peoples opinions on dlc ?

[eastyy]

just wondered what peoples opinons on it are ....thought about this after hearing that bioshock 2 had its so called dlc already on the disc and there response was The forum's community manager, Elizabeth, admitted the allegations implicitly, claiming that it was to ensure there was no split in the userbase for the game's multiplayer mode.

which makes no sense to me at all

personally i think dlc has alot of potential borderlands showed me how...while i was not bothered about the first 2...i felt the third one was made in response to feedback from the fans

[concretesnail]

dlc, it's a mixed bag for sure. Charging for an unlock is a tad steep for my tastes and smacks of money making scam-ola, which i hope doesnt catch on as publishers may start forcing devs to "lock" content so that they can charge for it a few weeks later. dlc like fallout and other genuine add-ons are great though, add-ons you extend the life of an IP or user base should be the only way.
Having said that i did buy three of the sf4 costum packs but flat out refused to pay for the re5 verses mode.
in all honesty, i can see the "locked" content becoming more popular as publishers and MS will both love the idea on getting more cash from people.

[sj33]

I don't really think it's so complicated. People are happy to pay for more of a good thing, but slightly less happy to pay for something that would otherwise have been in the main package.

An example of DLC done well is Oblivion: Shivering Isles, where people loved the first game, so Bethesda set to work on creating additional content, which people were glad to purchase. The recent Resident Evil 5 DLC is another example of this. Map packs are generally a good example of this (though the pricing should reflect what is actually included).

Examples of DLC done badly are the typical Capcom 'unlock keys', or the aforementioned Bioshock 2 DLC, where the customer is paying for content that might otherwise have been included in the main package. Those who defend this practice point out that you don't actually pay for this content when you buy the main game, but this viewpoint glosses over the fact that it is a very cynical approach to DLC, and can be seen as a 'regression' of sorts from the pre-DLC days.

So, DLC that is genuine, new content is a good thing. Cynical approaches to DLC such as 'unlock keys' serve to give DLC the increasingly-muddy image that is it gaining.

[MrKirov]

Release DLC, sure. However be sure to release the content on a disc either at the same time, or later on. I dont like downloading something, and not knowing that in 5 years time I might not be able to play it/download it again.

Loads of people seem to be releasing DLC in disc form (Dragon Age Awakenings, Fallout, Siren, Wipeout HD) and its a decent way of doing it IMO. It means ive just rebought Resident Evil 5 Gold purely on this basis.

[chopemon]

I'll just clear up some of the issues regarding unlocks and why they are the way they are because it has never been properly explained to people.

The most common cases of unlocks appear in multiplayer games. In a multiplayer game every player needs to have the same data. If you don't have the data then you can't see it. This means if a developer releases a new character, there has to be a way for every other player to have that data so that it can be shown in their game.

The way this is solved on the PC (think WoW expansions with new characters) is that every player receives a free patch with all the necessary data in. This allows every player to see all of the data.

This cannot happen on consoles because Microsoft do not allow you patch content into games, only code. This means that if a character is released as DLC, you would fracture the player base between the haves and the have nots which isn't an ideal solution. The exception to this is Burnout Paradise which forces multiple patches that are over 1 gig.

This is why you get unlock keys, every player needs to see the multiplayer content (Street Fighter outfits, Bioshock characters etc.) and the only way this can happen is if it is on the disk.

I am in no way excusing this practice as I believe that if you buy a disk, you own everything on it and you shouldn't be paying to unlock it but developers who wish to have DLC (because it is profitable and ultimately helps continue a series or sustains a developer) don't have any other choice.

I am not advocating unlocks, I am just explaining why they are the way they are so don't flame me!

[eastyy]

cheers for that yeah i get what you mean thats why they said something about not having dlc for streetfighter 4 like new characters as it was to much hassle

but i guess them saying it has locked content not to screw up online play for example doesnt really wash as it begs the question why it was just not unlocked for everyone

oblivions shivering isle was good..the rest were rubbish though i have to say

Dlc costumes....really not for me but i can see why people will get them

[SUMIRE]

i think they should have to cleary state on the box if there are items on the disc that require a payment to be made to unlock them.

[MisterBubbles]

Oblivion horse armour anybody? thought not , so devs can do good things and bad for DLC.

[sj33]

^That's still 'new content' though, no-one has to buy it - I didn't. It's not the same as content being withheld.

[Psyduck]

Although I've bought the odd bit, I can't think of a single example that's fairly priced. At full price (which you never really pay) you pay £40 for a brand new game with 20-40 (on average?) hours of play, and resale value of at least £10. DLC then is usually £4-£8 for another 2/3 hours. On top of that there's no resale value, no packaging or distribution costs, and much less development costs as the engine, graphics, sound etc are virtually all there.

To be honest I don't really care if it's already on the disc or not, they're often already working on DLC or have finished it before it goes on sale, so even if it's not actually there it could be if they wanted to.

[Neon Ignition]

I think this is why Burnout Paradise stood out for so many people. Sure some people balked at the costs of some of the later DLC but for many it was justified by the long term free support that EA and Criterion had provided which heavily changed the game as well as expanded upon the original disc release. By the time the paid content arrived they'd justified that level of support from the user base. It's a good strategy that works for any games with a decent chance of a good shelf life and EA seems to be moving in that direction more with Bad Company 2 and Mass Effect 2 using essentially similar systems.

And I never thought it would be EA that would be doing it... shows how off target Activision is

[Brats]

This is why you get unlock keys, every player needs to see the multiplayer content (Street Fighter outfits, Bioshock characters etc.) and the only way this can happen is if it is on the disk.

There is another way, which is what MS did with Fable 2 and Forza 3. They released the paid for DLC and a free DLC at the same time. the free DLC is essentially identical, except it doesn't allow the person downloading it to use the content, only see it if playing with others who have paid for it.

With Forza 3, they even give you an incentive of a free car with the free DLC to encourage people to download it.

[smouty]

If it extends the playtime of a game I'm all for it. Like any other product I avoid anything I see as poor VFM. I haven't bought much TBH only RE5 and Borderlands I think.

[stevie vip 99]

I don't think people mind paying for DLC as long as they have a choice. Some games give you no choice but to buy if you want to keep playing.

I don't like the fact that games now already have the DLC planned before the game has even been released when it should've been in the game to start with.

[Brad]

Only thing I don't like about it is when they use it to kill 2nd hand market. I see why they do it though. Putting stuff on the disc and not letting you have it I don't have a problem with really. This is a standard model for other software. We have a choice after all. if someone makes a game that I love then I'll lap up the DLC. If I don't rate the game that highly then I won't. Dragon Age wasn;t good enough for me to spend ?32 on DLC I can't sell but if From unlocked the last broken archstone in Demon's Souls I'd pay them ?30 without thinking about it.