DLC and its possible abuse

I have just been looking a tsome up and coming games which are offering DLC.
It seems to be a big feature that alot of people get carried away with. But due to people getting excited about buying extra character's/levels/vehicles/wepons for a game ect...
Will gaming companys abuse this power and leave out content for the purpose of selling it later as DLC ?

Burning Eclipse

They do all the time already.

In fact there are numerous games on the 360 where the content is on the disc but people pay to unlock it, the worst type of DLC there is!!!

Examples off the top of my head.... erm, google???

Mr Bloat

I think it's pretty much guaranteed that DLC is going to be abused. As you say, many people get carried away with it and taking each case on it's own, it could be argued that €8 or so isn't too much to pay for something that adds extra playtime and enjoyment to a game. However, if you take all the extras and add it to the original cost of the game, it quickly adds up!
Take Guitar Hero/Rock Band as an example. There are pretty hefty price tags on those games already, due to the extra peripherals. However, if you factor in how much you would pay to download extra songs, skins, whatever, then the cost of these are crazy. If the cost of the dlc was included in the original price tag, nobody would touch them.

Another factor in this debate is whether dlc is keeping the price of games at the shelves high. For instance, COD4 is still full price everywhere and very pricey second hand. Granted, the game is brilliant but if there wasn't the promise of DLC coming for it, would it have dropped in price by now?

Kiith

If the DLC adds something of worth to a game, then i have no problem playing it. I dont agree with having cars or guns or other things that should be available in the original game costing money, but i dont mind extra maps and/or missions. The recent DLC for Mass Effect was well worth the €5 that i spent on it. And i have high hopes for the GTA IV content on the 360.

death1234567

It depnds on how its done but for sure some companies will abuse it. *cough* EA *cough*.

DLC should be like expansion packs in PC games, not necessary for enjoyment but a nice add-on if you enjoyed the original.

Q_Ball

Mr Bloat wrote: »

For instance, COD4 is still full price everywhere and very pricey second hand. Granted, the game is brilliant but if there wasn't the promise of DLC coming for it, would it have dropped in price by now?

The demand for the game is what is keeping the price high. That and IW have just released the GOTY edition to replace the old one and which includes the DLC. So you're getting the DLC included in the price of the game. For those of us who bought the game before the GOTY edition came out, our version of COD4 is now worth less than the GOTY and should also not be available for sale anymore. Note that I realise that there arre probably still copies of the old version floating about but this will always be the case, regardless of type of product being replaced.

I understand DLC for games like GH and RB, whereby the customer gets a list of songs from the off and can then pick and choose the DLC they like to buy. For example, with GH3 I'd be annoyed if I had gotten the european bands DLC pack included with the game. I'd rather pay less for GH and not buy that DLC. I think RB has a better DLC philosophy than GH but thats a different story.

Personally I have no opinion one way or the other about DLC. It does have a cost attached and developers are entitled to reclaim that + a profit but I would hate to see a game released without full functionality, with the functionality held back being released as chargeable DLC. If I knew that was the case with a game I'd make a point of not buying it, or waiting for an edition like the COD4 GOTY where I get it and the game for what I feel they are worth at the time. I think publishers and developers are very tuned in to what people like and dont like in regards to DLC. They know that if they abuse DLC, they will be hung drawn and quartered online. This will have an effect on game sales and publishers are aware of this. I cant remember any cases of DLC being abused yet. Anyone have any examples?

humanji

I'd say that all the companies are just testing the water with it at the moment. Give it a year or two and you won't be able to buy a full game anymore.

Mr E

EA are trying... - shocker.

Ross_Mahon

I just wait for the downloads to be free, like with the Halo maps. Its not going to be any better paying for them, i find expansion packs to be very abusive in terms of price.

death1234567

Mr E wrote: »

EA are trying... - shocker.

I hadn't seen that articel when I posted, how did I know EA would implement such a tight arsed, money grabbing system? I must be the new Mystic Meg

Mr E

Mr E wrote: »

EA are trying... - shocker.

yep thats the bullcrap i am talking about .

Kiith

death1234567 wrote: »

I hadn't seen that articel when I posted, how did I know EA would implement such a tight arsed, money grabbing system? I must be the new Mystic Meg

They have since gone back on this decision, and will release them all with the game, iirc.

Maximilian

Wasn't there some stupid Oblivion DLC - something like an armoured horse for a tenner?

DLS was invented for the sole reason of extracting more money from punters, so naturally it will end up being abused by some.

Console problem though. Not really going to happen on the PC that much I would say.*

*cue someone disagreeing with me

Mr Bloat

Maximilian said:

Console problem though. Not really going to happen on the PC that much I would say.*

*cue someone disagreeing with me

*Puts up hand*

Me, me, me, me!

Nah, I don't disagree with you but I would kind of compare some types of dlc with subscription servers like MMORPGS. Some would say that paying €15 (or whatever it is) a month for the likes of WoW is as mad as downloading extra content for console games but value is in the eye of the payer (or something...)

As well as that, if it works well on the console and games companies end up raking in shedloads of cash from it, it's only a matter of time before someone incorporates it for the pc too.

Maximilian

Monthly fees haven't hurt WoW alright but it is interesting to note how thats something others compete on, recognising a general loathing in the PC gaming community to this sort of thing. Guild Wars is a one off payment and with LOTRO, you could buy a once off lifetime subscription.

jonny72

Q_Ball wrote: »

The demand for the game is what is keeping the price high. That and IW have just released the GOTY edition to replace the old one and which includes the DLC. So you're getting the DLC included in the price of the game. For those of us who bought the game before the GOTY edition came out, our version of COD4 is now worth less than the GOTY and should also not be available for sale anymore. Note that I realise that there arre probably still copies of the old version floating about but this will always be the case, regardless of type of product being replaced.

I understand DLC for games like GH and RB, whereby the customer gets a list of songs from the off and can then pick and choose the DLC they like to buy. For example, with GH3 I'd be annoyed if I had gotten the european bands DLC pack included with the game. I'd rather pay less for GH and not buy that DLC. I think RB has a better DLC philosophy than GH but thats a different story.

Personally I have no opinion one way or the other about DLC. It does have a cost attached and developers are entitled to reclaim that + a profit but I would hate to see a game released without full functionality, with the functionality held back being released as chargeable DLC. If I knew that was the case with a game I'd make a point of not buying it, or waiting for an edition like the COD4 GOTY where I get it and the game for what I feel they are worth at the time. I think publishers and developers are very tuned in to what people like and dont like in regards to DLC. They know that if they abuse DLC, they will be hung drawn and quartered online. This will have an effect on game sales and publishers are aware of this. I cant remember any cases of DLC being abused yet. Anyone have any examples?

Is this some competition to see who can do the most acronyms? Does anyone know what these guys are talking about?

thelordofcheese

jonny72 wrote: »

Is this some competition to see who can do the most acronyms? Does anyone know what these guys are talking about?

Yes

Drakar

Guild Wars maps very well onto the DLC model. It's a one off cost, but you pay anytime they release expansions (which is a number of times a year).

death1234567

jonny72 wrote: »

Is this some competition to see who can do the most acronyms? Does anyone know what these guys are talking about?

TLA's FTW.

0ubliette

I remember the days when DLC was called 'patching'.

BFV WW2 mod was in a free patch, free maps came with patches, new weapons came with patches, DLC is just an excuse to charge for content that shoulve been in place from the moment the game went gold.
There are very few examples of DLC actually worth paying for, Crackdowns 'keys to the city' is one good example of DLC tho.

silvine

Microsoft and Sony sell their consoles at a reduced price. That is why games and by extension the DLCs are some expensive. That's how they re-coup their money. Eight euro for four COD maps is not a rip off. Horse armour and picture packs on the other hand...

If you don't like it, fork out for a gaming PC and enjoy about six months of free mods and maps before you have to upgrade.

Malice

jonny72 wrote: »

Is this some competition to see who can do the most acronyms? Does anyone know what these guys are talking about?

That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm also curious how DLC got derived from Downloadable Content. I suppose DC was already taken as an acronym .

Anyway, I recall playing various Korean MMOs like Shot Online where the game is free but high level equipment has to be bought. Personally I haven't got a problem with that. I do have a problem with paying to unlock data that's already in a game that I've paid for.