DLC: Anyone else hate this?

[dpodblood]

So Skyrim is coming out soon, and like many people I'm excited to play it and would like to pick it up day one. Except there is 1 major problem; I know there are going to be multiple DLC packs down the road. I hate the idea of playing a game in an incomplete state. So I can buy the game at release, in which case I will miss out on all the extra content (It's unlikely I will go back and play a 100+ hour game again after the DLC is released). Alternatively I can wait till months after release and get the game in a complete state. I had this same issue with FO3, which I didn't play until the GOTY edition was available, and am still waiting on a GOTY-ish edition for FO:NV. Does this annoy anyone else?

 

[M0RPH]

You act like DLC is covered in the price of the original game. It's not, it's new content that has it's own price tag. The only reason you are getting it free in GOTY versions is because it's like a year after the game was released.

 

[dpodblood]

Price isn't really the issue. It's that by the time the DLC is released I will already be finished with the game. A game of this size I will probably only play through once. So I have to make a choice between playing the "incomplete" game or waiting a while to play the "whole" thing.

 

[Texashiker]

I think its a changing of the times.

Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, there was tons of fan made content. When diablo and quake were the games of the day, there were all kinds of fan made maps, campaigns, fan sites,,,,,.

I remember a time when someone could go to fileplanet and get more modifications and add-on campaigns that we could count.

Today, it seems that only the most dedicated of fans make any kind of content. Fan sites are not what they used to be either.

Instead of the fans making projects, companies sell DLC.

I do not know which one I dislike more, the decrease of fan activity, or the increase of paid DLC.

 

[Elcs]

DLC's are fine.

They replace the word "Expansion pack" in the computer world. They expand the content of the game past the original.

DLC's are also optional so for those of us who don't want a pink fluffy kitten skin for our mount in World of Warcraft, we don't have to buy one.

 

[dpodblood]

I find DLCs differ from expansions in a couple of ways. Usually expansion packs added a lot of new content. Usually an entirely new campaign. DLC usually only adds a few extra hours of gameplay. Granted they cost less than the typical expansion pack, but you are also getting a lot less content. Another big difference is that typically a game would only have 1 big expansion. If you wanted to play the entire game it was simply a matter of picking up the game and the expansion. Now, using FO:NV as an example you need to wait for 6+ releases over the course of a year and a half if you want to play the full thing. Expansion packs also usually we completely separate from the main game, where as with DLC they are simply addons to the existing campaign.

 

[PrayForDeath]

I used to hate DLCs, but then I played Lair of the Shadow Broker and completely changed my mind.

 

[paperfist]

DLC's are fine.

They replace the word "Expansion pack" in the computer world. They expand the content of the game past the original.

DLC's are also optional so for those of us who don't want a pink fluffy kitten skin for our mount in World of Warcraft, we don't have to buy one.

But they aren't really expansion packs which is the 'problem' they are little bites of the game being re-released. Like Dragon Age, even after buying the game with all the DLCs I felt confused as to how to go about playing them. You had to go back and revisit parts and it felt unnatural.

Expansion packs like Beyond the Sword for Civ IV took the base game and added a ton of content on top of it. You can go back in forth and play either if you want, not so with DLC. They just have that tack on feel because of their size.

DLC would work awesome for FPS, or sports games, even tycoon games where you can add on 10 new maps or new stadiums or new city packages to your base game. It would be even more glorious if they did those as a continuation meant to extend the life of your game, but they only do so in limited fashion.

 

[dpodblood]

But they aren't really expansion packs which is the 'problem' they are little bites of the game being re-released. Like Dragon Age, even after buying the game with all the DLCs I felt confused as to how to go about playing them. You had to go back and revisit parts and it felt unnatural.

This is my issue as well. So if I buy Skyrim at launch and play through the game, then what happens when the DLC is released? Assuming your character survives though the ending of the game you need to walk back to some other part of the environment to play the DLC. They try to make the DLC feel part of the game environment, but in the end they just feel disjointed.

 

[Rhezuss]

Give me Horse Armor DLC for $3 and i'll be upset like hell and won't buy.
Give me new adventures, NPC, dungeons, quests, unique items, areas to explore for $5-$10 and i'll be a happy geek.

 

[Mursilis]

So Skyrim is coming out soon, and like many people I'm excited to play it and would like to pick it up day one. Except there is 1 major problem; I know there are going to be multiple DLC packs down the road. I hate the idea of playing a game in an incomplete state. So I can buy the game at release, in which case I will miss out on all the extra content (It's unlikely I will go back and play a 100+ hour game again after the DLC is released). Alternatively I can wait till months after release and get the game in a complete state. I had this same issue with FO3, which I didn't play until the GOTY edition was available, and am still waiting on a GOTY-ish edition for FO:NV. Does this annoy anyone else?

It annoys me that it annoys you. You already recognize that you have options - you can buy the game now at full price and play it right away, and maybe buy the DLC later, or you can wait months/years to buy the GOTY/Gold/whatever edition and get all the content at some discounted price - so what's the problem? Make a choice and quit whining. I usually wait for GOTY edition or whatever, but that's because I have way more games than free time, so I'm happy to wait. If you want to play the game on release day, pay up and shut up. Why are you complaining about developers making money (or trying to)?

 

[Red Storm]

DLC in Skyrim is going to be eclipsed by the numerous, free, arguably better quality custom mods that the devoted fans will make for the game. It's what Bethesda games are known for (Got a problem? The community will fix it and then some).

 

[paperfist]

Give me Horse Armor DLC for $3 and i'll be upset like hell and won't buy.
Give me new adventures, NPC, dungeons, quests, unique items, areas to explore for $5-$10 and i'll be a happy geek.

In theory that sounds awesome, in practice at least I haven't encountered it. If they expanded the map and added high level content there that would be sweet, but all they do is revisit the map and stick you some place you already been where it feels like an after thought.

Maybe in games with endings there shouldn't be DLC. It's like going backwards playing DLC after you finish the story.

 

[Bateluer]

Guys, in the cases of most DLC, its content that was actually removed from the original game specifically to sell as DLC.

Every time I've bought DLC, its been a waste of money. Having been burned too many times by it, I either don't waste my time from the get go, or wait for a 'set' edition release that includes it and pick that up.

 

[brandonb]

DLC bothers me if the game costs $60.
I like DLC if the game costs $10.

If they are going to release a game with limited content with DLC available, they need to release the base game for a cheaper price. I like this method because I can buy the game for cheap ($10) and if I like the game, buy the DLC to play longer. If I don't like the game I don't feel like I was ripped off with a $60 price tag.

 

[Rhezuss]

In theory that sounds awesome, in practice at least I haven't encountered it. If they expanded the map and added high level content there that would be sweet, but all they do is revisit the map and stick you some place you already been where it feels like an after thought.

Maybe in games with endings there shouldn't be DLC. It's like going backwards playing DLC after you finish the story.

Yeah we never seen that...but we saw something similar with DA:O and it's $7 Warden's Keep that took 1 hour to complete...that was bad...

But again, "Capitalism" kicked "Let's give our paying customers quality expansions" in the nuts hard and 82 DLCs in a year are simply more rentable then a $30-$40 expansion after 8-12 months...

 

[dpodblood]

It annoys me that it annoys you. You already recognize that you have options - you can buy the game now at full price and play it right away, and maybe buy the DLC later, or you can wait months/years to buy the GOTY/Gold/whatever edition and get all the content at some discounted price - so what's the problem? Make a choice and quit whining. I usually wait for GOTY edition or whatever, but that's because I have way more games than free time, so I'm happy to wait. If you want to play the game on release day, pay up and shut up. Why are you complaining about developers making money (or trying to)?

Yeah I get that perspective as well. I guess that I am just excited to play the game, but that gets overshadowed when I know the "complete" game wont be available until a year and a half down the road.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Guys, in the cases of most DLC, its content that was actually removed from the original game specifically to sell as DLC.

There are rare exceptions, like the DLC for Fallout New Vegas. Obsidian worked on the DLC for months after the game shipped and just finished the last ones recently.

But yes, I'm waiting for a Dragon Age 2 "Ultimate Edition" to be in a Steam sale before I'll bite on that one.

I'm undecided on Skyrim -- if it's like Oblivion I might want to wait for a few patches anyway, so I might hold out for the GOTY.

 

[NoSoup4You]

You're worrying about content that doesn't even exist yet. And don't tell me the GOTY editions are the "complete" game. The game on release day is the complete game, the GOTY editions are just "complete + some tacked on DLC". DLC which almost never matches the quality of the original game in the first place.

Lair of the Shadow Broker is really the only exception that comes to mind.

 

[dpodblood]

You're worrying about content that doesn't even exist yet. And don't tell me the GOTY editions are the "complete" game. The game on release day is the complete game, the GOTY editions are just "complete + some tacked on DLC". DLC which almost never matches the quality of the original game in the first place.

Lair of the Shadow Broker is really the only exception that comes to mind.

Yeah I am using the word "complete" loosely here. I know the game is complete when it's released. I am not even necessarily blaming the game developers here. It's just a bit of a conundrum. Should I play the game I'm excited for now, or wait for all the DLC. It's unlikely I will want to play through a 100+ hour game twice.

 

[lord_emperor]

What I find disturbing is the huge range in price/benefit. We have for example fairly fun DLC for Fallout:NV that cost $10. At the other extreme Blizzard wants $20 for one horse.

I'm worried that because people actually buy the $20 horse, other companies will think they can charge that much for DLC and the price for everything will creep up.

 

[pontifex]

What I find disturbing is the huge range in price/benefit. We have for example fairly fun DLC for Fallout:NV that cost $10. At the other extreme Blizzard wants $20 for one horse.

I'm worried that because people actually buy the $20 horse, other companies will think they can charge that much for DLC and the price for everything will creep up.

I like to think that the majority of people aren't that stupid...and it would reflect with no one buying the stuff so they lower the price.

am i naive?

 

[AstroManLuca]

I don't know how Skyrim works in this regard, but in both Fallout 3 and New Vegas, the game ends when you complete the main quest. The simple solution in that case would be to make a separate save file just before the "point of no return" and revisit the game when you have the DLC. If it's open ended, then it's even easier - just play the game as much as you want, and come back when you get the DLC, no need for even a separate save file.

 

[Mem]

Problem I find with DLC ie for example Bioware's DLC is for the most part way overpriced for what you get,its like they are milking the gamer for a very short DLC for maximum price they can get away with.

 

[dpodblood]

I like to think that the majority of people aren't that stupid...and it would reflect with no one buying the stuff so they lower the price.

am i naive?

That's what I've been doing thus far. For games that I know there will be a lot of DLC for I wait until it's all released and then buy the complete package for a reduced price, usually much less than the $60 the base game would have cost. The advantage of this is all in cost savings, and the convenience of knowing you have all the content right from the beginning. On the flip side you don't get the instant gratification of playing the game as soon as it's available.