Is DLC ruining the Gaming Industry?

[Dregun]

It might sound weird but I think playing online and DLC is ruining game sales as we know it.

I'm going to show the old way and then the new way and see if you agree with my observation.

THEN
Guitar Hero- Played all the songs, got good at them and they are fun but getting a little bored playing the same songs over and over again. New GH game is coming out and it has all of these new songs available - Buy new game for $50-$60.

NOW
Guitar Hero/ Rockband - Played all the songs, got good at them and they are fun but getting a little bored playing the same songs over and over agin. New GH game is coming out and it has all of these new songs available - Instead spend $20 for some songs and save some money.

THEN
Need For Speed is out, played all the tracks and tuned all the cars; got some good track times too but getting a little bored playing it all the time. New NFS game is comming out and it has all these new tracks and some new cars - Buy new game for $50- $60

NOW
Need For Speed is out, played all the tracks and tuned all the cars; got some good track times too but getting a little bored playing it all the time. New NFS game is comming out and it has all these new tracks and some new cars -Instead spend $20 on some new tracks/modes/cars and save some money

THEN
FPS - Single Player & Existing Maps/Missions
RPG - Single Player & Existing Maps/Missions
Action Games - Single Player & Existing Maps/Missions

NOW
FPS - Multiplayer & Maps/Gear/Weapons DLC
RPG - Single Player & Maps/Missions DLC
Action Games - Multiplayer & Maps/Missions DLC

Basically what I have seen is that playing online and the ability to add to your game with small monetary purchases has made it extremely easy for people to not buy newer versions of games. I mean if Madden offered the ability to download new rosters and stats would people have that big of a reason to buy a new version of Madden every year? EA has already instituted a "pay to play" so to speak so that used sports games can't play online unless they pay a fee because EA thought they were losing profits from used games (outragous).

What are your thoughts? Have we the consumer sacraficed the oportunity for newer and better content for the sole purpose of getting lesser valuable content at a lesser cost?

Certain franchises are going to sell well because of the name alone, however other titles in my opinion are already suffering because DLC makes existing games worth more then newer games.

 

[Rangers]

No, but I think it is mostly a bit annoying, to me personally.

A good recent example is Alan Wake. A game which

Spoiler

had a cliffhanger ending

supposed to be solved by DLC. But the DLC itself is uncertain, only to continue if it sells enough. Look at what happened to Heavy Rain DLC (which was abruptly stopped). I felt a bit ripped off by AW. I know some games leave the ending ambiguous in setup of a sequel, but in that case at least each game has to be self contained and it's not really as bad or indefinite.

That bothers me. At least before a game had to be self contained, story wise. Now the story can be "too be continued in DLC" which may never arrive. That bothers me.

Overall, I have not yet really experienced "good" DLC, besides the traditional MP map pack. Gears 2 DLC I was excited for, because it was actually a single player level, but even still it has to take place essentially outside the story, and though I bought the DLC, after all the reviews basically called it an unfinished level thrown in, I lost much interest and never even completed it.

Edit: Oh, haha, I didn't even thoroughly read your post and just assumed it was the old "DLC sucks cause it's a ripoff from greedy corporations" type thing. When that wasn't the gist of your post at all. Oh well, I guess I'll let my post stand anyway.

 

[eastmen]

To be honest , i think shipping buggy pos games when they aren'tready is a bigger problem. I'd take dlc over broken games any day

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I don't understand your point.

I don't see where Gears DLC is preventing Gears 2 or Gears 2 DLC is preventing Gears 3 development, etc.

Wouldn't that have to be the case for your worries to be justified? It seems to me that developers are giving us DLC as added value to the original purchase while working on the sequel. I think this is fantastic because it keeps people interested in the series so there isn't such a large gap between the releases.

I'm all in favor of DLC. I loved the Borderlands DLC, and the GTA IV DLC just about completely revitalized that game, and these are serialized DLC which are almost stand alone games. I'm not talking about just map packs. But I don't think they prevented the development of Borderlands2 or GTA V.

 

[Svensk Viking]

I have skipped and will skip getting some games because of the DLC...May get some of them if they get a special edition with all of them included

I play most games on my PC now, where most of the DLC is free(made the mistake of playing Prince of Persia though, where the DLC never hit PC and it is so obvious how they handled the DLC)

One thing I hate too with it, is that you are bound to Xbox Live...If the xbox breaks and MS kills Live on the 360, the DLC is gone

 

[tirminyl]

I never thought of DLC as something that prevents me from purchasing the next installment. Yes, it is certainly something that extends the life of a game and keeps its fans wanting more solidifying their purchase of the next game.

The issue I run into is day one DLC that is cut (or purposely held) content from a game thereby leaving me with an incomplete game. If the DLC is significant enough then I would purchase it but a majority isn't worth it IMO.

 

[AlNom]

THEN
Guitar Hero- Played all the songs, got good at them and they are fun but getting a little bored playing the same songs over and over again. New GH game is coming out and it has all of these new songs available - Buy new game for $50-$60.

NOW
Guitar Hero/ Rockband - Played all the songs, got good at them and they are fun but getting a little bored playing the same songs over and over agin. New GH game is coming out and it has all of these new songs available - Instead spend $20 for some songs and save some money.

I suppose this depends. I'm always on the look out for new songs I've never listened (or didn't know the name). So in that sense, DLC + import feature is awesome. The new game will undoubtedly have more gameplay features or better GUI.

On the other hand, I'm so invested in RB that I couldn't be bothered to continue on with GH5 or 6 (at full price) despite having World Tour. They missed a big opportunity with DLC & Metallica though. But now I'm finding myself a bit busy at the moment, so I'm not sure if I'll get RB3 on day 1. And well, they haven't said much about forward compatibility & which songs won't be importable.

THEN
FPS - Single Player & Existing Maps/Missions
RPG - Single Player & Existing Maps/Missions

NOW
FPS - Multiplayer & Maps/Gear/Weapons DLC
RPG - Single Player & Maps/Missions DLC

The issue you raise doesn't affect me here since I'm not that big on MP. If they bring back a significant number of old MP maps for Beast in Gears 3 or Halo Reach MP, that's great, but not a big deal. The massive DLC pack for Gears 2 was pretty cool for Horde.

With RPGs... it's pretty much all about progressing the story and (new/old) protagonist anyway, so I don't see why DLC would hurt sales of sequels. They at least try to keep some interest or mind-presence in the interim.

Then again, I'm not so sure MP maps will be a huge deterrent for anyone to buy the next game in any series unless the gameplay itself was a complete failure.

 

[Grall]

I don't think it's RUINING gaming per se, but it's certainly making gaming more expensive.

Not only do we have to buy the game itself, then there's the matter of the - often very overpriced - additional download shit released for it, and the game itself may be intentionally quite short to begin with to make you hungrier and more willing to pay extra for the DLC dessert.

DLC is Bobby Kotick's wildest and most extreme wetdream (although I feel slimy and disgusted just by imagining what he might actually get off of in real life), and other greedy fat shitbag CEOs like him. Particulary the kind of "DLC" where what you download is nothing but a key a few kB in size that unlocks something already stored on the game disc is a particulary bad ripoff for gamers. That's essentially fraud, IMO, and I'm surprised it's legal to begin with.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I never thought of DLC as something that prevents me from purchasing the next installment. Yes, it is certainly something that extends the life of a game and keeps its fans wanting more solidifying their purchase of the next game.

The issue I run into is day one DLC that is cut (or purposely held) content from a game thereby leaving me with an incomplete game. If the DLC is significant enough then I would purchase it but a majority isn't worth it IMO.

There are some cases where day 1 DLC is good however.

If the Day 1 DLC is free, and a code packaged with your copy of the game unlocks it. That gives people incentive to buy new rather than used. And if they buy used, the developer can still recoup some of their investment from the used sale if the person buys the DLC that new purchasers get for free.

DLC is a basically another way for developers to try to recoup their investment in a game as well as an attempt to avoid raising the price of games above 50-60 USD.

In the past buy game new and that's all a developer will get for that game. Used games bring in Zero revenue.

With DLC. Developers get revenue from New game. Revenue from DLC which is much less costly to develope. Revenue from Used games through the sale of DLC. End result better chance the developer will survive to make another game, as well it isn't absolutely imperative that you raise the initial price of the game to match inflation if you have a good chance to still make a profit when you add DLC into the mix.

So in many ways DLC is saving the industry as well as preserving the price of games.

Regards,
SB

 

[Florin]

The gaming industry is ruining the gaming industry.

DLC specifically seems to have more cons than pros to it. Personally I mostly don't bother as it is often limited to multiplay stuff anyway.

Also, there's quite a few people out their who base their game buying economics on the intent to resell after playthrough. It's not as simple as saying the existence of used games is lost revenue. That original sale might not have happened in the first place.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Is DLC ruining the Gaming Industry?

No, consoles are.

 

[Rolf N]

This longetivity game ups the competitive pressure. If every game did it to the same extent, nothing would change, but that isn't case. Some studios are better at it for a number of reasons, and they will chew away at the share of the studios not (yet) on the bandwagon.

I don't think DLC per se is a drain on the market. Multiplayer is. Single-player DLC rarely represents more than a few hours of play time, rarely changes mechanics in a significant way and is usually overpriced from a pure new-things-to-do/money angle. I.e. if you're already burnt out on a game, single-player DLC won't revert that.

Multiplayer though, and MP DLC, that really could be a problem, and in more than one way. Quality of single-player campaigns has dropped significantly this generation, and the games get away with it because that's no longer the basis for sales.

 

[Rodéric]

unfinished game + DLC = evil
finished game with optionnal DLC = ok, you gotta pay for work...

(At the moment I don't plan to buy any DLC, I hope it'll die and we'll go back to complete games and free updates, like Valve does...)

 

[Richard]

The issue you raise doesn't affect me here since I'm not that big on MP. If they bring back a significant number of old MP maps for Beast in Gears 3 or Halo Reach MP, that's great, but not a big deal. The massive DLC pack for Gears 2 was pretty cool for Horde.

I believe his point was that once you release (paid) DLC for MP you're fracturing the community. Some people will be forced to buy the DLC just to play with their friends (good for companies) while other people won't buy the DLC and get pissed their server population start shrinking. A portion of these might be ticked off enough to skip your next game (bad for companies).

TBH, I still think it's a net positive for companies. Besides, almost everyone is doing the DLC content-already-on-the-disc stunt so even more profit is rolling in. Until the masses vote with their wallet this will never abate.

So, to the OP: I don't think DLC is hurting the gaming industry; I do think it's hurting gamers.

 

[dragonelite]

No, consoles are.

I see what you did there.

If its free it's always good but asking $15 for a map pack is to much if you ask me.

 

[BRiT]

unfinished game + DLC = evil
finished game with optionnal DLC = ok, you gotta pay for work...

Exactly this.

There are several games where the DLC is perfectly acceptable and priced accordingly. The games Gears of War 2, Borderlands, Fallout 3 all come to mind. Gears 2 has an exceptional value, for 800 MS Points ($8 - $10 US) you can get the All Fronts Collection, 19 multi-player maps and 1 extra campaign Chapter. That's one hell of a bargain.

There are several games where the DLC is not acceptable or priced accordingly. The most obvious game to me is MW2 (COD: Modern Warfare 2). They are charging $15 for 3 new maps and 2 old maps which weren't that great.

 

[Bigduo209]

Well as far as a means for a pure profit scheme, and holding back content for DLC/Pre-order then it's a definite yes.

As a means for adding significantly new content for a game (Burnout/Fallout3/GTA) and adding said content to the original game for a GOTY edition then no, I don't think so.

 

[Grall]

As a means for adding significantly new content for a game (Burnout/Fallout3/GTA) and adding said content to the original game for a GOTY edition then no, I don't think so.

Really?

You gotta admit Burnout is one of the most cited examples of good use of DLC, and a game that is held in very high regard - and to a large extent thanks to its well-designed and bountiful DLC.

 

[Bigduo209]

Really?

You gotta admit Burnout is one of the most cited examples of good use of DLC, and a game that is held in very high regard - and to a large extent thanks to its well-designed and bountiful DLC.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I gave 2 aspects of how DLC is ruining and isn't ruining gaming so it really varies between devs/publisher on it's results.

 

[Danalys]

I'm more annoyed by pre order DLC myself. Knowing what's actually going on in your country is one thing that isn't easy. Then if you do decide one pre order is better (possibly forgoing other content forever) do you go out of your way to go to that shop. It messes up the achieving of content for when it becomes abandon-ware or out of copyright as well.

For things like Rock Band the "levels" should come free with CDs or digital downloads of music just as an incentive for people to buy them. Harmonix get a small piece of the pie from those sales. Maybe you download models animations and backgrounds for your favourite bands as sort of avatars.

If someone perfected the driving game then they might aswell just release new car and tracks for it as DLC. Maybe when they've got enough to fill a disc release an expansion disk.

I don't think DLC is ruining the industry in a business sense, because people will buy the map packs etc and then buy the sequel aswell. I've only really bought extra content for Little Big Planet but that stuff carries over to the sequel so no problems.