Review the first generation of DLC

[Shifty Geezer]

This gen ushered in an exciting new world of DLC. From our first experience of the $5 Elder Scrolls horse armour, to the outcries against day one DLC especially when included on disk, the market has had years to settle. I'm wondering where it's landed, and is it a good place?

I've not bought a lot of DLC. I bought a Borderlands mission that was exceptional value, with hours of play time and full of content. I've bought LBP content which has been reasonable. Costumes tend to be expensive, but the level packs were good value IMO. On the flip side, on Tuesday I bought a £5 coop mission for Uncharted 3 that was only 40 minutes long, and that was it. No extra content at all, not even the map to play in survival coop games AFAICS. It seems DLC is extremely hit and miss. You've no idea what you're getting, and unlike games that are reviewed and you can read when a shooter only offers 5-6 hours solo play plus online, DLC isn't covered and you take your chances.

What are your experiences overall? Is DLC providing good value in expanding games you enjoy, or is it pricey? Is it often pointless? Is there any way to regulate the DLC market when there's no right to return and ensure consumers feel safer in trying DLC, or are they just going to have to cross their fingers?

 

[ERP]

I generally avoid it, but I thought the Skyrim expansions were good value.
From the numbers I've seen the vast majority of it doesn't pay for itself, though the exceptions seem to be ver profitable.

 

[Grall]

I liked the DLC for Dante's Inferno and Folklore. Skyrim also. Haven't played through Oblivion yet so I don't know what it's like, even though I got the GOTY pack with all the DLC included. I believe the Oblivion DLC is barely any content at all. Horse armor and a fricken orrery, whoop-de-fucking-doop, fat lot of gametime you'll wring out of that.

Team Fortress has tons and tons of DLC, of course, it's all either hats or weapons (or other items that are about as useful in-game as a hat), and I've collected some of it pretty religiously even though the game can make me so angry I'm on the verge of detonating like a nuke warhead. Ugh, lol.

DLC is indeed still largely hit-and-miss, there's certainly enough of day-1 on-disk DLC still, from publishers like Capcom for example. Their bullshit excuses are just as bullshit now as they were in the (recent) past, and there's even assclowns who'll back them up too. Not that I understand why, are they paid shills or something? *shrug* Not that I care. I don't buy on-disk DLC, it's a complete ripoff and super scummy behavior. Seriously, it's fraud really, there's no other word for it.

 

[ERP]

I guess I have no issue with on disc DLC, it saves day 1 patches for multiplayer games with day1 DLC.
It's just additional content you can choose to pay for or not, whether it's on the disc or downloaded makes no difference to me.

I haven't been a big DLC consumer, all I really care about is everything doesn't devolve into freemium, I think that changes the way games are designed and I think the freemium design paradigm is very anti consumer.

 

[Grall]

On-disk DLC is like buying a car only to find out you have to pay more to be able to actually use the already included car stereo. It's fucking heinous, that's what it is.

 

[AlphaWolf]

On-disk DLC is like buying a car only to find out you have to pay more to be able to actually use the already included car stereo. It's fucking heinous, that's what it is.

Actually on disk dlc is very much like buying a car. Try going to a dealership and buying a car that they advertise for as low as $14999. Spare tire, air con, power group, radio etc etc that's all extra. And you will find dealers have exactly 0 base models in stock, they can order one for you, but you won't be able to take advantage of the promotion, so you would actually wind up paying more...

If the game requires the dlc in some way to be playable I'd have an issue with it. I rarely buy the dlc, but when I have I've been mostly happy with the purchase. These are often games I put 20hrs or more into before the dlc. If $10 gets me another 3 or 4 I consider it good value.

 

[Davros]

I beleive the next big thing is the microtransactions to get people to pay for convenience in game (aka the selling of cheat codes more or less).
The first example of this is deadspace 3 hunt for parts or buy them.
People discovered what they believed to be a glitch so you could farm parts and there was discussion about if you used the glitch would e.a ban you and is it i.p theft ect
E.A said "no we intentionally made the game this way so people didnt have to use the store" A very relaxed attitude from e.a,.A company not known for its relaxed attitude.

Heres my take : they are being relaxed to get people used to paying for cheats and when they are, they will slowly start tightening up the rules, taking out the item farming, banning anyone who uses a glitch (or unintended action by the game) going after trainer makers saying people who use them are stealing ect
I believe this will happen one day

John Riccitiello already said something similar to "imagine the someone playing bf3 They run out of ammo then a dialog box appears buy ammo, it's not gouging the player because at this point they are invested in the game"

 

[BoardBonobo]

If it truly adds value to a game and extends or modifies the playability then I'm all up for purchasing DLC. If it's just adding costumes and shiny bits then I don't see the point. I guess if I was really wrapped up in the story line or absolutely engaged with the game then I might, but I think I'm too old to get that caught up anymore!!

I think the concept of DLC has reached a stasis but it's application is still gestating. It could offer quite a lot more than it does but I think the next generation will be the real proving ground.

 

[ERP]

That's more or less the freemium model, you can play but at a severe disadvantage to someone who pays.

The classic piece of freemium design was in some korean MMORPG, you could pay monthly for a an item that if you had it returned you to the entrance of the dungeon you died in rather than the nearest town. It's just a convenience item, but It's a brilliant piece of design because people with the item will pressure people without it to pay for it, because it's only convenient if everyone in the group has it.

The problem with freemium design is it dictates optimizing for revenue generation, not the optimal player experience.

 

[(((interference)))]

I pretty much avoid DLC, except when it's free (or a bonus for new copies).

I'm quite time poor so prefer starting a game that I haven't played rather than buying more content for a game I just finished.

I think the only DLC I paid for this gen was certain map packs for Halo 3 and Reach.

However I would have liked to get stuff like Undead Nightmare for RDR, which was probably my favourite game this gen - I don't know how it escaped my attention, might still get it.

 

[jimbo75]

I only ever buy it when it's in a whole bundle and very cheap. Then, next time I have a hard choice on what to buy, I go for the company that didn't screw me on DLC.

Fact is there is a lot of choice now and very few games are "must play" for me. Even previous "must play" games can be avoided, for example I was able to skip Napoleon TW due to my disgust at Creative Assembly's Empire TW disaster + money grubbing. I bought something else instead of it and waited to get the game and whole DLC for a couple of bucks a year later.

The Civ 5 DLC annoyed the crap out of me as well considering how broken the game was and still is.

 

[3dcgi]

I've bought DLC for multiple games and it is a little hit and miss so I've tried to look for reviews. I also only buy it after I've played the game for a while and confirmed I really enjoy it. Oftentimes this is after I've finished the game.

The concept of day one DLC annoys me and I haven't bought DLC I otherwise might have bought just because it was day one. Day one DLC should have been part of the game and the argument that it was able to be included because it didn't go through the same qualification process is lame. I interpret that to mean it's so short and simple it's not worth my money.

 

[Svensk Viking]

On consoles, I haven't bought any DLC. I only have DLC that's included with the game, or have waited for the "special edition" with all DLC included on disc.

Have boycotted some games until they're very cheap before I've gotten them due to the distaste I've gotten by DLC milking

 

[I.S.T.]

I buy DLC for games I enjoyed and if i felt the DLC was worth it. The only time I bought questionable DLC was the Vampire perk thing for Saints Row 3.

for PC, I've bought the Wolfpack for Payday: The Heist, the Oblivion DLC all in one pack(That tower in the north is fucking handy! Also, horse armor raises horse HP but just barely. Something a lot don't know), all the New Vegas DLC, a few of the DLCs for Killing Floor(Mainly Ash and the first weapons pack they put out. I bought a DLC for a friend as well but not for myself as I had already won it in a contest), and the extra episodes for both Serious Sam HD The Second Encounter and Serious Sam 3. Any other PC DLC I have was gotten for me by friends, or was obtained as part of a GOTY pack.

As for console, I've gotten the two Resident Evil 5 extra scenarios, and most of the stuff for the two Kelfings games for my mom. Don't think I've grabbed any more DLC than that but I could be wrong.

Sad that the RE5 DLC kind of sucked. I could have used those MS points on something else.

 

[Rangers]

Have not really bought much DLC, and what I have havent played much.

I think I bought a couple Gears Map packs.

I dont play much MP anyway, or RPG's, and most FPS DLC seems to just be map packs.

Gears 2 I think had campaign DLC, but I dont remember much except that it felt like a level that had been discarded, without any connection to the main story or anything.

But now that I'm remember, I believe "Raam's shadow" was Gears 3 campaign DLC and that was great.

Overall I think DLC catches way too much crap. I dont feel games are getting shortchanged at all because of it, they're just as long and fleshed out as ever if not more. If you like a game, I think it's natural you'd want more of it, and a good thing all around.

 

[Acert93]

My view of DLC varies depending on the game but I can say that a couple games have developed DLC models that hinder purchase. A great example is Madden: strip long time basic features and then add new content (e.g. the fantasy team stuff) that is a big part of the experience and make it essentially pay to play. I am sure from the nickle and dime perspective it works: People buy it because it is the only NFL game and the core gameplay is passable, they can retinker with core features and re-released them every 3-5 years to appear fresh, and then with DLC they are upselling. Most consumers aren't as picky as me--they are paying $60 for a new roster and won't put more than 10 hours into the game--and the DLC is a tax for actually wanting features above the core roster refresh.

It is really a pathetic model that, while I am sure fiscally makes a LOT of sense, irritates and prevents paying the $60 roster fee. Because it is no longer a $60 game but a $60 roster fee - some features I like + new features being pay-for-play.

EDIT: On the reverse I think the TRIALS DLC has been superb. It adds a TON of core gameplay that is fresh and unique and often better than the already core game. DLC when it extends and adds to the experience and is a good bang-for-buck it is a great deal. Paying say $15 for DLC that adds an hour into a game is a rip off.

 

[Colourless]

Bethesda brought us the joke that is "Horse Armor" back when the concept of DLC was brand new and the backlash pretty much showed that us gamers didn't like it. So they reconsidered things and have since produced some of the best examples of what DLC should be (Shivering Isles, Broken Steel, Point Lookout, Dragonborn). Its too bad that it seems like the rest of the industry thinks that "Horse Armor" was a brilliant idea.

 

[AlNom]

What are your experiences overall?

For Rock Band & Guitar Hero... well... $2 per song is expensive. On the other hand, I have a strong value towards them. *shrug* That's been a great ride for me...

Worthwhile DLC for me:
Gears of War 2 - All Fronts (all MP maps usable in Horde + SP chapter)
Bioshock 2 - Minerva's Den
Dead Space 2 - Severed
Mass Effect 2 - Overlord & Lair of the Shadow Broker

Sore points:
Halo 3 - Acert bullied me!
Halo Reach - Graham never bought them!
Gears of War 3 - no one has the maps to play horde

 

[manux]

I didn't buy any DLC this gen. Closest I came to dlc was stuff that came free with dragon age origins. I would be ok. buying extra content like a track on gran turismo I really, really would want to play. On the other hand I wouldn't buy enhanced sword of profit. Usually I wouldn't buy extra missions either as the main content on most games is already so repetitive that I feel bored.

 

[patsu]

I am indifferent to whether the DLC is on disc or download only.

The most bang for the bucks DLCs I own are from inFamous 2 (Festival of blood ?), Dark Souls, and LBPs. I also don't mind the GT5 ones.

I bought all the U3 DLCs but I didn't really have time to play them.

EDIT: I think the KZ2 and 3 maps are great too. Love them since each map is so different. And I used to play a lot.