Some things should be released with game though- more to a story in a game is just wrong. Remember when you finished a games story and it was over? Dlc has potential but as used now it just makes developers greedy and little lazy. Why release all the parts of the story right away when we can make extra money on it.
60 GIG Ps3 Owner Since January 21, 2007
500GB Ps4 Owner Since November 22, 2014
1000 Model PSP Owner, PSP Go Owner and PS Vita Owner
PS1 and PS2, Both Original Systems.
I started gaming back in the early 80s, so I'm running on over 30 years now. For the first 20 years or so there was no DLC. I'm not sure the PC realm really had much for DLC prior to the turn of the century.
To start with, I'll agree there is a large portion of DLC that could have easily have been "unlockable" content such as alternate costumes, horse armor, weapon packs and such. Mass Effect 3 has "DLC" that you can either earn credits in game with or you can use real money to unlock. Tales of Graces f has content that you can purchase to unlock in game content earlier than if you simply play through the game.
Day 1 DLC doesn't bother me. While sometimes that extra content could have been put on the disc, the amount of time from the time the game is certified ready for printing and it's release date, there is time to create new content. Such as seen with Mass Effect 2 & 3, Borderlands 2, and many other games. Content of this type is more than simple unlockable content. This content often adds a few extra hours of game play, new areas and new quests. Day 1 DLC of this type is also often used as a "reward" measure for gamers to buy the game brand new rather than to buy the game used. From my general experience that type of DLC is always included for free when the game is bought brand new.
There are some companies who have announced Day 1 DLC long before the game is finished and ready for printing. This doesn't often bother me because I'm under no obligation to buy this content. If sales are weak enough then perhaps those companies will realize that it is a bad idea to do this. But as I mentioned before hand, often this Day 1 DLC is used as a "reward" measure or perhaps the "carrot on the stick" is a better metaphor. Buy the game new and get this DLC free. Again this doesn't bother me because I'm not actually paying for the content. Especially if it was a game I planned on buying anyway.
Now to the bulk of the DLC content. Expansions. This DLC is often brought out months after a game's release. This content definitely should not be free. If the game is good enough then I'll often buy the DLC content to play new areas, new quests. I bought the season pass for Borderlands 2's DLC but there is one piece of DLC that I won't buy. I don't have any interest in the new playable character Krieg and so I won't buy him. I bought the expansion content for Magic the Gathering 2013 as well. New decks and new challenges.
Why shouldn't we pay for DLC that enhances a game through new areas and new content. Again I'm not talking about horse armor, outfits or other small things. Now I will have to say that Capcom is one company notorious for abusing the DLC aspect to gaming. They have been accused (and sometimes rightfully so) for having the DLC actually on the disc such as extra characters in Street Fighter. This is an abusive practice that should not be supported by gamers at all.
I think it really depends on the type of game. Games such as Rockband, Guitar Hero, Rocksmith, etc. make use of DLC as a way of adding additional songs to the games thus expanding the amount of tracks you have available to play. Those are essential to the enjoyment of the game, otherwise you just wind up with the on-disc songs and that's it.
On the other hand, there are the "abused" DLC which is simply little things like costume changes, additional weapons/armor with no real statistical benefits, on-disc DLC, etc.
The music games are fine (in the grave), but I do agree with the weapons and weapon skins. Completely useless and a bad incentive to get collector's edition stuff.
Cosmetics can be a good thing too (as in LBP) as they don't get in the way of play and come afterwards.
I do like costumes, but some are overpriced like LBP's 3rd party ones and Sony Smash Bros' 1.99 per costume. Not sure if it's good or bad, but whether you have the DLC or not, the game's A.I. uses it anyway.
I started with a C64, so I guess that'd make me a dinosaur if starting with the PSX makes somebody a veteran.
I'm aware that gaming has been around longer than the PSOne, hence the quotations around veteran.
Mass Effect 3 has "DLC" that you can either earn credits in game with or you can use real money to unlock. Tales of Graces f has content that you can purchase to unlock in game content earlier than if you simply play through the game.
That really irks me. The "unlock key" DLC. Really annoying and kills the gameplay, like a cheat code to unlock all.
In my honest opinion, downloadable content is justified when it enhances the experience for gamers or when great ideas for a video game are constructed long after it has been released onto store shelves.
Right. They need to be big and not only have a completely different experience, but something that adds to the core game, like what RPGs do.
It's just a way for them to get money post-release. Some DLCs can be good, but what's happening now is that every inc. is locking the content and selling codes, by that i mean the DLC is already in the disc, and that's just **bleep** IMO.
I agree on that, It's annoying when the content is locked. If you buy the digital version or a game from PSN, any new content is added via and update to the game and is just locked. Therefore the DLC that you do not want to purchase it already on the system and is just taking up memory. Like Playstation-All-Stars (I did buy all the DLC), they make updates for the game for the new DLC (Costumes, new characters, minions) and they are usually like 1/2 a GB or more. What if I didn't want the DLC? then that 1/2 GB is wasted and not use for what I want it to. It's annoying. I would rather download only what I want to pay for so my memory is used up on something I'm not using!
Timeline for way too many ps3 exclusives...
release game...patch...release dlc...maybe patch again...studio disbands. I'll never forget Jaffe moving on 6 months out from Twisted Metals release, or Light Box handing off Starhawk. Who developed All-Stars?!? :\ That game was doomed from the start.
Some devs just hold back skins/guns/unlocks and then throw together a previously junked level and voila $$$.
Basically, DLC is nothing more than a ploy to get you to pay $80 for a $60 game, by selling you stuff you used to get for free. Only when the developer is actively developing content is it worth anything and I hear BORDERLANDS 2 DLC was outsourced & CRITERION is getting out of the racing game so that leaves???
Honestly scared what kind of micro b.s. The Last Of Us will have. Love ND, but I can't get behind microTA in a retail game. Still buying day 1 but will never drop a dime on a gun/skin.
DLC was okay, but if this still continues, it's kinda abusing. Looking back to old days, games are really great even without dlc or patches.
This generation, I simply patch the game without needing DLC contents. I only get free DLC.
Gran Turismo Fan | Love Live Fan | PC Technician