The DLC model - a misused option?

[Big A2]

and would gladly pay 10? or 20? for a game I really liked and felt gave good value.

Where on earth can you buy new games for 10 pounds? I wanna know.

I don't mind DLC on say, Rock Band, where additional songs do cost extra money to licence, so that's understandable. DLC for $10 downloadable games I don't mind either. The game was cheap enough already, so I'm fine with paying an extra 2 bucks for another playable character if they add enough to the game.

But DLC on disc-based games is just pure evil, especially when it adds nothing. I will never pay money just to get more Little Big Planet costumes, or characters that should have been in the game in the first place *coughMarvelvsCapcom3cough*.

[Flabio]

Plenty of people do though, developers wouldn't do it if it didn't sell.

[Big A2]

Yes, people have no sense of pride these days.

[Brad]

Well, DLC is easy to buy and it does give people more of what they want, at a price so yeah, they make a choice to buy it. Looking at how I've been bitten by Sony recently I can't imagine I'll ever buy any DRMd downloads of any media type ever again. Even games that I really like.

[Big A2]

Really? What happened?

[Brad]

Basically Sony say I've used up all my PSP activations. Full details here if you're interested:

http://ntsc-uk.domino.org/showthread.php?t=108195

[cutmymilk]

Just wait until digital downloads are the only way you can buy games, then the complaints will really ramp up!

Thats the day I become a big, stinking pirate. Arrr

[JSR]

Where on earth can you buy new games for 10 pounds? I wanna know.[/COLOR]

Sorry about that. I meant to say ADDITIONAL 10 or 20?, to get the complete experience on a single disc.

[nakamura]

Man that really is your loss, seriously why be that way?

Not really. There is precious little that is worth downloading for me. Rez HD is something of interest but I have smashed Rez on the PS2 to bits over the years. There are a couple of good bits, but nothing I haven't already played on a console before.

Plus there are hundreds of great games I have yet to even play. I don't feel I am missing out.

[JSR]

Not really. There is precious little that is worth downloading for me. Rez HD is something of interest but I have smashed Rez on the PS2 to bits over the years. There are a couple of good bits, but nothing I haven't already played on a console before.

Plus there are hundreds of great games I have yet to even play. I don't feel I am missing out.

While I think there are many excellent games on the XBLA platform I would agree with you that one can do without just fine. There are enough great games out there to entertain a normal working person for the duration of his spare time.

[Resonance]

I agree with Alex WS 100%. That is all.

[Corranga]

As already said, the DLC model has it's +ve and -ve aspects, the way I see it...

The EA model of giving online access to the first buyer is fine imo, it will hopefully, over time, make used games cheaper and promote sales of new games. I don't believe the whole "used games mean people can trade and will buy more new games" simply because the majority of those who buy preowned titles will trade for another preowned title!
It's like when they said CD piracy cost the music industry XXX million, or sieze a pirates lot worth XXX million. It's not. They use the numbers for shock effect. The simple fact is that the person buying the pirate games wasn't ever going to buy even 5% of those pirate CDs.

EA also have is so much worse than anyone else. The ability to buy in game currency with real money is pathetic. As is unlock codes for in game content, to get a car sooner or have a better team without playing to train them up etc.

I'm suprised no one has mentioned Burnout Paradise 1.1, a massive DLC pack (maybe 2gb?) that added bikes to the game, a whole host of new races, and was free!

The Halo maps (and others) that eventually end up free are an interesting idea too, essentially charging someone for something that'll be given away in a couple of years. I think this model would benefit everyone. The early adopters will still buy the DLC, whilst others can get it 2 years later, maybe coinciding with the release of a new game (ie drumming up some free press just before a sequel is released)

The GTA stuff was amazing, and I ended up buying Lost and Damned not long after its release, but held off for the disc to get cheapo for Gay Tony (and now have L&D DL and on disc...)
The Forza Ultimate Edition was worth me buying the whole game again recently for all the DLC, even though i've had the CE from launch.

The bit missing from the initial post was:
It allows developers (in this case, not publishers!) to get a game into a finished/sellable state sooner, which aids them in getting cash from the publisher sooner, and keeps them afloat/lets them work on new projects. At least i'm presuming this means the dev co get the large wad of cash quicker, whilst they may still have the DLC to work on for smaller pennies later.

Chris

[sj33]

It's quite simple really. Substantial, geuinely new content that gives players more of a good thing e.g. Oblivion: Shivering Isles? Yes please! I liked Oblivion, so I would pay for more of it.

Content that is actually already in the game (or deliberately held back from the game), but you need to pay extra to access e.g. costume packs for Street Fighter IV? No thanks! A generation ago, this stuff would be included in the main game! Bad Capcom!

The whole issue about DLC being exclusive to first-time buyers e.g. EA's Ten Dollar Project is almost a separate issue. That is less about whether or not DLC is a good thing, but whether or not content should be withheld from second hand buyers. Everyone has the right to sell on something they have purchased, that is one of the basic elements of ownership that has existed ever since buying-and-selling of goods has begun, and something that publishers will have to accept. The gaming retail industry is a bit of a unique case however where brick-and-mortar retailers will take advantage of this system and bite off the hand that feeds it by deliberately undercutting new products within the launch window. They essentually want to have their cake and eat it, and is a different situation from, say, someone selling their game on ebay.

[Neon Ignition]

With EA, the online pass in itself I'm ok with and tieing additional updates to it as benefits. My main issue is that EA has started to show a really awful trend of locking existing content as well. Bulletstorm is a good example where 6 Echo levels are locked unless you use the online pass. That's offline content being locked due to an online model, people who don't play online at all are even being screwed over with that one.

I'd rather the pass entitled you to cheaper map packs as well rather than accessing one's I've already paid for in a drip fed manner ala the Bad Company games.

[Charlie]

All I know is that after buying some 20-25 pieces of DLC, I've come away feeling short-changed or disappointed practically every time. Stuff like Oblivion's Shivering Isles and GTA IV's The Lost and Damned/The Ballad of Gay Tony aside, it almost always seems like an exercise in squeezing as much money out of gamers as possible in return for as little product as possible.

As a consequence I seldom buy any DLC now, not even for games I really like. Indeed I increasingly completely ignore games I otherwise would have bought when their publishers have a history of releasing incomplete games and milking their customers.