Am I the only one who dislikes the "DLC Generation" and where gaming is headed?

[gf78]

When DLC was offered on stand-alone discs, I thought it was pretty cool.  Oblivion did this right at the beginning and Borderlands get's retail expansion discs.  I'm fine with that because down the road, regardless of server status or what is still available on a digital storefront, I can put these discs in and access that content. 

[blipcs76]

I'll only use DLC on disc, so I'll hold out for GOTY editions of games so I can get it all in a physical format.  Fallout, Borderlands, Skyrim and Bioshock Infinite are all games I've waited for the GOTY editions so I can get the DLC on disc rather than downloading it and sticking it on my hard drive.  When MS purges last-ten stuff from its servers, you're not going to be able to get that DLC ever again, but on disc as long as I have a working hard drive on my 360 I can play it.

[argyle]

I'm kinda torn on this, and I guess the reason is that in my mind there are two separate issues here - DLC meaning add-on costumes, weapons, and even so-called "story missions" that are little more than 10-15 minute diversions that play no real role in the game. Then there is DLC as in legitimate expansions to the game - examples of this would be the Borderlands expansions, Minerva's Den for Bioshock 2, the Fallout expansions, etc.

The first kind are money grabs, true, but usually they don't matter at all. Like someone else said, most games these days are so full of side content that you'd never miss a random mission, gun, whatever. Heck, if the preorder DLC I get with games is store exclusive or sought after I usually sell it, because some ppl will pay what I consider to be crazy amounts of money for the crap. It's pointless. But I usually don't begrudge the companies that do this either, because gaming budgets are so expensive these days that if there are people willing to pay for the pointless digital doo-dads, why not sell it to them? I do admit that some companies get TOO greedy, and ironically most of these are Japanese companies. I was telling my wife this past weekend that I would totally buy the moogle costume for Lightning in Lightning Returns, but S-E is asking $4 for it which is crazy IMO. I'd give them a buck for it.

The other legitimate DLC is usually released on disk at some point in a "Game of the Year" or "Complete" edition. So if it turns out to be content or a game I really like, I'll trade off & buy that version when it comes out to have it all on disk. Or sometimes if it's a game I want to play but am not dying to play day 1 I'll just wait for that version to hit (Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel is a good example of this, tho I also fully anticipated them porting that to current gen so that was part of my reasoning as well).

So I think the other more important issue is actually a third one that has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread - not DLC, but patches. When a company releases a game that is severely broken on disk so that you basically have to patch it to play it, those are the games I worry about in the future. And those are the games we should be boycotting, which is why I haven't picked up Unity yet. I'll grab it used, or *maybe* new if the Collector's Edition gets clearanced down cheap enough. But I won't be paying a price that will benefit Ubi Soft on that one.

[disgaeniac]

@soeara: Greedy and cocksucker usually don't go hand in hand. In my experience, they're usually very giving.

 

My virgin ears (eyes, if ya wanna be technical)!

You guys think of your moms with the same brain, kiss em with the same mouth, and, hug em with the same hands that think of, say, & type this kind of fucking shit?

addendum #1

from personal experience, I'm here to tell ya that - based on all of the ladies that I've ever known & loved (to varying degrees) before...that the performing of said action is most definitely *not* indickative of their nature, greed, generosity, and/or any other characteristics or traits...they cum in all shapes, sizes, colors, flavors & behaviors

addendum #2

on the realz, kash - you're lucky that I wasn't drinking coffee again when I read that, cuz - I'd of definitely nasally snorted it again...like you've already done me once; ya only getz 1 free pass with me AND, even that - only cuz I likes ya

[kashell]

All my <3 to you, too. I'm glad I could make a morning brighter. ^^

[burningdoom]

I've felt this way since the last generation started. I already pay a small fortune for the console and games, and I already pay for internet. Why should I have to pay for Xbox Live as well?

I also agree with some of the sentiments here about nickel-and-diming you in add-ons. I shouldn't have to pay $10 for horse armor (Oblivion). But a real add-on, like Shimmering Isles (also Oblivion) is the kind of stuff worth paying for.

[spac316]

Yeah, I'm with ya bro. Companies are relying to much on dlc, whether it's day 1 patches and stuff already on disc. I know they gotta keep their investors happy but c'mon...

I don't mind DLC if it's meant to expand upon the game.

[gf78]

I used to think game expansions were pretty cool.  If you were a StarCraft fan, you could buy Brood War for less than half the price of main game and it was a pretty hefty amount of content.  It was also on it's own disc so you never had to worry about losing it because it wasn't available to download.

I should also state that in general, I really hate digital-only games.  Some of them are really great, but I can't bring myself to spend a bunch of money on something non-tangible.  To me, it's like renting the games because you never really own it.  I don't mind to spend $3 for a movie or game rental from a video store, but I DO mind spending up to $60 to "rent" a videogame.  Call me crazy.

[kamikazekeeg]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with DLC, it's a great way to add more to a game to prolong it's lifespan.  It just goes wrong when you get Day 1 DLC being obviously cut content or being done as nothing more to push pre-orders.  I'm actively beginning to avoid pre-ordering games, as really it shouldn't be done often to begin with, due to bad DLC practices.  I'm excited to play Dying Light, but when I saw that they are cutting out a multiplayer game mode from the game and attaching it as pre-order DLC, it made not pre-order it.  Evolve was the other one that had pre-order DLC before the game was even properly shown off over a year ago.

Really, I haven't been doing it at too much in awhile, aside from Nintendo games, because I know I'm guaranteed a proper, quality, product, with a Nintendo game and anything they decide to have as DLC is just a good bonus to the game like with Hyrule Warriors and Mario Kart 8.

My problem is less to do with DLC, but poor game launches.  Games are getting tougher to create in many ways and development time isn't really being extended to cover that.  Even posivitely enormous companies like Ubisoft can't handle their development cycles and they are a company of apparently thousands.  Battlefield is a favorite series of mine and I'm looking forward to Hardline, but BF3 and BF4 had TERRIBLE launches.  Just the worst.  So many games have to be heavily patched to be functioning.  It's nice currently to see companies willing to delay their game for further development time, because they see that everyone is getting pissed at their games running like crap at launch.  Probably the worst experience I've had with this, was either that shooter Rage, which has been the only game I demanded a refund off Steam for, and maybe Call of Duty: Black Ops.  That kind of stuff bothers me much more than anything else.

[krelyan]

I see complaints about DLC come up a lot and I think there are a lot of rose-colored glasses perspective associated with some of the criticisms.

The most damning is withholding content that was ready at launch or was even hidden away on the disc itself.  There’s really no excuse for this, but from what I can tell, this is actually pretty rare.  Most of the day-one DLC I see is usually cosmetic features.  I might have a slightly skewed viewpoint on this however as most of the biggest offenders I hear about are DLC characters in fighting games and DLC maps on shooters being available on launch day and those genres aren’t really my scene.  Even with that, it’s hard to place the blame for the practice solely on the company executives’ shoulders.  It feels like yelling at them for picking up the money us as consumers are throwing on the ground.

Also, I feel it’s nearly impossible to tell when DLC added later was purposefully withheld or it’s just me being cynical.  Like many have noted, game creation is exponentially more expensive than it’s ever been in the past and at some point you just have to release the game to get revenue flowing in.  It’s easy to convince yourself that you’re being cheated out of content solely to pad another’s pocketbook, but at least we now have that content available.  20 years ago it would have just been cut and if the game never saw a sequel we would not have ever have known it existed.

So far all its problems, I’ll still take this “DLC climate” over what we had in the past.  We probably wouldn’t have a Rock Band 2/3 if the first one didn’t have weekly DLC.  And I think it would have been pretty amazing to have clearly unfinished games, like Xenogears, released today where DLC would have been an option.  It’s still a great tool overall, I feel.  Besides, I found it hard to get too worked up about something that is optional.

While it's nice having games on the harddrive, faster loading, etc. It sucks when the servers go dark and you are left with nothing, or something incomplete, or broken.

Honestly, I’ll take my chances on services like Steam outlasting my physical copies.  It’s not like we didn’t have games released before patches on consoles were a possibility that aren’t incomplete and/or broken .  At worst, we’ll just be returning to what we already have.  Sure, developers usually push games out a bit earlier than they used to when they have the safety net of being able to patch the game, but I still think it’s better than the alternative.

[gf78]

A big problem I have with patches is that these companies push games out the door before they are ready.  The attitude is, "Hell, we'll just patch it later."  I would rather wait an extra month or two for a game to come out and it work as advertised out of the box than get a broken, buggy mess from the start.  Day One patches are the norm now and it's inexcusable most of the time. 

Next, I don't like playing a game that pushes microtransactions in my face during gameplay.  Many games today offer in-app purchases.  You know, if I got the game for free on my phone and it has in-app purchases, fine.  But in $60 retail games, they are shoving it in my face too. 

As for game development costs getting higher, of course they are.  It's the nature of the beast.  But...I don't know...only release games that are actually GOOD instead of pushing shovelware out the door and you will see a nice return on your investment.

[Jakandsig]

The issue with this is that gamers (not even as much casuals as people think) are actually promoting these practices you don't like. I mean, it's like people complaining about Gamestop, but they don't start shopping in more numbers at better stores and still shop at Gamestop.

[burningdoom]

The issue with this is that gamers (not even as much casuals as people think) are actually promoting these practices you don't like. I mean, it's like people complaining about Gamestop, but they don't start shopping in more numbers at better stores and still shop at Gamestop.

I'm pretty sure most of the regulars here use sources like Goodwill, Thrift Shops, online message boards & trading sites, and eBay. I don't think most of us frequent GameStop here.

[disgaeniac]

The issue with this is that gamers (not even as much casuals as people think) are actually promoting these practices you don't like. I mean, it's like people complaining about Gamestop, but they don't start shopping in more numbers at better stores and still shop at Gamestop.

I'm pretty sure most of the regulars here use sources like Goodwill, Thrift Shops, online message boards & trading sites, and eBay. I don't think most of us frequent GameStop here.

QF to the T on that!

I would think that - that pretty much goes w/o saying to 99.9% of our regulars here...(ya' know = the 99.9% *with* common sense)

[Jakandsig]

The issue with this is that gamers (not even as much casuals as people think) are actually promoting these practices you don't like. I mean, it's like people complaining about Gamestop, but they don't start shopping in more numbers at better stores and still shop at Gamestop.

I'm pretty sure most of the regulars here use sources like Goodwill, Thrift Shops, online message boards & trading sites, and eBay. I don't think most of us frequent GameStop here.

You know good and well i was talking the majority of gamers. Not sure what context you were reading it as, people here don't like DLC that much either as much as others, but then there are others, the majority, of gamers who still do what they complain about. Which is why these practices are still useful. To publishers anyway.