Why does all DLC suck so much?

[shortylickens]

No, it wasn't.

And every time they released a DLC for FO3, it broke the game. And I use the term 'broke' loosely, given how notoriously crappy FO3 is coded.

It never made my game any less reliable.
And some of it was fun. The alien ship was cool for a while, but eventually I wanted it to end.
At least I got some cool loot from it.

Anchorage was sweet. But you cant keep any of your goodies and the suit you get at its conclusion wasnt any better than what you had.
The Maryland one was OK, it provided a small new world to explore.
Brotherhood of Steel let you keep going in the world, which the core game did not.
Pittsburg was fucking stupid and annoying, but at least they added some cool weapons and a machine that let you exchange ammo.

 

[darkewaffle]

Anandtech: Where everyone is a millionaire with a sports car and a super model girlfriend and cares if a $7 DLC was only actually worth $4.

Witch Hunt I was a little annoyed with simply because of the abrupt ending, but all in all I've never felt burned. They're short, but that's a given. I'm happy just getting more of the game and seeing parts of the universe that may not have 'fit' into the game on their own.

 

[Arg Clin]

Witch Hunt should have been part of the original game IMO - not nearly long enough to be a DLC on its own. Same goes for Shadow Broker for ME2.

I see both a valuable contributions to their respective stories though - I wouldn't have missed them.

I suppose it's all really about the business model for the game, and the cost of game+DLC should be considered as a whole. Basically the DLC option keeps the cost of the original game down (in theory anyway) - and to some extent calls for the devs to give the original game quality, because if they make a game that stinks, nobody will buy the DLCs.

Also the time delay between the original game and the DLC's give the devs the possibility of gathering feedback from fans, to include stories/elements that fans would like to see.

I think DLC is a good model, but just often not being used right. Many DLC's give the perception of really bad value. WH 2 hours is a joke for the price - feels a bit like EA making a quick profit off having a really unsatifying loose end in DAO. This is bound to give som badwill towards the dev and the DLC model as a whole.

All in all - I see DLC as a good tool, but many devs still haven't found the right balance.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

Sometimes you finish a game and you're like oh man I just wish there was just a little bit more. That's dlc. It's appealing to the person that liked the game enough and just wants it to last just a little bit longer.

There's also the dlc that's meant to help the devs such as the skin packs for killing floor.

 

[Red Hawk]

I've only played DLC for Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 1&2. It's been hit & miss. There has been really, really good DLC (Lair of the Shadow Broker) and downright lazy DLC (Witch Hunt). In fact, those two DLCs are readily comparable, as they both came out at the same time and involved reuniting with possible love interests from the main games.

Lair of the Shadow Broker had:

-Exciting fights, both with standard enemies and bosses
-Good writing and characterization, with some genuinely emotional moments
-Moved the main game's plot forward, arguably more than the game itself did
-Original and unique gameplay areas
-A lasting effect on gameplay after the mission was complete
-Very cinematic and high-quality production values

On the other hand, Witch Hunt had:

-Same old fights with no real tension
-Lame writing with no emotional clout
-Didn't really connect with the plots from the games
-Totally recycled gameplay areas from the main game and other DLC
-No lasting effect on gameplay after the quest was completed aside from a couple items
-Not up to the production value standards BioWare has set for itself

 

[Dumac]

Everyone praises shadow broke, but really it should have been in the actual game.

Everyone, when playing ME2, said "what the hell" when they reached Liara. The whole reunion was completely unrealistic, she gave Shepard a cold shoulder, and doesn't even give the time of day to explain anything.

When playing the game at launch, when I reached that part I said "hmm, wait....it feels like something is missing here. Like there is a big hole in the game...really this is it?"

Then the answer came later hwen they announced Shadow broker - the content had be cut and moved to DLC!

Of course! Why put that part in the game, where it rightly belongs, when you can just snip it out and sell it as DLC for extra $$$!

That the the start of my dislike for Bioware, which has only grown with time.

So I disagree that Shadow Broker was awesome DLC. Sure, the content was better, but it was filling a hole in the original game, rather than supplementing it with a nice add-on.

 

[Regs]

Fallout 3's expansions were generally pretty good. Broken Steel, The Pitt, and Point Lookout probably add 10-15 hours to the game. The other ones weren't great though.

Yes, and New Vegas DLC was pretty good too.

 

[bart1975]

Anyone know what the time frame was when games went from being moderately priced and having free mods to being overpriced and having paid DLC?

 

[Red Storm]

Anyone know what the time frame was when games went from being moderately priced and having free mods to being overpriced and having paid DLC?

Games have usually kept the same prices. Older console games used to sell for more than today's $60 price even. Free mods never came from the devs themselves, it's almost always been the work of the gaming community. As for DLC...

Here's how it originally worked. At a certain point in developing a game you have to "lock in" the game's content and start the quality assurance / bug testing / review phase, which starts at least several months before the game's release date. Some content just isn't ready in time, and in the old days that meant it would either never see the light of day or it would show up in an eventual expansion pack if sales were good. But expansions don't always happen, so a lot of times that unfinished content was simply never released.

That's how DLC is supposed to work. Of course, publishers are out to make money, and so they are always pushing, testing to see just how willing customers are to pay for the things they love. So nowadays it wouldn't surprise me if devs are under orders to hold back content. Certain DLC products definitely give off this vibe, but I don't think all DLC is like this. As usual it's "shades of gray" and much less "black and white".

It annoys me when I see immediate reaction to DLC announcements like "It should've been in the original game!" It's a multi million dollar project, not your high school research paper that is worked on until a few hours before the due date. Too many of us take the development process for granted. Not to say the devs/publishers are never at fault, sometimes it definitely is their own blunder/greed, but there's a lot more to game development than throwing in content and putting a price tag on it.

 

[Aikouka]

That's how DLC is supposed to work. Of course, publishers are out to make money, and so they are always pushing, testing to see just how willing customers are to pay for the things they love. So nowadays it wouldn't surprise me if devs are under orders to hold back content. Certain DLC products definitely give off this vibe, but I don't think all DLC is like this. As usual it's "shades of gray" and much less "black and white".

You mean like how Konami loves to ship out content on their discs but makes you pay to unlock it?

 

[JoshGuru7]

There is a difference between costs and prices. Prices are useful signals that depend on demand, and do not depend on costs other than a basic go/no-go decision (no go if cost exceeds price). The self-serving moral outage at companies that charge high prices when costs are low is misplaced when transactions are voluntary.

Is DLC overpriced, are games at retail underpriced, or are both appropriately priced? What does "overpriced" mean exactly? I have a strong opinion about this as an economist, but rather than hitting anybody over the head with it I will just add the following question. If you heard that Jim Carrey was paid $8 million for two month's worth of filming on Mr. Popper Penguins, how would you analyze whether he was priced correctly?

 

[BoberFett]

There are certain franchises that you're better off just waiting for the Super Ultimate Mega Edition to be released a year after the initial release if you think you're going to want all the DLC. Bioware and Bethesda come to mind. As much as I loved Fallout 3, I would have much rather waited a little while and gotten everything in one affordable package instead of buying it all separately for upwards of $100. Paying $30 each for Oblivion and Dragon Age including all their big DLC was great. I'm holding out on New Vegas until that game gets a big re-release.

 

[ElFenix]

fwiw, $7 for 2 hours of content is cheaper by the minute than a movie

I'm holding out on New Vegas until that game gets a big re-release.

didn't get in on the $10 deal at d2d?

 

[gothamhunter]

Holy thread resurrection Batman!

 

[shortylickens]

Holy thread resurrection Batman!

Not even.
Its a minor bump.

I heard of some jackass bumping a 10 year old Duke Nukem thread in Off Topic.

 

[Red Hawk]

Everyone praises shadow broke, but really it should have been in the actual game.

Everyone, when playing ME2, said "what the hell" when they reached Liara. The whole reunion was completely unrealistic, she gave Shepard a cold shoulder, and doesn't even give the time of day to explain anything.

When playing the game at launch, when I reached that part I said "hmm, wait....it feels like something is missing here. Like there is a big hole in the game...really this is it?"

Then the answer came later hwen they announced Shadow broker - the content had be cut and moved to DLC!

Of course! Why put that part in the game, where it rightly belongs, when you can just snip it out and sell it as DLC for extra $$$!

That the the start of my dislike for Bioware, which has only grown with time.

So I disagree that Shadow Broker was awesome DLC. Sure, the content was better, but it was filling a hole in the original game, rather than supplementing it with a nice add-on.

Cutting out content from the game is different than putting a lead-in thread to the game. Sure, there was clearly something "missing" to Liara's story, as if it was the start of something larger. But they didn't actually have the content, or the story itself, finished by the time they released the game. This is evidenced by some unused audio files in the game apparently discussing the aftermath of taking out the Shadow Broker. These were not used by the DLC, because the intended story changed.

So, you can dislike the practice of leaving threads hanging in games for DLC to tie up later, but it technically isn't "cutting" content from the game.

 

[shortylickens]

 

[Jules]

Everyone praises shadow broke, but really it should have been in the actual game.

Everyone, when playing ME2, said "what the hell" when they reached Liara. The whole reunion was completely unrealistic, she gave Shepard a cold shoulder, and doesn't even give the time of day to explain anything.

When playing the game at launch, when I reached that part I said "hmm, wait....it feels like something is missing here. Like there is a big hole in the game...really this is it?"

Then the answer came later hwen they announced Shadow broker - the content had be cut and moved to DLC!

Of course! Why put that part in the game, where it rightly belongs, when you can just snip it out and sell it as DLC for extra $$$!

That the the start of my dislike for Bioware, which has only grown with time.

So I disagree that Shadow Broker was awesome DLC. Sure, the content was better, but it was filling a hole in the original game, rather than supplementing it with a nice add-on.

:thumbsup:

 

[RobertPters77]

New Vegas DLC was okay in my book.

The worst DLC are map packs and weapons packs.

 

[badb0y]

At first it seemed like a good idea to me that developers would have a chance to release more content to consumers that want it but I quickly realized that developers/publishers will probably just start cutting out the game content that would have been in the original game just so they can sell it to you later as DLC.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Time to beat the dead horse and throw my two cents in.

When I think DLC, I think replayability. When I see DLC, I see money grabs.

To buy a game it must stand well on it's own, and if it's good then I'll want some DLC to add more to replaying said game. DA: O being an example, I loved the combat (80 hour playthough) but it was so linear that I'd never be able to replay it. It's good enough to forgive the devs for this deficiency so I looked for DLC to fix this but found trinkets and one shot side quests that add 2-4 hours of new content and leave the rest of the 80 hour game untouched. I just checked for new DLC and it's more of the same crap.

Supreme Commander II being the biggest sinner I've had the misfortune of buying (on sale). They went so far as to give you a tiny selection of maps, prevent people from making custom maps and then have the balls to try and sell you a equally tiny number of maps and a few trinkets (units) for $10. I'd burn the CD if I had one but I got it through steam.

I want to buy DLC, I really really want to. But they only make me look at the cost and just go and buy Witcher 2 instead.

 

[Red Hawk]

Dragon Age: Origins...too non-linear to replay? You've got some really high non-linearity standards.

I found Lair of the Shadow Broker to add a nice bit of replay value. It adds a new power that can completely change the player's tactical approach, adds a revisitable area at the end, and gives the ability to re-assign all your squadmate's powers.

 

[Bateluer]

I remember making this thread last year. Thanks for bringing up my anger at Bioware for the turd called Witch Hunt. Now I can reinforce it with that cesspit called DA2.

 

[Nebor]

I loved all the Dragon Age DLC, and I bought it all piece-meal directly off EA's website using their stupid "points" system where I ended up with extra "points" after I bought everything because you can only buy "points" in certain amounts. And even after that, I still thought it was worthwhile. $10 for 2 hours of entertainment? That's better than a movie!

 

[Bateluer]

New Vegas DLC was okay in my book.

The worst DLC are map packs and weapons packs.

Nah, these are the best DLC packs. They cost next to nothing to develop because they were all created during the game's original development, and console gamers buy them en mass. The profit margin is insane.