Downloadable Content

[Brad]

I just wanted to post this here to gauge whether I'm remembering things correctly...

I seem to recall that when DLC was in its infancy there was an overwhelming feeling that DLC was something that arrived some months after a game launched. The game launched with all its content, we paid the asking price and enjoyed the game. Meanwhile, while we were enjoying the game the developers were busy creating even more content for us that we could pay extra for, to prolong our enjoyment.

The concerns from 'cynical' gamers, ensthusiast press etc. was that publishers might end up taking finished content out of the final game so they could charge us later on. As long as that doesn't happen we don't mind paying for DLC was the mantra.

Well, it seems to me now that that is exactly what has happened. DLC is available to buy on the same day that a game comes out but no one seems to be complaining about it?

So, am I rememebering events as they really happened or is my mind playing tricks on me?

[spagmasterswift]

Examples plz?

[Dogg Thang]

I'm complaining about it.

But someone in another thread did bring up a valid point which is that just because a game hasn't come out yet doesn't mean the devs can work on its content. There is a certain amount of approval time, manufacturing time and distribution time etc that happens that would mean the devs could be working on DLC content during that time.

But, that said, I think some companies are completely taking the piss. Namco is just one example. And, yeah, announcing DLC before or on launch is just nasty and now it's being used as part of the format wars and that really can only lead to held-back content to dangle carrots in front of the main players.

And held-back content was always the concern.

I said it in another thread but I'll repeat it here as it's relevant. When games got one release, the aim of the developers was to give the gamer the best game experience possible in that release. Now, with DLC, it's about what's enough for the main release and what can be drip-fed as DLC. Some devs will still give it their all but the system is working against the idea of giving gamers the best for what they buy.

[C']

I seem to recall a few examples on the original Xbox of games that offered downloadable content actually just being downloadable keys to access content already on the disc. Return to Castle Wolfenstein is one that comes to mind but I may be wrong.

It certainly wasn't prolific but some of the current dodgier DLC practices aren't totally new by any means.

I've no particular opposition to high quality DLC offered at a reasonable price but there's clearly some developers out there (the aforementioned Namco being one of the worse culprits) who are clearly pushing it beyond acceptable levels.

[Family Fry]

It's an odd thing DLC.
I think back then companies were a bit cautious, smashed out the game kept an eye on it checking out the success and then possibly doing some dlc depending, now DLC seems to be full steam ahead alongside the games.
The bigger and more popular DLC became the more it was pushed to the front, it even started to be selling points for games and multi platform exclusive versions, retailers now offering pre-order incentives for specific content too, it's all about the DLC.
Are these truly DLC though or just in-game on-disc content unlocks and something you could get elsewhere?

I’m sure devs have started splitting teams into DLC/Main Game Teams, 2 Teams both working on stuff hand in hand at the same time, one large and one small. This is where it all gets ugly though as people can start to say things like X company has taken this feature/segment OUT of the main game just so they can later use it for DLC and charge us for it, do we really know if that’s the case though? Of course some companies will take advantage of that though and some wont.

Then again a positive look at it all, just check out what Criterion have done with the free updates that they have been putting onto Burnout Paradise, they are actually adding more gameplay to the original game, giving you different ways to play and different modes also, those are just FREE updates as well and Paid for DLC is still yet to be sold.

Only tiny complaint I have is the majority of DLC I have bought so far though has been multiplayer DLC, extra maps and modes for Gears/COD4/Halo 3/Recon. I wouldn’t mind starting to see some more story driven DLC/Sub Plots stuff to be honest, adding missions and extra story segments on certain games just like Oblivion did with its DLC.

[Brad]

Examples plz?

Mega Man 9 Endless Attack
Mega Man 9 Proto Man Mode
FIFA 09 DLC ($20 worth!)

Those are a few recent examples. DLC that arrived so soon after the game came out that we could realistically expect it to form part of the original release.

I'm not necessarily condemning anyone for doing this. We hear all the time about the rising cost of game development and how game prices, in real terms, are as cheap as they've ever been. I'm just trying to establish whether the general acceptance of this practice has come about purely because we've got used to it.

[importaku]

Only had experience of DLC a couple of times, most recently on wiiware

So far not too bad, the content i paid for i thought was ok value for the points cost. Space invaders get even was a good example it cost very few points as you buy level packs on their own. So you get the choice of trying the game with a few levels & if you lke you can buy more.

With wiiware the dlc is not unlocked in the game but stays on your wii as a separate file so i least know they arent just giving me a unlock key. However these files are pretty big, my space invaders get even dlc file is over 300 blocks because i got all the levels.

For me if the extras are worth it i will pay the money but if it seems like they are taking the piss i wont, simple as that really. Pretty used to the concept now as nintendo have been doing it as far back as the Gameboy color.

[MattyD]

My mrs bought Beautiful Katamari home the other day and I was disgusted to find that several levels were only available as paid-for DLC. That's really just not on. That's without even getting into the purely cosmetic things like extra outfits and accessories, things most of us could easily live without, but when they expect you to pay full price for a game and then pay even more to get all the levels it's bloody outrageous.

EDIT - I don't believe in this 'games are more expensive to make' hogwash either. A game like this in particular probably cost next to nothing in terms of today's development budgets to make. For everyone else, the market is so much bigger that I think it should balance out if not outright cancel any increase in development costs. Games like GTA IV may cost millions to make but when they're selling six or seven million that's a huge amount of money coming back in.

[Darwock]

My first experience of DLC was DC samba de amigo - all the extra songs were on the disc, but could only be unlocked via time released downloads - at no charge mind. Even then I was against it, because even though it was free I started playing Samba after the downloads had already expired. There were songs on my disc that I could never access.. that sucked. However now that online integration has matured it's perfectly natural to do it, so I don't have the same complaints.

The perfect example of good DLC for me is Metal Gear Solid (3 & 4), The doenloadable camo/music etc which adds further life to a game .. it's still being released now although 95% of players probably stopped playing MGS4 weeks ago (and totally free).

The worst offender for me was Soul Calibur 4. The day the game was released there was extra content available to buy in the store.

THe happy middle ground will be (if it ever happens) something like Wipeout HD - the main game was very cheap - if they later release further tracks at a low price then I won't complain.

[anephric]

How about DLC that's free in one territory and charged for in another, a la Bullet Witch? And they were unlock codes too.

[Brad]

Darwock's Wipeout comment I totally agree with. It seems clear what their intention is and unless they charge a tenner a track then it seems like decent vfm.

The Soul Calibur 4 thing was one I'd forgotten and exemplifies brilliantly the point I was making. Anyway, cheers for the detailed responses. Glad to know I hadn't imagined all this stuff.

Bloody horse armour...

[merf]

thinkgs like the N+ level packs or the Theme Park in PAIN don't bother me at all as make perfect sense and I'm happy to pay to extend my use of a game I have already had full value from.

2 new courses to download for Tiger Woods already ? that smacks of profiteering and can't help but feel they should be in the game.

[kernow]

I can only hope it doesn't go crazy with little big planet. It could ruin the 'fun' aspect of the whole thing. I've never been one for DLC. Companies like EA just abuse it. I can see the point if its something substantial and of good value, but paying for skins and weapons and things like that. blech.

all depends how much you like the game and want to extend the longevity I guess, I judge it on a per item basis, the only DLC I've bought pretty much was for stardust HD and then I found I wasn't playing it very much by that point anyway.

DLC, one of the sad points about gaming, I can't imagine how bad its going to be in future, can only get worse.

[MJ]

Ninja Gaiden's Mission Mode arrived not long after the game's release for 800 MS Points and the equivalent mode in the Xbox's Ninja Gaiden Black was included on the disc and unlocked when you completed the game the first time.

I'm very picky about what I spend my MS Points on.