DLC and $, why pay more and more?

[dirtyferret]

Base game costs $50
Exp. Pack 1 costs $15
Exp. Pack 2 costs $15
Exp. Pack 3 costs $15

Would you prefer to buy the entire game for $95 and get the expansion packs for 'free'?

Or would you prefer to pay just the $50 and not buy that dlc2 you so much dislike forced on you? And pay a total of $80 by choosing the dlc rather than the full $95 and you get what you don't want?

i'd like to point one thing out on the above post

it used to be $50 new game (around 30+ hours of content for an RPG) plus expansion $40 (around 20+ hours) for $90.

now it's $50-60 for the new game plus the 3 DLC (usually 2-4 hours of content) for $95-105

so we are paying more money for less content but it is still the consumer's choice

 

[Ilden]

DLC and expansion packs are both wasted on me. Within three to four weeks of picking up a game, I've already put 200 hours into it (on average). Then they bring out the first DLC two months after a game launches, which adds five(!) hours of content (and I'm being generous there). Not only am I completely burnt out on the game, but I can't justify the expense for so little new content. Same thing for expansion packs that charge a full-game price and add 15 hours of content. Waste.

The other thing that bothers me about half the "DLC" these days, is the suspicion that the "new" content was actually cut from the original release before launch, just to be repurposed as DLC. If there's any truth to that, it feels like fraud.

 

[DonInKansas]

so we are paying more money for less content but it is still the consumer's choice

It's because the consumer has become dumbed down and only cares about multiplayer.

 

[Abe504]

It's because the consumer has become dumbed down and only cares about multiplayer.

i can agree with that statement. Most people feel they can only get their money's worth if multiplayer is added. I think games need to be harder by default so people don't breeze through games. I would say most competent gamers can beat most games in about 6-10 hours because they are so easy.

 

[CJCerny]

Hello TPU,

I'm a bit worn from playing a couple of games, NFS:Hotpursuit(2010) and Black ops ect ect..

The point of this thread, is more of a opinion sided reflection of basically the quality of games and the re-occurring trends that are copied as we progress further in this day of age. One thing that stand's out more and more is everything involving Downloadable Content, starting to edge its way into everything. Downloadable Content is great, but why is there a price tag after buying a Hard/Digital License of your software? Second of all, I believe sense this trend has caught on that many games are developed with less quality in-mind and end up not being so great in the first place.

I remember 10 year's ago when any and all games that where released were complete and more or less quality insured, because Developers and licensing company's did not want there only possible sale being refunded back to Best Buy or Circuit City(rip).

Now in this day of age, more and more games are starting to show trend's almost like utility company's where you know there's going to be an added charge in the future to hit your wallet.

I'm concerned because I only see this getting worse and worse with future game titles almost like "Moore's Law" with electronics. Also this almost set's a LIMITING bar on the quality of game a developer can TRULY! make, for the simple fact that they could make that extra "commission" for the future.

In my opinion, we could have more 8-10*Star titles if a game had everything it could possible have all in 1 package, with no extra 5-15$ charge's to unlock an available option. If anything were going to command a price tag in the first place, it should be "EXPANSION PACKS" that really give an extra 35-50% extra content to a video game.

How long will people keep dishing out Money, after dishing out more Money, after paying Money originally for a title!?

The economy is getting tuff for some people(me/fellows), and more and more this trend is catching on?

They do it because many people are willing to buy content in smaller pieces at a smaller price. It is simple psychology. If you are willing to wait for the Game Of The Year edition of a game--and then willing to wait even longer for the GOTY to drop in price to $20 or $30--then you are getting a good bargain. But, most people just can't wait. That's why pre-orders do so well and also why you see a million threads on TPU about games on the day that they are released. I certainly don't blame developers for cashing in on their work by offering their products for sale in a way that maximizes their profits. It's called capitalism--and it works pretty well.

 

[Animalpak]

So the only advantage of buying a game at full price and just after the release is to be able to play before all !!???


I've never been happy to have bought a DLC i remember some substantial DLC from Mass Effect, or Mafia 2 ...

 

[yogurt_21]

Base game costs $50
Exp. Pack 1 costs $15
Exp. Pack 2 costs $15
Exp. Pack 3 costs $15

Would you prefer to buy the entire game for $95 and get the expansion packs for 'free'?

Or would you prefer to pay just the $50 and not buy that dlc2 you so much dislike forced on you? And pay a total of $80 by choosing the dlc rather than the full $95 and you get what you don't want?

none of the above. If a game is 50$, i wait for it to go to 10$ on a super sale. And if by that time they've released a super pack including all 15$ epx dlc, all 5$ cosmetic dlc, and etc. I'll buy that for up to 39.99.


but I will never, ever, ever pay 50$ for a single game again. I'm content to wait until it hits the discount shelves if i have to. There's plenty of content on sale on steam and others that can bide my time until then.

 

[Fourstaff]

The amount of money and effort going into each game is getting higher and higher, yet we are still largely paying more or less the same amounts for games (I remember buying Warcraft 3 at £35, and then Starcraft 2 at £35 despite 10 years of difference). Add inflation, and suddenly DLC's are really sensible from a producer's point of view, and it also allows gamers to choose to sacrifice some parts of his gaming (highly debatable whether he is sacrificing anything at all, but I am going to pick the worse case scenario for the gamer) of the games for a lower cost, in reality if you take inflation to account we should be paying about £40 or more per game. That extra £5 you saved can be sent back to buying DLC.

If you like to shop for older games in the bargain basement (like what I usually do), just wait for GOTY with all the expansions and DLCs attached and you are good to go. After all, most games are stagnating, playing Uncharted during launch day and today (where i can pick it up for £10) still l provide the same amount of entertainment. CoD 4 still allows me to frag tons of noobs, etc.

 

[AphexDreamer]

I'd rather pay 60/3 for a game than buy the game at 60 for PC 60 for PS3 and 60 for 360...

Then pay 15/3 for each DLC.

Or buy a $60 game and have the PC version, Xbox Version and PS3 Version on it.

You buy the game so you can plaly it... but you have to rebuy the game to play it somewhere else.

Its like imagine you have three formats to watch movies in, Blu-Ray, HDDVD, and Medium C. With movies its not as big of a deal though, cause there is no "online" feature with movies so there isn't as much of a reason to have to re-buy the movie unless your going to friends house and he has a Medium C player but you got the movie on Blu-ray. Also we need Cross-platform online gaming at least between consoles.

It just feels as though If movies can have one format, why can't games?

 

[FreedomEclipse]

If movies can have one format, why can't games?

we already do - its called a console port

as far as cross console platform goes...its not gonna happen in this lifetime. as Sony & Microsoft are seperate companies and they have their own bank manager and shareholders to satisfy,

Cross platform would mean they get less money for games sold. as royalties will be split 3 or more ways

 

[Mr McC]

I'm fine with the dlc model in principle, but I'm not fine with:

a) dlc that clearly should have been included in the main game, taking its price into consideration

b) dlc that is released whilst the main game clearly requires substantial patching

just saying.

 

[3volvedcombat]

Base game costs $50
Exp. Pack 1 costs $15
Exp. Pack 2 costs $15
Exp. Pack 3 costs $15

Would you prefer to buy the entire game for $95 and get the expansion packs for 'free'?

Or would you prefer to pay just the $50 and not buy that dlc2 you so much dislike forced on you? And pay a total of $80 by choosing the dlc rather than the full $95 and you get what you don't want?

Your making it complicated and in favor of them.

They can incorporate all 3 expansion packs into the 1 game with 1 license and only 1 charge of 50$

But go ahead and blow the money away.'

Take for instance
EXAMPLE: Dues Ex Revolution just came out,
Go on steam and there is a new DLC for 15$ for when there is a part of the story (a 3 day gap) missing. That was more then planned, and there's nothing more to it.
But there already making more bank.

I do have to admit though, Dues Ex R. is some good shit.

 

[Bo$$]

ombats keep buying crappy games and their crappy DLC

they are the retards sitting on their amazing 'next gen' consoles

 

[3volvedcombat]

The amount of money and effort going into each game is getting higher and higher, yet we are still largely paying more or less the same amounts for games (I remember buying Warcraft 3 at £35, and then Starcraft 2 at £35 despite 10 years of difference). Add inflation, and suddenly DLC's are really sensible from a producer's point of view, and it also allows gamers to choose to sacrifice some parts of his gaming (highly debatable whether he is sacrificing anything at all, but I am going to pick the worse case scenario for the gamer) of the games for a lower cost, in reality if you take inflation to account we should be paying about £40 or more per game. That extra £5 you saved can be sent back to buying DLC.

If you like to shop for older games in the bargain basement (like what I usually do), just wait for GOTY with all the expansions and DLCs attached and you are good to go. After all, most games are stagnating, playing Uncharted during launch day and today (where i can pick it up for £10) still l provide the same amount of entertainment. CoD 4 still allows me to frag tons of noobs, etc.

I completely agree with you on your point's, but right now DLC is between lets say "Good/Evil" Right now, Games can have DLC and that's great. But DLC leaves deviance open, in a way where a developer can plan to release DLC from cut's of a story line, purposely to make more money. It seem's the trend might be getting worse and worse.

Also, if a developer ALREADY has the knowledge, experience, and building block's to develop there title, how much work do you really think there putting in? I wont shoot out the fact that there is probably tons of work.

But game's are still coming out at relatively the same speed's, and no developer is suddenly going to start working 20 hours a day on his job, there people to ya know

 

[yogurt_21]

Your making it complicated and in favor of them.

They can incorporate all 3 expansion packs into the 1 game with 1 license and only 1 charge of 50$

But go ahead and blow the money away.'

Take for instance
EXAMPLE: Dues Ex Revolution just came out,
Go on steam and there is a new DLC for 15$ for when there is a part of the story (a 3 day gap) missing. That was more then planned, and there's nothing more to it.
But there already making more bank.

I do have to admit though, Dues Ex R. is some good shit.

take Mass Effect, ME3 is going to start with shephard on trial for what happened in the arrival dlc for Mass Effect 2. They could have easily made arrival the first part of ME3 instead of making a key plot element a dlc.

companies will do anything to make an extra buck and they will exploit the most loyal fans the easiest. I for one and content to wait for a dlc sale or an ultimate pack.

 

[newconroer]

This is the problem, wombats keep buying crappy games and their crappy DLC, so companies maintain this trend....but me, I've witheld buying Rage and DEHR, and will only buy Skyrim after a few days to ensure there's no show stopping bugs.

Consoles play a big part in this...
Since consoles compete strongly with PCs on average shared game titles for both visuals and audio, they now also share the ability of receiving new content and modifications/patches(in a lot more streamlined and easy fashion).

However the 'mod' community is not reachable to the same extent as on a computer. This leaves developers having to compensate to keep attention focused on the console platforms.


True, games may have had a higher quality assurance level/rating in the past, and they felt more complete with only minor bugs that got corrected in quickly released patches, however simultaneously, they didn't often get anything like a DLC. If new content was released it was either an expansion pack or a whole new game (and at the rate games from the build engine, Doom, Duke, Hexen for example were produced and released, why expansion, they can just make a sequel).

What we tend to find is that games used to last longer, and now they are short, and extended by expansion packs. Maybe if the originals had some respectable longevity, then content releases wouldn't be necessary.

As for the money arguement, unfortunately it is a business - difference being it's virtual transactions versus going to a store and buying a boxed expansion.
Though things like zombie map packs for Call of Duty or anything like that, should never cost anything. If people at home can design maps, developers are having a joke on consumers if they expect them to pay for it.

I completely agree with you on your point's, but right now DLC is between lets say "Good/Evil" Right now, Games can have DLC and that's great. But DLC leaves deviance open, in a way where a developer can plan to release DLC from cut's of a story line, purposely to make more money. It seem's the trend might be getting worse and worse.

Only upside of that is, it leaves a vacuum for serious PC developers to come in and show quality over quantity, when everyone else is out trying to manipulate the buck.
And given that so many PC titles are pirated, maybe it's time developers starting pumping out some good quality titles, encouraging people to fork over their money.
Piracy has two proponents...the people who want everything and anything free, and those who do it out of principle. Neither is acceptable, but we understand why the latter think the way they do.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Only upside of that is, it leaves a vacuum for serious PC developers to come in and show quality over quantity, when everyone else is out trying to manipulate the buck.
And given that so many PC titles are pirated, maybe it's time developers starting pumping out some good quality titles, encouraging people to fork over their money.
Piracy has two proponents...the people who want everything and anything free, and those who do it out of principle. Neither is acceptable, but we understand why the latter think the way they do.

Perhaps you forget yourself, or perhaps you only see piracy as being theft. The definition of piracy you have is far more narrow than the one developers use. After removing the sand from my nethers (I was bitchy before, my apologies), I believe it is time to ask a question. What is piracy?

No, not the question of where you draw the moral line. I want to know what piracy is to the companies who develop games and DLC.

I will admit to legally purchasing several games. I then download "pirated" versions of these same games. Why, that's simple. I hate DRM that makes every single game feel like a tether. You have my $60, now let me play the f*cking game.


By the definition of the companies that produce software, this is illegal. Perhaps they are right; I don't steal anything, the developer gets their money, and I get to enjoy the game I paid for. No solidshield, no Origins, no GFWL. None of these have evben slowed piracy, and they make people who would otherwise pay want to pirate a "working" version of their games.

For DLC, and for games, developers have to learn to respect their customers. Releasing crap, or shaving off gameplay elements that aren't "necessary" is not acceptable. Customers have to learn that piracy hurts everyone. One free game is a minscule influence, until you look at the big picture and see a million people taking "one free game." The corporate backing has to learn that games would be better if all the funding that goes into DRM would be spent on making better games. I'm tired of being assumed to be a criminal, because executives at a game company lack any grounding in reality. I'm tired of games taking twice as long to load, because DRM "has" to be there.

This said, I know moaning does nothing. I for one will not buy EA games casually. I will not buy an NFL game, ever. I will not install a game that comes out with day 1 downloads. This is the only way to let publishers know. They don't listen to words, but a hit to the pocket book will cause them to change policy.

 

[whitrzac]

IMO if it wasn't meant to be in the game originally, I'll buy it. Otherwise I just don't buy the game...

think BF2/spec ops oblivion/shivering isle, etc




I will not be buying BF3 for this reason....

 

[FreedomEclipse]

IMO if it wasn't meant to be in the game originally, I'll buy it. Otherwise I just don't buy the game...

think BF2/spec ops oblivion/shivering isle, etc




I will not be buying BF3 for this reason....

what you are thinking of are EXPANSION PACKS. Its hard to draw the line between what is DLC and expansion packs as DLC could be a full expansion pack in itself (go go fallout 3)

however, BF3 is an entirely new game. not something spawned from an expansion pack. If youre complaining about day one DLC. theyve fixed all that by selling Limited Edition games where you can have the physical warfare weapons pack and additional map pack.

Even if you DONT buy the Limited edition game. It will be made available later on in the game, but it will cost you money. - the maps come free with the limited edition. as for the physical warfare pack. its only a few weapons unlocks to give you a head start. eitherway you will unlock it all when you play the game.

really....

stop crying

 

[BumbleBee]

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/19/eedar-report-half-of-hd-console-owners-buying-dlc/

 

[Ray_Rogers2109]

I usually wait until there's a Game of the Year Edition or some other named Edition which collects all the DLC as its own disc along with the initial game disc. Some titles it doesn't really matter.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I'm not gonna read over the entire thread so I hope this hasn't been posted already..

What about DLC sponcorship like what they did with CoD WaW?......Let the companies that are gonna profit from it pay for it....Like the server companies

I'm seriously disturbed by the cost of DLC for games like Black Ops that aren't coming down in price...Sorry but a sale for DLC isn't good at $1.50 off 6 months and 3 DLC's later

AND I feel that if a game is still full priced after DLC is released it should be included...Yeah I'm looking at you Activision..

 

[MilkyWay]

The problem with DLC is usually there is an imbalance in the content to price ratio. DLC like skins for characters or extra maps, i feel are either overpriced and/or not worth buying. I also do not agree with developers leaving out content just to pawn it off; day 1 DLC shouldn't exist (unless its part of a special edition and rather than make special edition disk just offered the content for download).

DLC can be priced stupid; with Borderlands you where better off buying the game of the year edition which included all the DLC and the main game, rather than buy it all separate. That's stupid because you end up with 2 copies of the game.

Missing link for Deus Ex HR is the perfect example of DLC that i am comfortable with or Battlefield Bad Company 2 Vietnam as another example.

Publishers would rather see developers periodically release smaller DLC because it maximises profit rather than do what they used to do and make a full expansion pack which is more value for the customer.

 

[BumbleBee]

XBOX 360 DLC is great because the GOTY editions sometimes come with it on a second disk that has no protection at all. you can pass it around so your friends can install it.

 

[Neuromancer]

I voted for support, although OF COURSE it implies you are getting a fully functional game in the first place that does not NEED DLC.

While "expansion pack" level DLCs might be 10-15 bucks. Many DLCs are real cheap and offer smaller upgrades. Things that probably would not have existed before DLCs except in the mod community (and that is kind of a crap shoot on system stability)

So Rather pay boxed set expansion prices or DLC? I prefer DLC as it is generally cheaper than expansions alone.

Not to mention, those small purchases help keep development alive for the game and continued support and trouble shooting from the makers.