Is DLC ruining the Gaming Industry?

[BadTB25]

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

I didn't see this article when I posted my comments, but it adds a little weight to my opinion that we are getting fleeced. Some games I'm cool with being an early adopter like shooters because as Shifty said there can be a bit of a lead in skill gap.

One of the best DLC implementations this gen that I've seen was Halo 5. Almost every content that was released post launch has been free or obtainable via grinding in game.

I'd of taught that Capcom had learned their lesson with the lackluster launch of SFV.

 

[iroboto]

DLC is great for the industry and gamers.
The issue is that DLC is too generic a term to describe all the downloadable content available and thus I do believe that some DLC are better than others, and some distinctly worse.

The industry has changed so much since before we didn't have DLC. The rules no longer apply as they once did. Budgets are bigger, competition has never been tougher, number of titles released has never been higher, it's impossible for gamers to play all the best games released each year. There isn't enough time to accomplish this.

DLC provides methods in which companies can discount the base game to nearly free and get more opportunities to profit off the game by releasing full price DLC. Gamers benefit because they will undoubtedly get a second chance at a game they may have missed at release.

gamers benefit because DLC gives developers an opportunity to resolve deep rooted issues with the game and improve their product and have another run at selling the game to many audiences that may have passed on the title the first time around.

DLC is great for developers because it maximizes the investment in a product and lengthens the shelf life of their assets well before they are forced to release another title.

More importantly, DLC addresses the desire from gamers to get MORE from the game that they enjoy playing. Letting developers differentiate between what a sequel should be, as previously we have been using sequels as just a continuation of the same game; see EA Sports sequels vs See blizzard sequels.

Furthermore DLC if done right can continue to grow a community, something that is critical in this day of age where attention spans for games are for a few mere hours. if done right can completely bring change: see reaper of souls, the taken king, the frozen throne, even major strides for The division DLC and rise of tomb raider. Halo 5 is a great example to. The game keeps evolving even when you stopped playing. The community continues to grow.

The shelf life of a Product is now becoming one of the most important aspects of a game. Should you decide to be an eSport you cannot replace yourself every sequel. eSport games Demand permanence.

Lots to be happy about with DLC. As long as it's done right. It's far from ruining the industry. If it's done poorly people will naturally ignore it.

 

[Davros]

 

[xz321zx]

DLC should be combined with "NEW GAME PLUS" options, ideally just like in Borderlands 1, so core gamers get a lot of extra juice. ( Bad example = mass effect 2 )

I'd even try to re-tune the particle system when "NEW GAME PLUS X" is activated, so miniboss actions and average enemies can be rather numerous / difficult.

 

[xz321zx]

I'd even try to re-tune the particle system when "NEW GAME PLUS X" is activated, so miniboss actions and average enemies can be rather numerous / difficult.

Borderlands did this right because they already had the difficulty ramp-up implemented thanks to co-op, the same difficulty ramp system could be worthwhile addition to single player games even without co-op.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

DLC is great for the industry and gamers.

This is the important bit. I always find it curious when enthusiast consumers attack the industry or company that is providing the product that they are enthusiastically consuming. If the industry wasn't able to make money from the DLC model as they are now doing, the industry wouldn't be producing the product that people are so enthusiastically consuming. This is no different than when enthusiast car consumers complain about companies finally manufacturing vehicles with the specifications they want (V8, RWD, Manual transmission, whatever), but that they are priced at the top of the market with high profit margins.

If you don't want to pay for the full game and then pay for DLC later to get the additional characters (or maps or whatever), then wait until the "Game of the Year" addition comes out that includes all those things in one package at a lower price.

Lots to be happy about with DLC. As long as it's done right. It's far from ruining the industry. If it's done poorly people will naturally ignore it.

I'd say that recent reports show that DLC is what is keep the industry viable.

 

[BadTB25]

I'm not totally against DLC as they are really good cases for it as iroboto pointed out.

There are cases where I feel that the company is taking advantage of the consumer however and in those cases I will be either play the waiting game or skip out altogether.

Value is in the eye of the beholder, so yeah...subjective...lol

 

[MrFox]

random thoughts....

I think it depends on the DLC, and it depends on the game genre. Some DLC schemes are a bit exploitative and preying on gamers impulsivity. Others are interesting and episodic add-ons with lots of new assets. Others are superficial stuff without impacting the game. Some are bug fixes. Some are pay to win.

As long as the game is still complete without the DLC I don't see a problem. It's more money per title, so technically it's good for the industry. Gamers are always free to vote with their money on a case-by-case basis.

A few things worry me:

Patches are DLC and unavailable without logging to a service, it's a shitty planned obsolescence system. If reviewers would write their reviews at launch without patching, we'd eventually get well tested launch games like we used to have a decade ago. Some studios stand out with perfectly functional games at launch, while the usual suspects come out with glitchy crap very often as if it's the norm. It's up to gamers to reject this practice.

Also, we're seeing the major studios running away from making games as an art form. It's becoming much more profitable to make games as pure entertainment or competitive online games, and it makes DLC a logical business model to plan for. Imagine if star wars films would get some different or additional scenes as DLC. Han shoots first is a $5 add-on. Chewbacca is dyed pink for $5. Leia scantily clad the entire film for $10 DLC. A patch coming a month later that solve the VFX glitches. Your bluray film reverts back to the first version with glitched visual effects if you load it in a different bluray player or somehow can't log on to Disney.com.

I have a lot of respect for studios doing it correctly, the game that launch is the game that will be judged for it's merit. Then they can add episodic DLCs that continue the story, or full separate sequels. For games which are story/character driven this is the way to do it. For other genres like MOBA, massives, open worlds, and most online competitive genres, DLC are extending the life of the game and are very profitable with new maps, new weapons, characters, outfits, cars, etc... We're seeing more third parties focusing on the latter genres because it gives them much more than the initial $60 from each player. The worry is that it went from milking franchises (bad) to milking the same game (worse). It's good for studios profit, but it's bad for gamers who prefer story-driven single player games.

 

[iroboto]

I have a lot of respect for studios doing it correctly, the game that launch is the game that will be judged for it's merit. Then they can add episodic DLCs that continue the story, or full separate sequels. For games which are story/character driven this is the way to do it. For other genres like MOBA, massives, open worlds, and most online competitive genres, DLC are extending the life of the game and are very profitable with new maps, new weapons, characters, outfits, cars, etc... We're seeing more third parties focusing on the latter genres because it gives them much more than the initial $60 from each player. The worry is that it went from milking franchises (bad) to milking the same game (worse). It's good for studios profit, but it's bad for gamers who prefer story-driven single player games.

not all games lend well to the DLC story expansion route. But just like there was DLC for TLOU, and now there is TLOU 2. Being able to have control to determine when content should be add-on, and when it should be part of a new game is great thing. They can use that add-on content to provide preludes to the next sequel etc.
But I hear you, there's good and bad everywhere. Need to be picky about what you buy and not just buy blindly.

 

[Sigfried1977]

As long as I felt like I got a complete package without it I don't mind it at all. Thankfully I think that's been the case for an overwhelming majority of titles, too. Certainly of the ones I've played. The only game which left me with the feeling of having been ripped off in the last couple of years was Street Fighter V. That game did literally everything wrong in that regard. Seems like a bad habit of fighting games in particular. I mean I already know as much if not more of Capcom's pre-order and dlc plans regarding the next Marvel VS Capcom game as I do about the actual game itself. Then there's stuff like making iconic characters like Goro a pre-order bonus or a paid download in MKX. Evolved was another title which suffered greatly due to the way it's been chopped up and delivered.

Then of course there's head-scratching bs like this:

 

[Rodéric]

They are boosting companies profits but they are a customer nightmare...
SO, good for game makers, not that good for players.

 

[iroboto]

They are boosting companies profits but they are a customer nightmare...
SO, good for game makers, not that good for players.

"Good for game makers and bad for players" is ridiculous. You write as though game developers/publishers like they are a government entity/union or something. Profitability is the reason they continue to make games and the reason you still get to play them.

 

[Rodéric]

"Good for game makers and bad for players" is ridiculous. You write as though game developers/publishers like they are a government entity/union or something. Profitability is the reason they continue to make games and the reason you still get to play them.

You can make a profit while keeping the quality/content/$ ratio.
IMO, expansions offered more quality & content for less money compared to DLC.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Expansions are just a type of DLC; eg. Borderlands had great DLC (expansions). DLC != rip-off. DLC is just a means to sell more content, and the scope and pricing of that is infinitely flexible. Ergo DLC is not intrinsically good or bad for anyone. Overpriced DLC that doesn't sell is bad for gamers and game makers. Super cheap and generous DLC that gives more under the price the gamer would be happy to pay is good for gamers but bad for game makers. There are probably a lot more examples of DLC being weighted more in favour of company profits than consumer value, but that's true of every healthy business everywhere*, and a proper discussion of free market economics doesn't belong in this forum.

* Where you get crazy good value as a consumer tends to be in businesses over-competing and driving each other to bankruptcy, while also typically ruining the lives of their employees who are asked to do/give more and get less.

 

[MrFox]

You can make a profit while keeping the quality/content/$ ratio.
IMO, expansions offered more quality & content for less money compared to DLC.

I agree there are cases where DLC was obviously a milking scheme and made the default game worse because of it, like classic fighter games remakes where major characters are DLC. But it's still a competitive market. As I said earlier, if you like companies giving you better games without locking content behind DLC, vote with your money.

As long as there isn't too much predatory practices *cough* hostile takeover *cough* there's a healthy competition. People will buy games if they are good. People will buy from another company if they are better.

 

[xz321zx]

Knoxx DLC of Borderlands earned significantly higher metacritic score , along with universal appraisal

Eurogamer
90
The truth is, when it comes to DLC, nobody is doing this stuff as well as Gearbox's team at the moment.

Too bad the solo players had no chance to try the 4x difficulty modes with endgame gear and NG+. (unless on PC with mod)

Midboss enemies in every second corner , vs. 2-3 per "level".
Most shocking example:
"Alien" weapon for enemy squads 1-3 per level vs. 1-3 per whole campaign.

 

[Sigfried1977]

* Where you get crazy good value as a consumer tends to be in businesses over-competing and driving each other to bankruptcy, while also typically ruining the lives of their employees who are asked to do/give more and get less.

Outcompeting each other into bankruptcy while ruining their employees lives is the gaming industry in a nutshell, though. The value proposition holds true as well. I mean we went from 90 minute sidescrollers that cost $60 to hundred-hour monstrosities for the same amount of money. Significantly less if inflation is taken into account.
The sneaky little rip-offs here and there are what keep this ginormous rust bucket from crashing and burning.

 

[Rodéric]

I was thinking boxed expansions when digital distribution didn't really exist.
But your points still stands.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I can understand why people who play fighting games get upset with DLC that contains better characters or "main" characters or whatever, but in that format - how else is the game going to sell DLC?

You can say it's simple - they don't, but we've already seen that DLC is required to generate the profit margins that are needed for this large, expensive games to continue to be made. I don't play fighting games, but I do play CIV and that game does a similar thing - the base game only gives you a couple of different civ's to choose from, more civ's with more interesting traits and option combinations come later in expansion DLC. So I have a choice, of waiting until the GoY addition is released or I can buy upon release. If you're interested in PvP gaming, you probably need to buy upon release to get both the largest user base as well as to tackle the learning curve even if it's with a limited number of Civs. I would imagine that fighting games would be the same. But the choice is there for the consumer.

 

[Davros]

The value proposition holds true as well. I mean we went from 90 minute sidescrollers that cost $60 to hundred-hour monstrosities for the same amount of money.

And we also saw a massive increase in the player base.

but we've already seen that DLC is required to generate the profit margins that are needed for this large, expensive games to continue to be made.

We have ?