Is DLC ruining the Gaming Industry?

[aaronspink]

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.

I have no problem with them asking $15 for a map pack IF they allow community maps to be created. If you are going to monopolize maps and ALSO charge for them, they should be shot.

 

[aaronspink]

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...)

Some DLC makes sense, like the way bioware used to do DLC where it was additional work that they did after release. But yeah, a lot of the DLC these days (looking at you bioware) are parts of the game that should of been shipped with the product. Basically, if you are diverting resources to do DLC before the game releases, you are evil.

 

[Akumajou]

No, consoles are.

DLC aka game expansions seem to come from the old PC practice of shipping a game and then a couple months later charging $30 to $40 dollars for more missions, weapons ectera, except this time alot of those practicing DLC are former PC devs that are making games on consoles and is giving console devs the idea that its ok to make DLC instead of revising the game with a sequel.

DLC is ruining console games because alot of these "devs" will actually cut fcontent from the final game so they can charge for it and will actually have this content included in the disc, yet you cannot access it unless you spend the money to get the code that enables access to that content and worst of all, specially if your are in XBox land you have to be connected to XBL to access your already paid for DLC content.

Online is also ruining console games because its forcing game devs to fear game review sites and magazines, you know the ones that deduct points from the score a game gets if it does not have an "online mode" and is actually forcing game devs to dumb down every game they make by having some kind of deathmatch mode even though the game is not really suited for it.

Online can be a good option but it should not be the requirement or the standard or every game is doomed to be the same and we all know that gamers are fickle, they will just go back to a certain game's online mode and ignore others no matter how much hype it has.

 

[assen]

I will not tire linking this article on price segmentation; this is all that is to DLC, really:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html

 

[findhorn_elves]

Yes DLC is ruining the Games because they cause bugs and generate frustration take for example assassins creed 2 you need internet connection so the game can save ?!?! im not playing an MMORPG

 

[BRiT]

Yes DLC is ruining the Games ... take for example assassins creed 2 you need internet connection so the game can save ?!?! im not playing an MMORPG

That's not DLC. That's DRM (on the PC).

 

[Dregun]

I started this topic by taking a reply I was making about the developer of Motorstorm talking about slumping sales of racing games and how I believed a majority of it is caused by DLC and online play.

I love playing Online, I really really do; but how can we not look at MW and see how much Online play has changed the way we as consumers purchase products. It goes beyond gamers not buying the next installment of a particular franchise because they can currently play online with the one they have. It's more about those people not buying new or other franchises because they still put so much time into playing MW and such.

So many people are logging so many ours playing MW2 online that it is taking time away from the possiblity of those same gamers playing/buying other games.

As far as DLC is concerned I have rarely found any DLC (free or not) that was really worth the time and or effort to download and install let alone pay for. In my opinion DLC should only consist of things that will enhance the game you currently purchased, not extend it to be a different game (confused?)

Racing games should have DLC that includes new cars, upgrades - No new tracks
FPS games should have DLC that includes new weapons, items - No new maps
RPG games should have new spells, weapons etc etc - No new maps or missions.

Save the new maps (the things that take the longest) into building a new game and expanding the franchise. Once it becomes DLC you are now a part of the problem that may prevent others from purchasing your next game.

 

[BRiT]

As far as DLC is concerned I have rarely found any DLC (free or not) that was really worth the time and or effort to download and install let alone pay for.

You're obviously not a console gamer. DLCs for consoles have none of that laborious time and effort required.

Racing games should have DLC that includes new cars, upgrades - No new tracks
FPS games should have DLC that includes new weapons, items - No new maps
RPG games should have new spells, weapons etc etc - No new maps or missions.

That's a sure fire way to get gamers to stop playing games. Why not just stop making any and all games?

 

[assen]

Keep in mind that DLC bypasses retail, and thus produces a higher profit margin than shipping the equivalent content as a new game/disc-based expansion.

 

[NRP]

Many still people play MW2 online, yet there hasn't been a lot of "required" DLC for the game, so MW2 doesn't really support your argument.

People buy and continue to play good games. So I'd say a lack of good games is what's hurting the game industry. Blaming DLC or other ancillary things is kind of missing the mark IMO.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Yeah, that makes no sense. Going back to my previous examples, of the three Borderland DLC's, they all did what you don't want. They extended the game in a fundamental way. Mad Moxie added a "horde" mode type of arena game, Dr. Zed's added a completely different Zombie Island level, and Fort Knoxx added a completely different post-conclusion level.

Is it really your position that those should have been sold off as separate new games, rather than just DLC? Or that Gearbox should have somehow worked to combine them all into Borderlands2 and sold them as a new stand alone game rather than DLC?

I don't get it. It was a better value to the consumer to pay $30 (or whatever) for the three of them than to pay $60 for some combined version of Borderlands 2. It was also more profitable for Gearbox. Seems like a win/win.

In fact, your entire position seems to run counter to commonly held beliefs that consumers get upset when sequels are rushed and should have just been released as extra levels in DLC.

 

[liolio]

I'm would not say DLC are killing the business stupid execs do...
I just bough DA.O (for cheap and second hand hopefully) to realize that the some critical bugs are still not fixed while they sell some DLC...
I will go with it but still how can you ship a game where one of the main attribute (dex) is broken...

 

[Dregun]

You're obviously not a console gamer. DLCs for consoles have none of that laborious time and effort required.



That's a sure fire way to get gamers to stop playing games. Why not just stop making any and all games?

BRiT..my point was it wasn't worth the Time or Effort it required (even if it wasn't much!)

Also, back in the PS2 days I don't remember people not playing games because DLC wasn't available?

Yeah, that makes no sense. Going back to my previous examples, of the three Borderland DLC's, they all did what you don't want. They extended the game in a fundamental way. Mad Moxie added a "horde" mode type of arena game, Dr. Zed's added a completely different Zombie Island level, and Fort Knoxx added a completely different post-conclusion level.

Is it really your position that those should have been sold off as separate new games, rather than just DLC? Or that Gearbox should have somehow worked to combine them all into Borderlands2 and sold them as a new stand alone game rather than DLC?

I don't get it. It was a better value to the consumer to pay $30 (or whatever) for the three of them than to pay $60 for some combined version of Borderlands 2. It was also more profitable for Gearbox. Seems like a win/win.

In fact, your entire position seems to run counter to commonly held beliefs that consumers get upset when sequels are rushed and should have just been released as extra levels in DLC.

Here is where you and I are looking at things differently, you're assuming I would rather them take those lousy three maps and release a second game for it. Thats not the case, you just got ripped off by paying $30 for 3 maps when they could have just included those maps (along with probably 6-8 others) along with other new content, stories, characters etc etc for $60.

Case in point, Rockband.
Cost per song $1.99 DLC
Rockband 2 Game has 84 Songs

So if you were to buy Rockband 2 you get 84 songs and a slightly different game for $60. Or you could have bought 84 songs for a total of $168 and kept Rockband 1.

DLC is a double edge sword for game companies because they are trying to get quick and easy profits off of DLC that in turn could potentially derail sales of their newer games. This also takes developers away from working on newer games so they can release DLC.

All this is doing is instead of people getting mad that a developer released a sequal with poor quality that we wasted $60 on we instead don't feel so ripped off by being nickle and dimed for incrimental additional content that costs us more for less in the end. Those incrimental purchases take away money that could have been used to purchase a complete game. If you were to buy DLC for 2 games and spent $30 for each game for DLC that means you just spent enough money that you could have bought a completely different game.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

All this is doing is instead of people getting mad that a developer released a sequal with poor quality that we wasted $60 on we instead don't feel so ripped off by being nickle and dimed for incrimental additional content that costs us more for less in the end. Those incrimental purchases take away money that could have been used to purchase a complete game. If you were to buy DLC for 2 games and spent $30 for each game for DLC that means you just spent enough money that you could have bought a completely different game.

I don't know what game in particular you're so upset about, other than Rock Band (and what did you expect from that game anyway?), but I haven't purchased a single sequel with poor quality that was then "made up for" or "fixed" by buying additional DLC.

Sure, instead of buying all the Borderlands DLC, I could have bought a completely different game. But I didn't want a completely different game, I wanted more Borderlands with my character and my friends' characters. Would I have liked Borderlands2 instead of the DLC? Probably not, because of the familiarity with my character.. I didn't want to start over, I wanted to continue.

I also understand that for some people, making incremental purchases might prevent them from having the resources to purchase new titles. But that isn't the case for all of us, and those that are on a tight budget should manage their finances accordingly. It's not like new games are sprung on us at the last minute. We know release schedules and reviews and can make informed decisions as to whether to buy DLC or save to buy a new game. Just like adults do with any other purchasing decision. It's not unique to DLC or console games.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

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.

No, I don't. DLC is extending an existing game's, which is not the same as a sequel which should extend the whole game experience. A perfect example is LBP. There has been shedloads of DLC content, none of which precludes releasing LBP2 which is a far bigger, better game. If a sequel to a game is nothing more than the origianl game engine with some new content, releasing it as DLC instead of as a full-clown disk release means a cheaper option for developres and buyers, plus the opportunity to roll out incremental content instead of fans of the game having to wait a year or more for a content pack disguised as a new game. If the developers want a real sequel that'll sell to existing franchise owners, they'll actually create an improved game experience that offers something DLC doesn't.

In the end, it's a win-win, giving developers and buyers more options. As long as the developers don't underprice the DLC, they're no more likely to lose money on than on a disc release.

 

[liolio]

Speak about a shitty idea...

 

[Dregun]

No, I don't. DLC is extending an existing game's, which is not the same as a sequel which should extend the whole game experience. A perfect example is LBP. There has been shedloads of DLC content, none of which precludes releasing LBP2 which is a far bigger, better game. If a sequel to a game is nothing more than the origianl game engine with some new content, releasing it as DLC instead of as a full-clown disk release means a cheaper option for developres and buyers, plus the opportunity to roll out incremental content instead of fans of the game having to wait a year or more for a content pack disguised as a new game. If the developers want a real sequel that'll sell to existing franchise owners, they'll actually create an improved game experience that offers something DLC doesn't.

In the end, it's a win-win, giving developers and buyers more options. As long as the developers don't underprice the DLC, they're no more likely to lose money on than on a disc release.

Shifty, always value your opinion but I don't think you're looking at the current state of the video game industry as a whole to see what I'm saying..then again I might be the one looking at it wrong.

Basically I don't understand how 6 years ago a title like Uncharted 2 would have sold gangbusters...yet today it's outsold by titles like MW2 that by all intents and purposes wasn't a very good game. Why? Is it because people have enough content with current games being released with DLC that thier library of games is shrinking? Are we as consumers sacraficing quality over quantity due to DLC? Are we as consumers basing a games worth soley on online play and possiblity of DLC that we gave up caring about polished single player gaming experiences that leave us wanting nothing more then to play the sequal?

The state of the gaming industry right now makes me very worried for the future, it started with the Wii's success; when a system as underpowered and gimicky as it outsold machines with better designs and possibilities. When shovelware was produced on a scale surpassing that which was available on the PS2 and of quality worse then the PS2 that developers and consumers started to expect less. We began to say, I'll play this game that isn't all that great and buy your DLC for it instead of buying a different game in the future.

Everybody is quick to blame the economy for slumping sales of software when I think we should be looking at the current way these developers are trying to sell products to the market. I know guys who gave up other things so they could continue playing video games and I'm sure others have given up video games so they could put that money towards something else. The Wii's success shows people are willing to buy video games so please tell me why software sales are in a slump? Wait, not all games are in a slump; MW2 sold TONS of software...so why arn't other quality games?

That is why I believe online play and DLC is destroying the video game market, we as consumers stop buying new games because we can still play our old games online and buy DLC to keep us interested in it.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Basically I don't understand how 6 years ago a title like Uncharted 2 would have sold gangbusters...yet today it's outsold by titles like MW2 that by all intents and purposes wasn't a very good game. Why?

You can't seriously believe that DLC has anything at all to do with the sales difference...

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Basically I don't understand how 6 years ago a title like Uncharted 2 would have sold gangbusters...yet today it's outsold by titles like MW2 that by all intents and purposes wasn't a very good game. Why? .

Because 6 years ago Uncharted 2 would have been a revolutionary leap forward in many areas and today it is just a bad to possibly mediocre game?

I'm sorry if you personally prefer Uncharted 2 over MW2, but it seems to me that neither game are DLC, they are both full bore complete sequels that cost full retail price.

So far, the only thing I can understand about what you have to say is that you like Rock Band (but dislike their business model) and prefer Uncharted 2 over MW2.

I'm not a fan of any of those games, but I'll tell you this: my neighbors are two ex-Army Rangers (mid 20s), and they spend about every waking minute playing MW2 and wouldn't touch Uncharted 2 with a ten-foot pole. Yes, two guys who were actually deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, who actually jumped out of helicopters and took fire and shot at the enemy. They seem to like MW2.

Sorry if it isn't your cup of tea. Don't see the relationship with DLC, though.

 

[dobwal]

DLC and online gaming is not killing software IMO.

My opinion might be different if the current gen console with the highest attachment rate of software didn't also have the most heavily used online mutiplayer service, which happen a be the only pay to play multiplayer. Fact is this is the first gen where DLC and online play has been readily available on way more games across multiple consoles and this gen has the best annual software sales on record.

Are we seeing software slump over the last year or so. Yes, but its kind of hard for me to ignore that we are in 5th year in the current generation and that software sales over a generation usually create a bell curve over time and not continual year over year growth until the start of a new generation.

Furthermore I can't see how anyone's opinion of Uncharted 2 versus MW2 is proof of anything but personal taste.

I also didn't notice the destruction of the video game market because every year I've been distracted by a handful of "must have" games delaying to a next year spring release because another handful "must have" games were determined to dominate the holiday season.