# How Do You Feel About DLC?



## DarkOnyx (May 2, 2015)

How do you feel about downloadable content? You know, the stuff you have to buy to use, after you've already bought the game.

In my opinion, if someone pays for a game, they should get everything. They shouldn't have to buy anything to unlock something in that game.


----------



## Hyoshido (May 2, 2015)

If the DLC is worth the experience and comes at a decent price, I'm fully supportive.


----------



## Bowie (May 2, 2015)

I'm personally against purchasable downloadable content. I think that buying the game should be enough, and you shouldn't have to purchase anything else. I really love indie (independent) games because they are exactly that. There is nothing else to them, and somebody can just sit and enjoy the game without having to worry about any additional content you have to buy. It should just come with the game, I think.


----------



## mdchan (May 2, 2015)

It depends if the DLC was something which could have been in the game originally or not.

If it's something which was withheld from the game for the sole purpose of getting more money off of it as a DLC, then I'm against that.  Games these days are expensive enough, so we should be allowed the full content of what was created at that time.

If it's something which was created later (after the game's release) to make it better or add to the story/post-game, and didn't originally start as something which would have been released with the game itself, then I'm alright with it.  I might not buy it if it's too expensive (I'm still debating over the Fantasy Life DLC).

There were a lot of mysteries in Pokemon X/Y which could definitely benefit from DLC (the hidden legendaries in the code, the locked doors in the badlands, the creepy girl in Lumiose City, and just dealing more with AZ's story to name a few).  There's a lot of potential for the game being expanded on post-release...and frankly, in that case, I'd rather see some DLC for X/Y over another remake or a Gen VII.


----------



## Alienfish (May 2, 2015)

Bowie said:


> I'm personally against purchasable downloadable content. I think that buying the game should be enough, and you shouldn't have to purchase anything else. I really love indie (independent) games because they are exactly that. There is nothing else to them, and somebody can just sit and enjoy the game without having to worry about any additional content you have to buy. It should just come with the game, I think.



This.

To be honest, it all depends. If it's just aesthetic things that only adds like costumes it's stupid (especially if they are expensive for some Japanese games) or if they are a ton just because they can add (like this Dynasty Warriors game) I'm against it.

As long as it's reasonable priced and adds things (to an extent; too much is never good) it's alright and if they make content they didn't have before.. Sure at a reasonable price.


----------



## mayorofparadise (May 2, 2015)

I don't think its fair


----------



## DarkDesertFox (May 2, 2015)

My standards for DLC being acceptable:

1. It does not take away content, diminish enjoyment, or provide an advantage to other players. For example, Destiny took away daily/weekly challenges during certain periods for those who did not own the DLC and prevented access to particular gear.
2. The DLC is a fair price.
3. It is something that is reasonably expected to be added later and could not have been released with the game when it first came out.


----------



## Yeosin (May 2, 2015)

In my eyes DLC is 100% fine.
It's not like you're required to buy it so I don't find it harmful.

Reasons I would buy DLC :
It adds to the base game that was already good.
Adds cute cosmetic items (As long as they're like 99 cents each and I have the spare money.)
Adds new maps/functionality.
Adds pretty much anything. Adding is a good sign.

Reasons I wouldn't buy DLC : 
It fixes bugs. (This shouldn't have to be paid for)
It is for a handheld console. (3DS/PS Vita/etc)
It's just not good and was clearly made to try and make money-- not improve content.


----------



## Espurr96 (May 2, 2015)

It's ok if it's fun extras and bonus stuff is included. It's not fun when the best part of a game is only in the DLC. 

One thing was Fallout 3, loved it, but the needed Broken Steel DLC to keep playing after the main story really sucked.


----------



## Alienfish (May 2, 2015)

ThatOneCcj said:


> Reasons I wouldn't buy DLC :
> It fixes bugs. (This shouldn't have to be paid for)
> It is for a handheld console. (3DS/PS Vita/etc)
> It's just not good and was clearly made to try and make money-- not improve content.



Yeah.. if it's free and fixes bug like recent Pokemon games and such sure but yeah I wouldn't pay for that ._. And a lot of the handheld port dlc is unnecessary indeed; most just add items you can get still. The same with characters most of the time you don't need them anyways.


----------



## Pokemanz (May 2, 2015)

If it's there from the start, then no way. You should only have to pay once and be done with it.

If there's DLC released 2+ years later, after you've already done nearly everything in the game, and it adds way more content and breathes new life into the game, then definitely.


----------



## Alienfish (May 2, 2015)

Also I am against when they release all DLC before the game. I think they did here with the first Theatrhytm game >>


----------



## Tao (May 2, 2015)

It depends on the DLC.

Day 1 DLC and DLC pre-order content I can't stand in any form. If it's extra levels or characters, that's just disgraceful. If it's skins and other useless stuff, regardless of how useless it is, it was ready for day 1 so why isn't it in the finished product by default?
I understand it's to get people to buy the game on day 1 but it's just an awful way to ensure that. Bribe me with a free t-shirt or something (ala Splatoon) rather than taking part of the game I paid for hostage until I throw more money at you.

DLC that has been announced, planned or in development  before release of the game I also cannot stand. It's like they're already planning on how to make more of your money before they've even sold you the game. I just cannot trust this sort of DLC. Even if the game is fine and finished without it, I always get the feeling they've cut out features and tacked it onto the DLC.

DLC that is necessary to the games plot, or something else that makes it feel like you *have* to buy it to get the full experience. This includes all of the above as well as DLC that's created afterwards but adds something you pretty much NEED to play to experience the full game.



Spoiler:  Examples of what I think is bad DLC



Evolve. The first time anybody heard about that game at all was an advertisement to pre-order the season pass. Literally nothing about the game had been shown and we knew nothing about it at all, yet they were trying to sell the season pass. Trying to sell us DLC before we knew that the game actually even bloody existed!

Or Assassins Creed 4 was pretty bad. They reveled the first DLC pack was already finished and announced that it would launch day 1 because "it won't fit on the disc". That was a terrible excuse which is probably specific to the 360 and their small storage size on the discs. Why not just release it on 2 discs like GTAV?

Mass Effect 3. True, the game was a complete experience on release but they added that 'real ending' to the game later due to fans *****ing that they didn't like the original ending. To me, that's pretty much necessary if you liked the game. They took a finished product and somehow made it unfinished, until you buy the DLC.






If the game is finished and feels like a totally complete experience on day 1, add some DLC to it. I expect to see the DLC at least a few months later. If I'm seeing DLC released within the first month or two then I'm pretty sure it's cut content or rushed, two things I'm not paying for.

DLC should be the icing on the cake. Most developers are treating DLC as part of the cake itself.


----------



## Pharaoh (May 2, 2015)

I think an example of a successful DLC is something like Outlast, and the DLC goes above and beyond creating a new gameplay experience with an entirely different storyline and characters, as well as fixes bugs and listens to audience feedback. Whistleblower was a great example of DLC put to good use, and I'd rather pay an additional $10 for the experience rather than having it attempt to pass itself off as a full game worth $60. Some game "sequels" would honestly benefit from being a DLC chapter instead of an entirely new release, such as Super Mario Galaxy 2, in my opinion. Even Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs might've served better as DLC along the same lines as Justine.


----------



## EndlessElements (May 3, 2015)

i think it's bs, especially if i already paid 60+ dollars for said game


----------



## pokedude729 (May 3, 2015)

I like it, as long as it's completely new things,  like how Nintendo is doing it.


----------



## Li. (May 4, 2015)

I personally don't see anything wrong with DLC. It's an extra added option to add-on or enhance my gaming experience, plus...its optional. I often wish more games provided DLC for purchase, otherwise they end up just sitting in my collection.


----------



## FancyThat (May 4, 2015)

Li. said:


> I personally don't see anything wrong with DLC. It's an extra added option to add-on or enhance my gaming experience, plus...its optional. I often wish more games provided DLC for purchase, otherwise they end up just sitting in my collection.



I agree with this, i do think some day one DLC that affects the main story is a bit unfair but overall I like DLC.


----------



## eggs (May 4, 2015)

DLC is pretty cool until you have to pay for it.
i don't know, something bugs me about buying a $50 game and having to pay more for an additional feature that i think should've been included in the first place. most DLC is just upgrades, items, and costumes.


----------



## Feloreena (May 4, 2015)

If it's released at a much later date and has the amount of content you'd expect in an expansion then I'm happy to get it. I really dislike DLC that are released at the start with the game and are things that should have been added in the first place. I remember that Dungeon Defenders on Steam was ridiculous with the amount of DLC they were releasing what felt like every few days. Then it's just being greedy and trying to milk as much money from players as possible, which gives a very bad impression to me.


----------



## Dustmop (May 5, 2015)

I know I'm only echoing what others have already stated, but..

If it's a decent price for the amount of content it adds, then I'm supportive of it. And do note "content." *I want the length of the game extended at a reasonable price*, I don't want to pay for a texture pack or a new map.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas, or Skyrim DLC, as examples. New quests, new regions, lots of new things get added. They don't necessarily need those in the base game to feel complete, but the DLC makes for a nice addition to it later. It's something I can look forward to, to go back to a game I had already enjoyed with a few new experiences.


----------



## Kuroh (May 6, 2015)

I do not like DLC that you have to pay for. It's greedy for companies to do that and it should be free since the player already purchased the game.

I stay away from Xbox games a lot because sometimes a game is $60 and then they want you to pay an extra $10 - $20 for DLC? no thank u

Also to play online it's already $60 a year. I used to have Xbox Live but a lot of the players online were unpleasant anyway so it's not worth it imo


----------



## Tao (May 6, 2015)

umeiko said:


> I do not like DLC that you have to pay for. It's greedy for companies to do that and it should be free since the player already purchased the game.
> 
> I stay away from Xbox games a lot because sometimes a game is $60 and then they want you to pay an extra $10 - $20 for DLC? no thank u
> 
> Also to play online it's already $60 a year. I used to have Xbox Live but a lot of the players online were unpleasant anyway so it's not worth it imo





The player bought what is 'on the disc' at time of release though. If the content was made after the game was released, the customer hasn't paid for it at all. If they were going to give away all DLC for free, what would the incentive be to release DLC in the first place rather than just releasing a quickly thrown together 'sequel' for 4x the price instead?


----------



## 00jachna (May 6, 2015)

Day One DLC can go to hell .-.


----------



## Jawile (May 6, 2015)

Mario Kart 8 did DLC flawlessly.

Half of the default game + new characters + new modes + less than a quarter of the price of the original game = GREAT


----------



## Kuroh (May 6, 2015)

Tao said:


> The player bought what is 'on the disc' at time of release though. If the content was made after the game was released, the customer hasn't paid for it at all. If they were going to give away all DLC for free, what would the incentive be to release DLC in the first place rather than just releasing a quickly thrown together 'sequel' for 4x the price instead?



Companies sometimes make semi-finished games, such as Destiny, and then want the players to buy expensive DLC later. Destiny's DLC Expansion pack is $35.00, which is quite a lot considering that the original game did not even have that much content to play. Most players just visited the same places over and over to upgrade their characters from what I've seen.

Also there are often season passes on sale during the game's initial release date (I believe Borderlands was one of them). The season pass for "Call of Duty: Advance Warfare" is $49.99 which is the price of the actual game. So basically to play the game with all of its features would be $100.00

But if a pack is around $10 or less it is not that bad. Just as long as there are not multiple DLCs that need to be bought with it because then it adds up.


----------



## Pokemanz (May 6, 2015)

Jawile said:


> Mario Kart 8 did DLC flawlessly.
> 
> Half of the default game + new characters + new modes + less than a quarter of the price of the original game = GREAT



Finally someone mentions it. Their timing was perfect too what with the original DLC release of the Benz right around when it was starting to get boring.
It definitely revived the game for those who were playing it non-stop. Not only that, there was free content (200cc) available to those who didn't buy the DLC, so there was something for everyone.

I hope it continues. Nintendo does DLC right.


----------



## Cress (May 6, 2015)

I've never had a problem with it, I buy DLC for every game I have that has DLC available. I almost never buy ALL of it, (unless it's Hyrule Warriors or Mariokart) but I'm fine with spending extra to get extra content.


----------



## Elise (May 7, 2015)

I pretty much agree with what the majority have said. I really like DLC if it's good value for money in terms of cost compared to how much you get and that it's truly an add on to the game and not what should have been part of the game itself. I also think some companies are a lot better than others with DLC. 

Having said that, I think DLC can be a huge rip off at times, especially when you get the game at release and buy each bit of DLC as soon as it comes out. That's why I like getting some games when they go down in price and/or have a special edition come out with DLC included. I find most 3DS games have cheaper and less frequent DLC than most though so I tend to get 3DS games closer to release and wait a bit for my playstation and Sims games.


----------



## Steelfang (May 8, 2015)

I think that you should only have to buy the game once to be able to enjoy the story and its characters in its entirety, but I'm not against purchasable DLC if it's something that doesn't devalue the main game and is just something that might enhance the experience, like a special edition costume or something, but then, it also depends on the type of game itself. I don't feel a need to buy any of the DLC in Awakening, since I get enough enjoyment out of the base game, and I don't feel cheated by not having it. Also, I've been burned by digital purchases before, so I'm hesitant to pay for DLC in general.

Actually, one of my _biggest_ peeves is the supposed "free games" that you can only play for a little bit of time before they ramp up the difficulty so severely that you have to fork over money to pass a level, but then you have to _keep paying_ to pass more levels. This is generally for iphone and kindle games, which I don't play for that reason, but it's such a dirty tactic that it feels worth mentioning to me. I'd rather see a flash game listed for a few bucks than a "free" game that costs someone a hundred dollars to complete _one time_, you know?


----------



## Tao (May 8, 2015)

I want to point out the 'physical DLC' that's made it's way in the past few years since a lot of people are usually okay with it, yet they do a lot of the negative things that have been brought up here.


Yano, things like Skylanders, Disney Infinity, Amiibo or the upcoming Lego thing. They're all variations of content butchered from the finished product (or 'cut content'), day-1 DLC, on disc DLC and to an extent they could also be seen as a variation of a season pass. I'm sure I'm missing a few other negative traits but so far, they definitely hold the 'big 3' "no no's" when it comes to DLC (cut content, day-1, on disc). 


You get the little figures for your trouble but it's still content hidden behind a paywall at the end of the day. Even then, should I really have to pay ?10 to play as Stitch or Vanellope? Should Toad come with an entire game mode attached to him? Did the Spinner really need to be exclusive to people who spend an extra ?10 on a Link figure they may not have even wanted otherwise?
This only becomes more of an issue when you take into account that some of these figures are 'rare', so if one specific figure does something you really want, you better be prepared to cough up some significant money to play that content that is already on the disc you bought!

I think the figure itself is sort of irrelevant in a way since no matter how you look at it, you're having to pay around ?10 for certain things that should have been in the game by default, especially if the content was available for release. If any other game tried to charge ?10 for a character or a weapon people would lose their **** but attach that to a cheap mass manufactured toy? Suddenly ?10 for a weapon is a good deal.


I own quite a few of these so I'm guilty of supporting it. I would have bought the ones I have regardless of what they do simply because I like the figures, so it doesn't really even effect me *but* they're still an awful type of DLC.


----------



## stitchmaker (May 8, 2015)

Pokemanz said:


> Finally someone mentions it. Their timing was perfect too what with the original DLC release of the Benz right around when it was starting to get boring.
> It definitely revived the game for those who were playing it non-stop. Not only that, there was free content (200cc) available to those who didn't buy the DLC, so there was something for everyone.
> 
> I hope it continues. Nintendo does DLC right.



It helped that they had an offer of a free digital game when you purchase Mario Karts.   60 dollars for two game was a good deal so buying DLC for MK was easy.

I think Nintendo does a very good job with the DLC.  At first I was sure with a 3DS game but than found out what I got.  Paying a low price for DLC is cheaper than going to McDonalds to get the item.  It costs more to go to McDonalds.


----------



## Eldin (May 8, 2015)

If it's day one DLC that is extra content they could've added to the damn game anyways, then it is just a money-grab imo.

If it's costumes/weapons released later on and it's not something necessary to the gameplay/storyline, then I have no issue with it.


----------



## Nay (May 8, 2015)

I'm ambivalent on the concept of DLC bc I'll pay for it LOL

The only time it makes me mad is when the game company promises "an update" & it turns out to be for payment, like wth man, don't do that


----------



## KaydeeKrunk (May 9, 2015)

It's pretty awful, there are games where it makes sense, or it's small enough things that it's understandable, for instance I can see paying extra for another Sims 3 expansion since it comes with so much extra stuff, and they aren't very expensive, I don't like when you buy a game and you just get the bare basics and HAVE to buy stuff to do much of anything, I've bought my boyfriend Map Packs for a few games because nobody even plays the starter maps... which is really stupid in my opinion. It's just getting worse and worse with more games.


----------



## shayminskyforme88 (May 9, 2015)

It depends, if it is additional content like more levels or such, sure if it comes at a reasonable price, but if it is something you're forced to buy in order to progress, then I'm really against that.


----------



## PinkWater (May 9, 2015)

I'm fine with DLC as long as it's done right like in Smash. New fighters, costumes, and possible new modes are more than fair with how much crap the game already has.


----------



## Ramza (May 9, 2015)

I like the concept but not the execution.


----------



## mizzsnow (May 9, 2015)

DLC that is made after the game is created, because of demand
like an extra story mode or fanservice
is okay to be charged in my opinion, as long as the price is resonable, because people had to make the content and they have to be paid somehow

I hate it when people charge for DLC that was intended to be in the game anyway, because they literally trying to grab for more cash. It makes the intended price even more if you want everything the game is supposed to have
The new fire emblem is doing that and it makes me so mad. You can't just take an entire half of the story, and price it... and a third path is DLC as well ?! DLC like this is getting so ridiculous and I wish it would stop because the players all hate it


----------



## Tao (May 9, 2015)

mizzsnow said:


> DLC that is made after the game is created, because of demand
> like an extra story mode or fanservice
> is okay to be charged in my opinion, as long as the price is resonable, because people had to make the content and they have to be paid somehow
> 
> ...



I think the main problem is players are paying for it regardless. Whether or not we like it, as long as the money keeps rolling in the developers/publishers will still do it because why wouldn't they take our money?
Look at Ubisoft, they pull this stuff with pretty much all their games and people complain like crazy, yet all their games see massive profit and big sales. Or Warner, they do this all the time yet people don't seem to care because they publish the Batman Arkham games, therefore they get a free pass apparently. 




What's worse is that people are trying to legitimately justify this sort of stuff now. 

"Games are expensive to make! They need to make their money somehow!".

If games are that expensive to make that they need to slice bits off and sell it separately, maybe devs should stop focusing so much on having better graphics, blockbuster scripts or top notch voice acting and instead focus on making a good game. All that other stuff feels like a crutch to hold up an mediocre game in my opinion.


----------



## Soda Fox (May 9, 2015)

In general I disagree with DLC because so many companies abuse it.  I totally understand DLC for games that became more popular than expected at release and they added new content due to consumer demand, but it seems like a lot of companies are selling partially made games for full price and charging extra for the complete package.

I'm fine with DLC that:
1. Adds to an already completed game several years after release.
2. Only effect character skins/etc, which otherwise doesn't effect the game play of the players who choose not to buy the DLC.
3. The game was incomplete but cheap/free anyway, and the DLC is also a reasonable price (such as Heroes of the Storm or LoL)

I'm not ok with 
1. DLC that finishes a story that should have been complete during the main game.  
2. DLC that is released the SAME DAY as the game.  If that's the case it should've been added to the game in the first place, unless it's something insubstantial like a non-game changing character skin or aesthetic item.
3. DLC that gives DLC purchasers an unfair advantage over regular game purchasers.  I think, if someone purchased a game, they should be on the same level as anyone else who purchased the game.  I don't agree with pay to win in the slightest.


----------



## RainbowCherry (May 10, 2015)

Day 1 DLC is pathetic, or anything like that, but other than that I like DLC. If they made more content for a game than they needed to, after releasing it, a while after it came out, for a price around ?8.00-?17.00 is good. Especially for a buttload of content, like the Lost Crowns from Dark Souls 2. So no stupid five and a half seconds after release DLC, everything else is good as long as it isn't short.


----------



## Tao (May 10, 2015)

One thing I dislike about almost all DLC is that once the severs for these consoles are turned off, you can't redownload any DLC. This means you need to make sure it's on the console before that happens and that your console doesn't run into any faults.


I know there's a good chance I'll pull out my Wii U or PS3 in 20 years because I do it already with other older consoles. If for whatever reason all my Hyrule Warriors or Mario Kart 8 DLC isn't on the Wii U or I've had to replace the Wii U, well, I'm kinda screwed if I wanted to access the DLC for them. It's gone forever at that point, so begins the browsing on eBay to find a Wii U with those things pre-installed for a ridiculous price.


I know game of the year editions regularly do this but for all the other games, I wish releasing a stand alone disc with all the DLC on it was more of a regular thing regardless of whether the game was GOTY.

This also kinda goes for updates and patches and why a game *should* be near flawless on release to reduce them. Good luck playing some of the recent games in the future if you can't get the day 1 patches...


----------



## Math (May 11, 2015)

I'm fine with even Day One DLC, but that's because the release date is actually a while after it's finished being made. But even if it wasn't, I'm more an economics guy: would you pay for just the game without any of the DLC? buy it. would you pay for the DLC? buy it. would you pay for the game only with the DLC but not for the total price? DON'T BUY IT. That's the thing for me. Some companies can make horrible DLC that you hate (don't buy it), and some companies (Nintendo has yet to make a DLC that I thought was going to fail) make DLC that you like. If their DLC isn't worth it, it should fail and they should learn. If they keep it up, it either means that they are headed to massive losses or people are buying the DLC (and then most likely complaining about having to buy DLC. please don't do that. If you keep paying for it they won't care about your complaint). Make good informed purchasing decisions and hopefully the market will support it and encourage good games and DLC.


----------



## Cirom (May 11, 2015)

Personally, I'm mixed with my opinion on DLC / microtransactions.

When it comes to cosmetic paid DLC, I'm usually pretty fine with it. These often exist as only palette swaps for the characters you play as, and often boils down to "Do I want to give money to the devs and have access to this skin". There's no real REASON for the cosmetics, so this basically boils down to a glorified "Donate" button to me. I'm fine with that. (An example of this: Team Fortress 2's hats.)

Likewise, I'm also fine with paid DLC which hugely expands upon the game beyond the initial release scope. A great example of this is Don't Starve's Reign of Giants expansion, which completely overhauls the core mechanics of the game in a way which would actually spoil some of the Vanilla gameplay (and is why the DLC is suggested for more advanced players of Don't Starve) -- DLC like this is often always welcome, and I find it saddening that most games don't make DLC like this.

On the flip-side, paid DLC which seems to "lock away" content which should have been in the main game I can't get along with, especially if it's evident that content was there to begin with. Having to annoy players with lots of "Hey, here's some DLC you *don't have*! Get on that!" is just frustrating and makes me not want to play the game. Case in point: Dungeon Defenders. Once a game I loved to play, when the game was just released. Now that game is plagued in cakes of DLC and it just feels unfun to play now. Constant reminders that there's content locked away behind a paywall really ruins the enjoyment of the game.

Likewise, paid DLC which provides paying players a substantial advantage over non-paying players is outright unforgivable too. This applies to both PvP and PvE - I'll bring back the Dungeon Defenders comparison above. Even though that's a co-op game, having a partner with dual pets and unique summons with a completely different resource pool just feels ridiculous when all you have is a dinky little magic-pea shooter and some small towers and walls.

( Notice how I said "Paid DLC" in all of these. If it's free, then all the power to ya! Even the small freebies are appreciated. Although huge free addons like Shovel Knight's "Plague of Shadows" expansion is absolutely amazing, little freebies like Skyrim's HD Texture Pack is neat too. )


----------

