Is DLC ruining the Gaming Industry?

[RancidLunchmeat]

I also don't understand how this is something new that just happened with this generation of console games.

I bought Civ IV the day it was released. I bought the first expansion pack for it the day it came to market as well. How are expansion packs for Civ IV any different than DLC? The only difference that I can see is that when I wanted to buy Beyond the Sword for Civ IV, I had to actually drive to the store to buy a physical CD rather than just download it from the comfort of my own home with the security of a protected and proprietary network. The same thing happened when I had to go buy that Pets expansion game for Sims.

My point is expansion packs have existed for a long time before this generation, they aren't exclusive to consoles. The only thing is that consoles have made them easier to access, which is a win for both the consumer and the developer.

Dregun, is your beef ultimately with DLC (the manner in which content is provided) or is your beef with expansion packs in general?

 

[Ethatron]

Dregun, is your beef ultimately with DLC (the manner in which content is provided) or is your beef with expansion packs in general?

You're sure you want to compare "classic" expansion packs with DLCs? Sometimes those were complete total-conversion style modification of a base game using only the game-engine and replacing all content, sometimes (in case of stategy titles) they modified the core rules to such a degree that an old games became a new entirely. Some expansion packs came with the same or more data than the original game.

I don't know that much DLCs (20 maybe), but just from reading and hearing they all seem to be in the gimmick-league and not in the expansion-league.

 

[Colourless]

Yes and no. Some DLC is brilliant that otherwise wouldn't be made being too small to be a separate expansion, but large enough that it has non trivial development costs. Some DLC is terrible though and shouldn't exist, thinking of anything that is either on disc, is game day, or is just an equipment upgrade, bascially anything that has trivial development costs, IMO.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

There are many kinds of DLCs, like the extra costume versions for the team members in Mass Effect 2, or extra cars and songs and stuff that can be purchased individually, which are completely different from expansion packs. These are new and serve a different purpose, see Assen's link for the explanation (it's a long read but interesting enough).

 

[Ghostz]

Riddle me this: why do people complain about something that can be easily remedied by voting with your dollar?

Publishers are going to get the proper value out of their investment. Overall, "gamers" need to grow-up out of entitlement. Inflation hasn't hit us yet like it has other industries. Getting the proper value out of content means delivering it by subliminal extension or you can take the alternative and pay 80 USDs for full retail releases.

That's capitalism: the industry knows there's no room for content retailing at 80 USD. You got to know going into every new release there's DLC in the pipework. Right then and there, you should be deciding if the core release is worth your dollars. That DLC is not free, you are not entitled to that 200k file that unlocks Horde mode or something. You have the free will to make those choices to buy the content or not.

 

[flynn]

Speak about a shitty idea...

I was going to post this link as well. Personally I don't think it's so bad an idea. I'd like to see a company trying this approach versus draconian DRM for a big title. If it doesn't work maybe it's time to give up the PC market altogether.

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'd love to meet your crack dealer

 

[Prophecy2k]

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...

THIS THIS... FRIGGIN THIS!!!!!

I too fell into the shitty "DLC to expand the gameplay experience trap" of that pos game... I'll tell you what though, i'll NEVER EVER buy anymore DLC for a PC game... especially not from Bioware!

For me it company like Bioware who get DLC wrong in my opinion (although i'm sure EA's influence in their strategic decisions is probably mostly to blame)... the pos buggy mess that was the DLC i bought for DA:O STILL won't let me load my save file because some pos bug that exists that they're too lazy to fix.

Then there's Mass Effect 2... ooooh don't get me started on that game!!!

I absolutely HATED how they so-called "improved" (rolleyes) the inventory system from ME1 to ME2 by pretty much tearing everything out of the game so that they could sell you all the content (weapons & armours) as DLC.... and NO don't go trying to say that they provided enough content in the main game and tha the DLC was extra content... as that's BS!

It's clear to me because ME1 has probably more than 10x the amount of weapons and armour for your characters than ME2 did.... but for ME2 you can buy the rest on the PSN store ... smh... it's BS!

/rant.

On the other hand there are games that have already been mentioned like LBP and GTAIV that have done DLC really well.

Also OP, i disagree that DLC is ruining the industry for the reasons you attempted to intimate... As aside from games like GTAIV where the DLC pretty much are whole additional expansion games (similar to what we used to get on PC), the vast amount of DLC avaible for most games doesn't afford no where near enough content to affect gamers' desires to see and buy a sequel or other games... i mostly buy worthwhile DLC for my fav games after i've finished them and on average they only add an extra hour or two to my time with the game, afterwhich time i'm bored and ready for another game.

IMHO, it companies who pull stunts like bioware with DA:O (on PC) and ME2 that are ruining the games (not really the industry, as i don't think their affect is significant on the industry as a whole).

that's my two cents anyways...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

For me it company like Bioware who get DLC wrong in my opinion (although i'm sure EA's influence in their strategic decisions is probably mostly to blame)... the pos buggy mess that was the DLC i bought for DA:O STILL won't let me load my save file because some pos bug that exists that they're too lazy to fix.

This isn't down to DLC though, but crappy QA and rushed products and sloppy attitudes, followed by a disregard to provide the service promised. My friend and I were shocked to find Voice Chat appeared in Age of Booty last night, a promised feature that has been absent since release on PSN. Apparently someone thought to click the 'enable voicechat' checkbox on the server. why has it taken this long to enable a feature that's listed as present in game? Sod all accountability - they can get away with it. Other games don't fair so luckily. Read the Borderlands forum for some angry posts from players who can't play the game they bought because of killer bugs. My friend has been stuck on Lego Harry Potter like many others because of a show-stopping bug, not yet patched and with no word of a patch. This one'll probably be fixed fairly quickly, but it should never have got through testing. And it's not limited to games. I don't think any piece of productivity software I have used hasn't had killer bugs, some of which get debugged, but all too often get ignored as a new release is rolled out and the old bug is joined by new bugs.

Whether companies are chasing dollars from DLC or sequels, makes no odds. Crap, buggy, poorly documented software is here to stay and only growing. Titles are bought on features, and listing features irrespective of whether they work or not is a way to generate sales.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

This isn't down to DLC though, but crappy QA and rushed products and sloppy attitudes, followed by a disregard to provide the service promised. My friend and I were shocked to find Voice Chat appeared in Age of Booty last night, a promised feature that has been absent since release on PSN. Apparently someone thought to click the 'enable voicechat' checkbox on the server. why has it taken this long to enable a feature that's listed as present in game? Sod all accountability - they can get away with it. Other games don't fair so luckily. Read the Borderlands forum for some angry posts from players who can't play the game they bought because of killer bugs. My friend has been stuck on Lego Harry Potter like many others because of a show-stopping bug, not yet patched and with no word of a patch. This one'll probably be fixed fairly quickly, but it should never have got through testing. And it's not limited to games. I don't think any piece of productivity software I have used hasn't had killer bugs, some of which get debugged, but all too often get ignored as a new release is rolled out and the old bug is joined by new bugs.

Whether companies are chasing dollars from DLC or sequels, makes no odds. Crap, buggy, poorly documented software is here to stay and only growing. Titles are bought on features, and listing features irrespective of whether they work or not is a way to generate sales.

Yes, and only extremely well funded developers generally have the time to actually do extensive QA and bugfixing (Bungie and Blizzard to name a couple). For the 90% of regular devs with publishing deals paying for the entire developement of their game, they have to get it out as quickly as possible.

When average price of a game remains ~50 USD, ROI on games continues to decrease, and ~70% of games will not make back the money invested, Publishers aren't going to want to increase their costs by factoring in another 4-6 months for QA and bugfixing as the previously mentioned devs above do.

DLC (as well as blockbusters like COD:MW2) allows gaming to survive at the ~50 USD price point. I blame the static price for ruining the game industry far more than I would blame something as beneficial as DLC (when done right). That's not to say there isn't bad DLC that can certainly taint ones opinion of DLC in general, however.

Regards,
SB

 

[Prophecy2k]

This isn't down to DLC though, but crappy QA and rushed products and sloppy attitudes, followed by a disregard to provide the service promised. My friend and I were shocked to find Voice Chat appeared in Age of Booty last night, a promised feature that has been absent since release on PSN. Apparently someone thought to click the 'enable voicechat' checkbox on the server. why has it taken this long to enable a feature that's listed as present in game? Sod all accountability - they can get away with it. Other games don't fair so luckily. Read the Borderlands forum for some angry posts from players who can't play the game they bought because of killer bugs. My friend has been stuck on Lego Harry Potter like many others because of a show-stopping bug, not yet patched and with no word of a patch. This one'll probably be fixed fairly quickly, but it should never have got through testing. And it's not limited to games. I don't think any piece of productivity software I have used hasn't had killer bugs, some of which get debugged, but all too often get ignored as a new release is rolled out and the old bug is joined by new bugs.

Whether companies are chasing dollars from DLC or sequels, makes no odds. Crap, buggy, poorly documented software is here to stay and only growing. Titles are bought on features, and listing features irrespective of whether they work or not is a way to generate sales.

Of course... you are indeed correct Shifty... alas i guess i'm just annoyed by the fact that had i NOT purchased the Dragon Age: Origins DLC, i'd have been able to continue playing my game (almost bug-free)... hence my issue was really with the effective "bug-introducing" DLC affecting my play... but then i also concede to the point that there will always be game-breaking bugs in games anyway... DLC or not...

 

[corduroygt]

most heavily used online mutiplayer service, which happen a be the only pay to play multiplayer

Well if you're paying for something, you're more inclined to use it, don't you think?

 

[Arwin]

Of course... you are indeed correct Shifty... alas i guess i'm just annoyed by the fact that had i NOT purchased the Dragon Age: Origins DLC, i'd have been able to continue playing my game (almost bug-free)... hence my issue was really with the effective "bug-introducing" DLC affecting my play... but then i also concede to the point that there will always be game-breaking bugs in games anyway... DLC or not...

For what it's worth, the DA:O patches are incoming. PC this week I believe, console versions are in certification.

 

[dobwal]

Well if you're paying for something, you're more inclined to use it, don't you think?

Yep, but if paying for DLC is somehow negatively affecting full game sales why isn't it showing up on the console where you have to pay for DLC and then pay annually for access to multiplayer. For multiplayer DLC that means being hit twice. Under those circumstances why hasn't the 360 attachment rate suffered.

360 has the highest attachment rate for full sale games but it probably has the highest attachment rate of DLC. It hard to say one negatively affects the other when they aren't inversely related.

 

[BadTB25]

So two future fighting games that I was extremely excited about, but will be off my buy list because of BS DLC.
Marvel vs Capcom Infinite that has 6 DLC characters (only if you get the Deluxe version) and Injustice 2 (burnt too many times by the studio).

While I'm OK with skins being DLC (rather they be unlockable), it is utterly crap that these studios are resorting to sku barriers in character selection. Especially when it comes to fighting games where character choice can be a factor in match ups.

Inevitably, I expect that there will be GOTY editions of both games less than a year post release so I may get those in the end.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You call it BS, but how else can companies charge more for games that cost increasingly more to make? If these games were $80 day one with all content, would you and everyone else still buy them as if they were $60? Such DLC actually benefits consumers in that it's more PAYG, only having to spend money on content as you want it. Imagine a fighting game with a roster of 20 characters. Option one is to sell the game for $80 with all 20 available. Option 2 is to make the game F2P or low priced, $5 say, with $4 per character. You can then choose to buy all of them for the $80, or buy just a few you really want for far cheaper. I don't see a problem with that.

The only time it's genuinely an issue is when content is balanced as pay-to-win, so the best gear/characters/etc have to be bought, especially when the prices are bonkers. Or I guess where the initial content is truly spartan. But if it's just a game's worth of content spread over multiple purchases, that has to be a good thing.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You call it BS, but how else can companies charge more for games that cost increasingly more to make? If these games were $80 day one with all content, would you and everyone else still buy them as if they were $60? Such DLC actually benefits consumers in that it's more PAYG, only having to spend money on content as you want it. Imagine a fighting game with a roster of 20 characters. Option one is to sell the game for $80 with all 20 available. Option 2 is to make the game F2P or low priced, $5 say, with $4 per character. You can then choose to buy all of them for the $80, or buy just a few you really want for far cheaper. I don't see a problem with that.

The only time it's genuinely an issue is when content is balanced as pay-to-win, so the best gear/characters/etc have to be bought, especially when the prices are bonkers. Or I guess where the initial content is truly spartan. But if it's just a game's worth of content spread over multiple purchases, that has to be a good thing.

If you're going to go the DLC route with DLC that actually affects competitive gameplay, you need to be very careful. This goes beyond player base segregation (such as map packs) as even if you do not own the DLC you will be competing against people that have the DLC.

I feel that, it is more acceptable if the base game is free versus when you have to pay for the base game.

In the F2P example, it is expected that the free base version of the game may be at a disadvantage to people that are willing to pay. In the P2P (pay to play) version, you could be at a disadvantage unless you pay even more. When paying for a game, expectations are that everyone would be on equal footing.

That's why I like F2P models like Smite or Killer Instinct, with Smite having the better model (you can still earn additional characters for free). The base game is free with a limited selection of characters. Sometimes the selection of characters rotates week by week to give people a chance to try multiple different characters. Then you have the option to purchase characters one by one or all of them. Buying all characters would be equivalent in price and concept to the P2P model of buying the base game. Again Smite has the better model as if you choose to buy all characters you also are buying all future character releases versus Killer Instinct where you can buy all characters for a given Season.

P2P models which include DLC that can give a competitive advantage are the absolute worst, IMO. Note: for co-operative play I think it's perfectly fine for the most part. Alternatively, if there's a way to earn those extra characters in game without paying, that'd also be acceptable. I have no idea if the 2 games BadTB25 mentioned have that option or not.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you're going to go the DLC route with DLC that actually affects competitive gameplay, you need to be very careful.

Indeed. As I'm sure I've properly already said in this years old thread (!), DLC isn't inherently bad, but how it's implemented. I guess DLC could be ruining gaming if devs/pubs are misusing it. Nearly 7 years from the OP though, how bad have things really got? My latest purchase was SWBF for sale as a download with all the DLC for £20ish. I guess others spent major money on it and have different feelings about DLC and season passes and the like.

 

[BadTB25]

You call it BS, but how else can companies charge more for games that cost increasingly more to make? If these games were $80 day one with all content, would you and everyone else still buy them as if they were $60? Such DLC actually benefits consumers in that it's more PAYG, only having to spend money on content as you want it. Imagine a fighting game with a roster of 20 characters. Option one is to sell the game for $80 with all 20 available. Option 2 is to make the game F2P or low priced, $5 say, with $4 per character. You can then choose to buy all of them for the $80, or buy just a few you really want for far cheaper. I don't see a problem with that.

The only time it's genuinely an issue is when content is balanced as pay-to-win, so the best gear/characters/etc have to be bought, especially when the prices are bonkers. Or I guess where the initial content is truly spartan. But if it's just a game's worth of content spread over multiple purchases, that has to be a good thing.

I've bought and played games that had DLC in the past with no issues, but in a fighting game, character choice can influence the outcome of matches. I'm not convinced at all that these companies are not making money of the "regular" $60 price that would cover the cost of the game and DLC work. Especially when less than a year later, Netherealms and Capcom, release the GOTY/Ultimate edition of games.

IMO, the money they make with the additional $30 they want for the Deluxe addition for 6 DLC characters is the risk they take of not making any money off me as a consumer. I'd rather wait for the inevitable price drop that will include all characters and miss out on a few months of play. They can make money in other ways like "LE Steelbox with Statues Collectors Editions Sountrack Included" versions.

I'm minimally OK with DLC skins being paid DLCs, but loathe actual characters stuck behind these paywalls. It's pretty much tied in the practices I hate the most in modern games and is tied with pre-order bonuses linked to specific outlets and Season passes for reasons I either skip altogether or "wait for a sale".

 

[Shifty Geezer]

IMO, the money they make with the additional $30 they want for the Deluxe addition for 6 DLC characters is the risk they take of not making any money off me as a consumer.

And as a business, they'll observe the impact in sales of going this route and decide if the lost customers outweigh the increased profit per owner or not, and price accordingly. By releasing a GOTY version later, they can capitalise on the increased value to their core audience, who'll pay more to play now, and then increase total revenue with a price drop down the line. It's really just business as usual.

I'd rather wait for the inevitable price drop that will include all characters and miss out on a few months of play.

Like me! Although that's a bugger with online shooters which always pit new players against the seasoned veterans who humiliate and destroy you and make those first weeks pretty torturous.

They can make money in other ways like "LE Steelbox with Statues Collectors Editions Sountrack Included" versions.

There's only so much they can make that way. This is why they use multiple options. 1) Overpriced collectibles for the mugs. 2) Full price day one release with future DLC/Season Passes to milk their core fans. 3) GOTY editions for tight-wads and cheapskates. Missing any of these means missing a revenue stream.

I'm minimally OK with DLC skins being paid DLCs, but loathe actual characters stuck behind these paywalls. It's pretty much tied in the practices I hate the most in modern games and is tied with pre-order bonuses linked to specific outlets and Season passes for reasons I either skip altogether or "wait for a sale".

I think preorder bonuses are a different evil. That and platform-specific DLC.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Haha. When I saw this thread was revived, I thought it was going to be about this article from last week:

https://consumerist.com/2017/04/19/...es-make-off-dlc-and-add-ons-around-5b-a-year/

Apparently, no.. it's just