their customers a little bit more at launch by not offering day 1 expansions.
    All times I have enjoyed greatly, have suffered greatly, both with those that loved me, and alone.

  19. #19
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by FuriKuri! View Post
    My main complaint is a lot of DLC is just awkwardly crowbarred into the main campaign.
    That's down to the nature of the game more than DLC in general though. The same also applies to expansion packs; you'd have had the same issue with the DII expansion if you'd completed the original game and deleted your saves before the release of the expansion (at least assuming you didn't want to play through the original campaign again). The same thing is less of a problem in less structured games - it'd be rather odd for a Civ expansion that didn't alter the original game rather than add on to the end for example.
    Best example is Fallout 3 for me - I bought the game at release, played it, finished it but didn't really have a strong desire to go through the campaign again. I later bought the edition with all the DLC included but have never got around to reinstalling it to do the DLC since (as far as I'm aware) it's all integrated with the main campaign. Lesson learned, I don't buy that sort of DLC any more unless I have a strong desire to play through the entire game again.
    You don't have to play through the entire game again. It's the same as the expansions for Morrowind et al were - when you install it you'll get a note / message / new radio station which will direct you to a specific point at which you can embark on the DLC whether you've finished the campaign, are half way through or starting a new game (level recommendations permitting of course).
    The real problem there though is you not wanting to play through the game again. Surely the idea, whether it's DLC or an expansion, is that it's aimed at people who enjoy playing the game and therefore want more content? If you don't particularly want to play any more Fallout 3 then buying more is a little bit odd.
    Of course the expandalone tries to get around that, but then those lead to another argument entirely.

  20. #20
    Network Hub FuriKuri!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    UK of A
    Posts
    235
    It's not odd, I spent a lot of time combing through Fallout 3 and I got everything out of it I could. I enoyed it thoroughly but at the end of it all I was 'done' with it. I want a new experience in the Fallout 3 universe, but not playing through the exact same stuff again just to earn the right to.

    Like, I enjoyed the soup for starter but that doesn't mean I want it for main and dessert too (make up your own tortured analogy here, it's fun!).

    And to repeat, I did learn from my mistake - I don't buy (this type of) DLC any more unless I'm really, positively, 100% sure I'm going to play through the game again.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •