Is DLC sometimes the REST of the game we already paid for?

Josher

 Dragon Age had it on day 1, so basically the content was done at release, but they're charging us for it?   Borderlands has DLC already after what, a little over a month?   I can understand a few months going by until we'd see some  DLC.  Its basically an expansion.  It SHOULD take some time to create.  if its done so soon after release, that tells me they're purposely leaving it out to nab another $10, which is nearly a 1/4 of the price.  As we all know, DLC NEVER equals a 1/4 of the content of the original game.  

Just curious=)

RavZterz

I think of DLC as mini expansions.  For MMOs where you pay monthly these should be included but for other games I'm ok with paying 5-15 for DLC depending what it is. 

For Borderlands I didn't feel like the DLC was already paid for since it has its main story and is worth adding zombies to the mix..  Dragon Age has some questionable DLC that I personally wouldn't buy but still the extra items you get don't feel like they are already paid for to me at least, just too overpriced.

Jixx

It depends,  Do you have the buy the DLC to finish the story that came with the game?  Or is a offshoot of an event that happens during or after the main story line?    I would say its no big deal if by the end of the game you've saved the princess.  However,  if you have to pay for the DLC to do so thats a little messed up. 

I don't see anything wrong with have DLC ready at release.  DLC is always marketed in games that use it but sometimes it never gets used.  Like a pay for a game that comes with 30 hours of game play with the idea that the story is going to be expanded later adding another 5 or 10 hours here and there. 

The other side of the coin tell me yeah,  expand the story out over several chapters or books depending on how you want to do it.   If it takes 5 books to save the princess that is okay because each book would be 30 hours of game play. 

Joliust

I only get upset when it is something that was suppose to be in the original release or was promised to come out later. Then all of a sudden its a 10 dollar download is when I feel betrayed. Now if I buy a game, knowing what it is and they release something new its a different story. The most obvious example is L4D's $50 DLC, sorry had to bring it up.

teddy_bare

It all depends on what kind of content or "features" are contained in the DLC.

I can think of some cases where yes, the DLC "should" have been included in the original retail product. The most recent example, the one the OP mentioned, is Dragon Age and it's release day DLC. In the case of Dragon Age, I absolutely feel that the Warden's Keep DLC most definitely been included in the retail package. I mean, the biggest attraction of Warden's Keep was the storage chest which, IMHO, was absolutely VITAL to the game experience, especially early on and should NOT have been charged extra for. Without it, the forced inventory management was such a pain in the ass that I ended up buying it just b/c I didn't want to deal with that bullshit anymore. Now, did I want to buy it? No. should I have bought it? No. But I enjoyed the rest of the game enough that I broke down and got it which of course sent the message that yes, people will pay, but it REALLY pissed me off and I made a point to go to the BioWare forums and tell them how unhappy I was about it....but really, actions speak louder then words, and the almighty dollar speaks louder then all.

In general I have absolutely no problem with DLC. Do I think the consumer is getting ripped of in some cases? Abso-fuckin-lutely. I think that any content that is finished when the game goes "Gold" should be put on the disc and included in the retail package for the base price of the game. If DLC is worked on and completed in the time between when the game went "Gold" and when it hit shelves then I have no problem paying for it right-off. When it comes down to it, DLC is an awesome idea, when done in GOOD-FAITH, which means they aren't withholding completed content, or especially VITAL content and/or features from the retail package to make more money. We, as the consumer have to be aware of what we buy b/c that sends the loudest message.

Personally, I enjoy extending a great game with worthwhile DLC, it's when shit happens like what BioWare and EA did with Warden's Keep that I get pissed off.

 

 

ishist

If having to buy warden's keep pissed you off, you could have bought one of the special editions that came with it included. So in that particular case, your not paying for something that was removed from the retail release, you're paying for something that was available in the SE, or LE, or whatever. which is a separate issue. 

I believe that about 5/1000 games coming in 2010 don't have special editions available.

Halfmad

Only game that's really annoyed me recently with DLC was Total War: Empire. They seemed to release extra DLC units within weeks of the games initial release and some only for special editions. I hate to say it but if that game needed anything it was more unit types!

kobietruman

to answer the OP - yes

and, because of "oblivion", i no longer buy single player games upon release (well, i no longer do that with MMORPGs either)

i'm content to wait until well after the games DLC and expansions are released and buy the "complete" (funny how the developers/distributors call them this) box set at the price of the original release

"cheap bastard" or just nifty cool

 

Josher

 I'm not against DLC.  It adds to the game.  Its when its right there on release day or a week or two later that makes me wonder.  Thats content that should be in the game.  Its finished parts of the game that could EASILY be included, but instead you're being charged for it.   Its just petty and feels equal to the developer giving me the virtual middle finger;)  

 

Orthaos

I buy games, but if they release a DLC pack right away...I figure they are a money-grabbing greedy company, and purposely did not release content just for people to buy content that should have been there

 

I then pirate it, cause I want to show my anti-support of this behavior.

 

If they release it a few months or even a couple months after release, after fixing bugs and stuff, and actual patches...then I show my support with my money...

 

I bought all the Fallout 3 DLCs with money (the DLCs were awesome for Fallout 3). I pirated all the Dragon Age DLCs (though I didn't pirate the game)

teddy_bare

Originally posted by ishist


If having to buy warden's keep pissed you off, you could have bought one of the special editions that came with it included. So in that particular case, your not paying for something that was removed from the retail release, you're paying for something that was available in the SE, or LE, or whatever. which is a separate issue. 
I believe that about 5/1000 games coming in 2010 don't have special editions available.

 

Yeah, I could have bought the Special Edition, but why should I have to? If you look at the price of the Special Edition and the price of Warden's Keep...either way you are paying for the DLC. Yeah, you may get some other silly, useless shit w/ the SE, but I reiterate that at least the storage chest, which was THE feature of Warden's Keep, whatever they may say, should have been included in the regular, retail release of the game and not cost more money via DLC or a "Special Edition".

So I stand by my statement

Ceridith

DLCs are rarely worth their cost.

Paying $10-15 for a few more hours of gameplay is rarely worth it.

Take Fallout 3 for example. $50 for the main game. Excluding DLCs, I got well over 200 hours of gameplay out of it. For each DLC individually at $10 each, times 6, it cost more than the base game. Total amount of added gameplay? A little over 10-20 hours maybe. The only DLC that was actually worth the cost was the Broken Steel DLC that extended the main storyline and level cap to 30 from 20, which was an extension to the core game technically.

I would much rather wait longer for a well thought out, content filled expansion that extends the core game, than buy numerous DLCs that add a fraction of gameplay for an inflated cost. Maybe if the DLCs were a more realistic price, I wouldn't have as much of an issue, but DLCs are just another attempted moneygrab.

So long as the DLCs are option, in that not having them doesn't noticeably impact gameplay, and they aren't content that was cut from the core game that was supposed to be there, then who cares.

I will say though, that I was rather pissed off that Dragon Age shipped with two DLCs on release. What really irked me was the ingame advertisement for it, that teased you by offering a quest, but said that you had to buy the DLC to do it. I felt that was very invasive and a huge turn off.

Palebane

Nowadays, yes.

Corthala

DLC should be used to make people buying the games and not pirating them.

Ceridith

Originally posted by Corthala


DLC should be used to make people buying the games and not pirating them.

 

It's having the opposite effect. More people are pirating explicitly because of the inflated cost of the overall game due to overpriced DLCs.

midmagic

Originally posted by Corthala


DLC should be used to make people buying the games and not pirating them.

 

When you figure out how to do that, while still keeping sales of the product at the same level or better, be sure you patent it and make yourself filthy rich.