Is DLC reducing the value of new game purchases?

[wickerman]

to me its not black and white. I think DLC is a much better route than the old, traditional, expansion packs. This simply because it used to be if I bought an expansion pack for a game, I update my server, and sit and hope I wasn't the only one who bought it. More often then not, most people would ignore them. At least with DLC, you get all that stuff to use in the vanilla game, so its a better value. Though that only impacts items in games and not maps and such.

But the current pricing is just ridiculous, Call of Duty Black Ops DLC is $15 a pop for 4-5 maps, and that is just not worth it to me. Especially when the community has been begging for mod tools to make their own maps since release.

I also agree that timing is important, I feel ripped off if I buy a game that includes free content with preorder, or if I see DLC out a week after the release of a new title. It just makes me think they could have included it in the game but chose not to in the hopes of making more money. I see DLC as a way of making older games fresh, adding new content, levels, maps, quests, what ever the game needs to stay interesting. But I don't want to pay a loyalty tax. Don't tell me that I should buy a $60 game, then pay another $60 over the course of a few months just to get the stuff you could have put in the game to start with.

I also understand this mantra about getting content to the people quickly. I know some developers would rather release a bare bones game and then offer a mix of free content patches and paid DLC post release, so that they dont need to spend a decade making their game. They can release on a tight schedule, and then mold their game into their full vision. Sadly, this doesn't always work out this way.

So for me, DLC and expansion will always be case by case. Some games benefit more than others, and sometimes I'll buy it because I want it, other times I wont be able to justify it to myself, sometimes I won't buy it because it's just not interesting enough, and sometimes I just wont buy out of protest.

 

[digibucc]

Yes, they could have improved the gameplay for no extra charge to me as a customer. I am fine with them adding things after the development and charging (for example fancy hats in TF2), but I will get angry if they chopped bits off the gameplay they deem unnecesary and sell them later for more profits. I want to have the feeling that I can enjoy the game to the fullest without DLC, but if I want more there is DLC, rather than have the feeling that they sold me 95% of the game and want me to fork out extra cash for the remaining 5%. Timing is something they should learn, if they have released the horse armour 2 months down the road, I would have thought its a good thing, but not any closer.

agreed

 

[FordGT90Concept]

it is semantics dude. do you think most people picked up boxed copies
of BC2:Vietnam? or, insert title for expansion here? no.

As I explained, boxed copies are the qualifier for not being a ripoff. So long as a box copy exists, you can be relatively sure it won't be a rip off. How you, yourself, actually purcase it is irrelevant so long as the prices are similar.

and by your reasoning, all xbl and psn games are crap too, since they are
only available through online networks. hopefully you know those respective
networks hold some real gems, that are 50~mb in size, $10, and offer hours
upon hours of play.

We're talking about expansion packs/DLCs, not games. Only a handful of indie developers have gotten involved in DLCs. Of those I have seen (Defense Grid), they are in the same category as the major developers: their DLCs are a ripoff too unless they are bundled with something more (e.g. Defense Grid Gold).

But with a expansion pack they know what they cannot get away with and most DLC's totally fail.

Even the FO3 DLC's were a fail for me they were crap and they would not make x pack standards and they know it.

Yup, the only way not to get ripped off on Fallout DLCs is to buy the Game of the Year edition instead of everything separate.

 

[Kreij]

Only a handful of indie developers have gotten involved in DLCs. Of those I have seen (Defense Grid), they are in the same category as the major developers: their DLCs are a ripoff too unless they are bundled with something more (e.g. Defense Grid Gold).

This is where Ford and I diverge a bit. Defense Grid is probably my all time favorite tower defense game.
It runs beautifully and is nicely polished for an Indie game.
I've gone back to playing it numerous times and still find it great fun. I am endlessly trying things "just a little different" to see the results.
To me, that is what gaming is all about. I want to be entertained and this game did that.
I'm willing to support them (and did) so they can survive and perhaps make another great game.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I didn't say Defense Grid wasn't a good game. I said that buying the DLCs (Borderlands and Resurgence) is a ripoff unless you got them in cummulative "Defesnse Grid: Gold" release.

 

[AsRock]

Thats the thing Shale was originally ment to ship as PART OF THE ORIGINAL GAME, but Bioware was unable to finish it up and get it ready before the game shipped so instead of it being free content, for most people it then became a $15 DLC for what was originally part of the game, it was a fuck up on Bioware's part and they decided to milk the mistake for more money.

Yes they should of released it for free and made more DLC's like it and that goes for all these lame ass companys lol.

Yup, the only way not to get ripped off on Fallout DLCs is to buy the Game of the Year edition instead of everything separate.

Yes but the DLC's are still rubbish even then they were not even part of the game really just lame ass slap dash shit.

A true DLC to me would be if it added to the original game on a larger scale. Sure it take more time to do but you are paying $10 for each DLC and it's just plain lazy.

And mafia II they were just wambamthankyou. Like every thing else though people will get pissed with it and stop buying them although not sure if enough people will stop buying them but Steam and D2D do some crazy deals and this is the time to buy these games.

I am dieing to play DA2 but but it's not worth it at the moment and unlike the 1st one there is no way i am paying up another $100+ for a game and surly not $60 when i know when they will bring out x pack or 2 with lame DLC's.

What is funny is if they were not doing DLCs for the game i would of got it by now so to me there fucking them selfs. I'll wait and buy DA2 with addons and all patched up as seen as i got screwed over the last DLC for DA1.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yes but the DLC's are still rubbish even then they were not even part of the game really just lame ass slap dash shit.

Anchorage DLC especially didn't seem like "lame ass slap dash shit" to me. It gave backstory on the events leading up to the FO3 world as well the valuable Chinese Stealth Suit.

A true DLC to me would be if it added to the original game on a larger scale. Sure it take more time to do but you are paying $10 for each DLC and it's just plain lazy.

That would be classified as an expansion pack.

And mafia II they were just wambamthankyou.

Agreed. Mafia II's DLCs were obviously half-assed.

I am dieing to play DA2 but but it's not worth it at the moment and unlike the 1st one there is no way i am paying up another $100+ for a game and surly not $60 when i know when they will bring out x pack or 2 with lame DLC's.

What is funny is if they were not doing DLCs for the game i would of got it by now so to me there fucking them selfs. I'll wait and buy DA2 with addons and all patched up as seen as i got screwed over the last DLC for DA1.

Yeah, if you have the patience, that's definitely the way to go (wait until all the DLCs are bundled in one cheap pack.

 

[yogurt_21]

Yeah, if you have the patience, that's definitely the way to go (wait until all the DLCs are bundled in one cheap pack.

this.

I've never bought a dlc full priced and would be shocked if I ever did. On one hand I hate the fact that they are releasing incomplete games. On the other hand I like the fact i can wait a few months, buy a bundle pack and get the complete game with dlc and sometimes expansions for less than the full retail price of the original game alone.


So I would have voted differently had the question been phrased differently. As I much prefer dlc style completions of games to none at all. ( ala almost every star trek game ever released, vampire the masquerade:bloodlines, and etc.)

But the fact is DLC does diminish the value of a game at launch. Why the hell would I pay a 20$ premium to be the firt to play an unpatched, incomplete, glitchy game? For 20$ or more cheaper all I have to do is wait a few months and pickup the finished product.

It's like new games are the beta form and you have to pay a price premium to play the beta.

 

[qubit]

So I would have voted differently had the question been phrased differently.

I'm curious how you would have phrased it?

But the fact is DLC does diminish the value of a game at launch. Why the hell would I pay a 20$ premium to be the firt to play an unpatched, incomplete, glitchy game? For 20$ or more cheaper all I have to do is wait a few months and pickup the finished product.

It's like new games are the beta form and you have to pay a price premium to play the beta.

Yeah, +1. Having said that, I do often buy games at launch and haven't been bitten by bugs too much. Guess I was lucky.

 

[TheMailMan78]

it's not a yes or no answer.

some (most) companies rip you off, and nickel and dime you to death.

but some companies release real, extra, good content, for not alot of money.
no different than a mini-expansion pack, etc...

some games are that good, that it's worth it for just a bit more.

I agree. BC2:Vietnam was awesome for 15 bucks. BlackOps map pack for 15 bucks is a ripoff.

 

[RejZoR]

DLC's are mostly all pure ripoff. Few weapons and skins and they sell another DLC for 10 bucks. Something that should be in the game to begin with. Or maps like in Crysis 2. They slightly remake singleplayer maps (that takes like 30 seconds for them) and they're selling it for 9,99 bucks. WIth game as buggy as Crysis 2 this is just plain ridiculous. They should be giving it away for free as an apology to existing buyers. But no. Idiotiq.

Only DLC's that weren't rip off's for me are:

- Resurgence maps for Defense grid
Mostly because they were really dirty cheap (89 euro cents iirc) and well worth the money and because we got Borderlands map pack for free before this one. And the game was simply unbelievable out of the box. So great initial value, great value after getting free extra content and well priced DLC.

- Extra player models in Killing Floor
They offer wide range of player models as a part of payable DLC's but they are fully optional. You get some pretty good basic models with the base game. If you want to be a bit cooler on the outside, you can buy them. But if you don't, you can still play the game just like anyone else with all the extra DLC skins. Purely cosmetic feature, but from what i can see ppl still buy them a lot. Probably to show support to developers. But the base game is already really good and has a great value by itself.

These two are the only ones that i can remember right now.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

But with a expansion pack they know what they cannot get away with and most DLC's totally fail.

Even the FO3 DLC's were a fail for me they were crap and they would not make x pack standards and they know it.

I see your sentiment, but the biggest win of fallout 3 (for the computer at least) was releasing the G.E.C.K..

I could give or take on some of the dlc. Point lookout and the Pitt were meh. They gave some extra play time, but really were their own self contained universes that just so happened to be a short hop away. Operation Anchorage and Broken steel were fun, and actually delivered more of the story of Fallout 3. Mothership Zeta was a wtf. It was obviously something the developers did for giggles, and was a fun (if somewhat too tediously long) expansion.

With proper dev tools, the community has spawned some seriously fun expansions. Unique story driven quests, fun new weapons, and more than a little bit of improvement in scripting and features. Yes, you have to download the stuff, and yes it is generally only a couple of hours per bite. That said, a free 2 hour game expansion every other week makes Fallout fresh and new for years. Somehow I don't think the call of duty game released at the same time as Fallout 3 can boast the same continuing play value.

Perhaps there should be a distinction between console and pc dlc. For the console you have already agreed to be bent over and price gouged, so the console maker can keep their hardware proprietary. For the pc it's inexcusable.


So to sum up my response, pc dlc is unfairly priced and kept out of the community's hands. There are games that break this convention, but far too few of them. Dlc for consoles is a difficult thing to meter. If console makers opened up development they think they'd lose huge sums of money due to piracy, but they lose longevity by only allowing developers to release dlc at what price they set. Functional monopolies, where the market is not defining the value of a product, generally beget greed.

 

[yogurt_21]

I'm curious how you would have phrased it?

It's not that your phrasing is wrong, you asked the question you asked. It's that if the question were phrased say "does dlc diminish the value of games" on the whole I'd say no. But you specified new games at launch so of course my answer is yes it does de-value new games at launch.

 

[qubit]

It's not that your phrasing is wrong, you asked the question you asked. It's that if the question were phrased say "does dlc diminish the value of games" on the whole I'd say no. But you specified new games at launch so of course my answer is yes it does de-value new games at launch.

Hmmm... ya know, now I'm thinking about it, I should have made the thread title and poll question the same. They cover the same ground, but have different angles.

I know what happened. As I was writing my OP, I got increasingly pissed off at the way DLC seems to be used to rip people off, rather than add value, so that's how the title came to be different to the poll question. In hindsight, I think the title should match the poll question.

 

[chris89]

It depends to what it is. If things such as map packs etc then it is a rip off. Could be due to being spoiled by Valve & Tripwire and all previous companies giving them with maps.

For one of the 'most hated' games on 'reddit' being Railworks. I believe the DLC is fully worth it, as you have the choice what to buy and you don't need it all (What those on reddit etc don't relise/ critise are Hats on TF2, Sims 3 addons, CoD map-packs & WoW)

If companies are going to charge for DLC on fps's follow Tripwires example on Killing floor, Cosmetic items only, and leave weapons, maps etc as free.

On Fallout 3 i waited till GOTY was out till i got it. Also shall be waiting for GOTY edition on NV is out before i get the addons as it is miles cheaper.

Chris

 

[silkstone]

If/When companies release DLC but keep modding out of the communities hands, then yes it is a rip off.
I think in the future it will be illegal to mod new games, and to get any extra content, you will have to pay for it. The move towards DLC is a bad one imo and should be boycotted.