Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BurnedToast]

No, what is annoying/downright criminal about DLC is the way it is handled, with large DLCs going so far as to being announced and sold as early as pre-release, provoking a very reasonable question of "why wasn't this included with the core game?". To my knowledge, no publisher has yet answered that question satisfactorily.

Because it's not finished?

When a game is "done" there's usually still a month+ of time left before it's actually sold. What should they do with all the various people who aren't involved in the final bit of polishing and distribution? Put them to work on an unrelated project? Let them sit idle? Fire them?

Instead they get them working on DLC. Sometimes it's finished in time for release and it becomes the dreaded "day 1" DLC, other times it's part of the "season pass" that's released over time as they finish it.

Yes, they could just give the day 1 DLC away for free (and sometimes they do as a preorder bonus or a code in the box or whatever) but if it's something extra that's not something that's part of the original game and is being developed later, I don't feel like it's some huge moral failing to charge extra for it.

BT, Did you really just try to argue that DLC was good!? That *was* sarcasm right?

I agree, there's no need to be super militant (and it won't get us anywhere), but DLC is exactly as bad as we thought it would be. Day1 and on-disk DLC  and content that should be in game is (luckily becoming 'was') rife. and the fact that developers are going out of there way to say that they won't have DLC is pretty much proof of how bad it is.

Voting with your wallet is good but so is expressing that you dislike something. Whilst I wouldn't say that harassing developers is a good way to go, certainly an email/letter stating why you're annoyed is fine way to express your unhappiness.

Nope, I'm serious. DLC is, like krevsin said, more or less the modern equivalent of expansion packs (and we could have a whole thread about advantages and disadvantages comparing the two). As for day1 DLC, see above.

And yeah, a calmly written email/letter is fine.. actually that's a very good way of doing it. Harassing them till they are " terrified of even mentioning the idea publicly." is not.

[forsaken1111]

That day1 cosmetic DLC or map pack is keeping some guy employed. Often the artists and level designers are mostly done with their portion of the planned content long before the game ships, so they justify their continued employment by working on a new product, aka the hated day 1 DLC.

Edit: Gha, ninja'd.

[Krevsin]

BT, Did you really just try to argue that DLC was good!? That *was* sarcasm right?

I agree, there's no need to be super militant (and it won't get us anywhere), but DLC is exactly as bad as we thought it would be. Day1 and on-disk DLC  and content that should be in game is (luckily becoming 'was') rife. and the fact that developers are going out of there way to say that they won't have DLC is pretty much proof of how bad it is.

Voting with your wallet is good but so is expressing that you dislike something. Whilst I wouldn't say that harassing developers is a good way to go, certainly an email/letter stating why you're annoyed is fine way to express your unhappiness.

Yes, day 1 and on-disk DLC is bad. It's horrible. Likewise forced microtransactions.

Extraneous bullshit like A Slightly Better Gun or Flame Paintjob for Armour (and yes, even the infamous Horse Armour) is incredibly annoying and stupid and I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone would buy that shit in anything but a MP game.

But the big DLCs, the ones which add a lot of content, whole new questlines, locations and characters, those are a bit more of a gray area for me. On the one hand, you have stuff like Old World Blues for NV, The Brightmore Witches for Dishonored or Burial at Sea for Bioshock Infinite are DLCs I'd gladly pay good money for because they add a lot of new content, interesting storylines and are just overall, worth the money invested. On the other hand there's stuff like Project Anchorage for Fallout 3 or Dawnguard for Skyrim which... well they aren't terribly good, let's be honest.

I guess it depends on the DLC in question and there's no easy formula, but rest assured that on-disk DLC, microtransactions and Day 1 DLC (at least, the ones you have to pay for) are despicable, vile monstrosities that deserve all the unabashed loathing they get.

No, what is annoying/downright criminal about DLC is the way it is handled, with large DLCs going so far as to being announced and sold as early as pre-release, provoking a very reasonable question of "why wasn't this included with the core game?". To my knowledge, no publisher has yet answered that question satisfactorily.

Because it's not finished?

When a game is "done" there's usually still a month+ of time left before it's actually sold. What should they do with all the various people who aren't involved in the final bit of polishing and distribution? Put them to work on an unrelated project? Let them sit idle? Fire them?

Instead they get them working on DLC. Sometimes it's finished in time for release and it becomes the dreaded "day 1" DLC, other times it's part of the "season pass" that's released over time as they finish it.

Yes, they could just give the day 1 DLC away for free (and sometimes they do as a preorder bonus or a code in the box or whatever) but if it's something extra that's not something that's part of the original game and is being developed later, I don't feel like it's some huge moral failing to charge extra for it.

I understand, but why advertise the DLC so heavily before the game is released if it is not even done yet?

There's literally no reason aside from this asinine idea that preorders are what determine how well a game will do financially and the only way you can achieve the most preorders is to seemingly hold a whole segment of the game hostage unless people pre-order the game. This is what advertising DLC before the game is even released basically looks like, holding a segment of the game hostage.

I do not mind big DLC releases, I do not mind a DLC schedule (hell, if anything I welcome the latter as a guarantee that a game will keep receiving official support for a while after release), I don't even mind the idea of season passes.

What I do mind and find downright criminal is the marketing for these things starting waaay before the game is released, thus basically leaving not only me but large swathes of gamers worldwide feeling like a part of the game is being held ransom. It's an appaling business strategy and it only reflects negatively on the publisher.

Just release the DLC a week or a month after release. It'll be finished by then and instead of people thinking you're holding a piece of game hostage, they will think you have a plan for supporting the game for a longer time. It's a win-win.

[Retropunch]

I don't agree at all. Unless it's a one project studio, they shuffle people around to other projects. That's how it's always worked in the gaming industry and any other software industry. It's not some sort of altruistic move to keep poor Timmy employed - it's just that they know that if they release something along side the game people will feel they have to buy it all to get the complete package.

DLC is also a far, far cry from expansion packs of old. This has been rehashed multiple times, but if you take something like Lord of Destruction and compare it to Horse Armour or Mass Effects atrocious DLCs then I don't think they're even vaguely comparable. Obviously there's some DLC that works (as mentioned in the comment below), but as a whole, it's only contributed to awful practices of cutting off content to ship as DLCs or with the bare minimum of content.

To be honest though, I think companies are learning. They know how much goodwill they lost with DLCs (Mass effect as a shining example) and they also know the same thing will happen with paid mods.

[Graknorke]

I don't feel like it's some huge moral failing to charge extra for it.

Well then there is a clear difference of opinion that will not be overcome by posting anything.

[forsaken1111]

As stated, Day1 and "on-disk" DLC are often additional products they've had people working on once their other assignments were finished. The idea that you're somehow entitled to getting these products for free is ridiculous. Time, effort, and cost went into producing them. What company would pay people to develop more products just to give them away?

I don't feel like it's some huge moral failing to charge extra for it.

Well then there is a clear difference of opinion that will not be overcome by posting anything.

It does seem that way. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

[Krevsin]

DLC is also a far, far cry from expansion packs of old. This has been rehashed multiple times, but if you take something like Lord of Destruction and compare it to Horse Armour or Mass Effects atrocious DLCs then I don't think they're even vaguely comparable. Obviously there's some DLC that works (as mentioned in the comment below), but as a whole, it's only contributed to awful practices of cutting off content to ship as DLCs or with the bare minimum of content.

Not all DLC is equal and Horse Armor is not Burial At Sea, nor is Mass Effect 3 Buy This DLC If You Want A Sense Of Closure the same as Old World Blues.

DLC is a strange beast. Not all of it is bad and it should not all be treated the same. Like I said, you have your extraneous cosmetic bullshit and then you have your big sprawling DLCs that add a whole bunch of content that is actually worth the investment.


And this might be just me, but I always found that the argument that "they're removing content from the actual game to sell as DLC later on" is something that is very hard to prove. I mean the marketing sure makes it look that way, but you often cannot tell unless some dedicated person rifles through the gamefiles for any leads or a corporate whistleblower leaks certain documents. It's a mess and it's a mess that is not only hard to prove but even furthered by the marketing for these things.

[penguinofhonor]

*she's

I wasn't being serious, but I'm glad my sarcasm is that smooth.

There are plenty of people who think that if the majority disagrees with them, the majority doesn't know what's good for themselves.

[forsaken1111]

Like I said, you have your extraneous cosmetic bullshit and then you have your big sprawling DLCs that add a whole bunch of content that is actually worth the investment.

Some people have different tastes and priorities than you though. I think the cosmetic DLC for Europa Universalis 4 is silly but I've a friend who really gets into the history and stuff, and he LOVES the cosmetic unit packs and songs. The best part about DLC is it's optional, so if you object to it you can just not purchase it and it's not harming anyone.

*she's

She then. whatever. not as if that matters.

There are plenty of people who think that if the majority disagrees with them, the majority doesn't know what's good for themselves.

There are also plenty of people who think that if the majority agrees with them, they must be correct. Neither statement is true.

[Krevsin]

Like I said, you have your extraneous cosmetic bullshit and then you have your big sprawling DLCs that add a whole bunch of content that is actually worth the investment.

Some people have different tastes and priorities than you though. I think the cosmetic DLC for Europa Universalis 4 is silly but I've a friend who really gets into the history and stuff, and he LOVES the cosmetic unit packs and songs. The best part about DLC is it's optional, so if you object to it you can just not purchase it and it's not harming anyone.

Yes, that is entirely correct. Cosmetic DLC is something I personally find to be extraneous bullshit at best and a pestilence at worst, but in the end it is entirely optional and does not contain game-changing additions.

[BurnedToast]

I don't agree at all. Unless it's a one project studio, they shuffle people around to other projects. That's how it's always worked in the gaming industry and any other software industry. It's not some sort of altruistic move to keep poor Timmy employed - it's just that they know that if they release something along side the game people will feel they have to buy it all to get the complete package.

DLC is also a far, far cry from expansion packs of old. This has been rehashed multiple times, but if you take something like Lord of Destruction and compare it to Horse Armour or Mass Effects atrocious DLCs then I don't think they're even vaguely comparable. Obviously there's some DLC that works (as mentioned in the comment below), but as a whole, it's only contributed to awful practices of cutting off content to ship as DLCs or with the bare minimum of content.

To be honest though, I think companies are learning. They know how much goodwill they lost with DLCs (Mass effect as a shining example) and they also know the same thing will happen with paid mods.

Just think of the season pass as an expansion pack that's released in chunks as it's finished - it usually contains all the story DLCs together for roughly the same price as an expansion pack would cost. If you take, for example, the 4 story DLCs for new vegas that's something like 20 - 40 hours of content, new items, new levels, new perks...etc. It's a similar amount of content for a similar price.

I do agree the cosmetic DLCs and cheat DLCs are stupid, but nobody is making you buy those and you typically don't miss anything by skipping them.

As for reassigning the team - that makes no sense. They know the DLC is going to be made, why reassign the team for a month to some other project, then reassign them again back to the first game to make DLC? Just get them started on the DLC right away, get it finished quicker. It's better for everyone, including the consumer.

I don't feel like it's some huge moral failing to charge extra for it.

Well then there is a clear difference of opinion that will not be overcome by posting anything.

I'm curious, would you rather the DLC didn't exist at all, or do you just feel entitled to get it for free because they happened to start working on it between the time the game was "finished" and the time it was put up for sale?

[Krevsin]

Speaking of DLC, FO3 and NV have had some pretty fun DLCs released and I hope the same will apply to FO4.

also, Chicago Blade Runner DLC or riot.

Edit: So turns out I am a moron and Blade Runner does not take place in Chicago. Oh hwell.

[scriver]

As stated, Day1 and "on-disk" DLC are often additional products they've had people working on once their other assignments were finished. The idea that you're somehow entitled to getting these products for free is ridiculous. Time, effort, and cost went into producing them. What company would pay people to develop more products just to give them away?
[...]
It does seem that way. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

Bolded: And nobody ever suggested that. Stop strawmanning people.

Oh, and congratulations on being the first to drop the "entitlement!" buzzword.

[forsaken1111]

As stated, Day1 and "on-disk" DLC are often additional products they've had people working on once their other assignments were finished. The idea that you're somehow entitled to getting these products for free is ridiculous. Time, effort, and cost went into producing them. What company would pay people to develop more products just to give them away?
[...]
It does seem that way. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

Bolded: And nobody ever suggested that. Stop strawmanning people.

Oh, and congratulations on being the first to drop the "entitlement!" buzzword.

Er...

I said that after reading this:

but DLC is exactly as bad as we thought it would be. Day1 and on-disk DLC  and content that should be in game is (luckily becoming 'was') rife.

Emphasis mine.

But alright. Maybe I misunderstood? Looked like he said day 1 and on-disk DLC content should be part of the released game.

[Retropunch]

As I said before, I completely agree that not all DLC is created and some is great (burial at Sea), but there's a lot that isn't.  I, and I'm sure few others, have problem with quality DLC. The problem is Day1 DLC and 'DLC that's really just finishing the game off' - there's obviously good and bad, and I'm talking about the bad.

As for reassigning the team - that makes no sense. They know the DLC is going to be made, why reassign the team for a month to some other project, then reassign them again back to the first game to make DLC? Just get them started on the DLC right away, get it finished quicker. It's better for everyone, including the consumer

This, and my bit about cut content is aimed at on-disk DLC. They're basically saying 'here's the game, we've included it all, but if you actually want all of it it's actually more'.
Mass Effect 3 was terrible for this - the From Ashes DLC was already on disk and contained a major story which added a lot to the game/plot. Taking it out seemed very, very much an afterthought to grab more cash (otherwise they wouldn't have included it on disk!) and that's the kind of thing that really grates. Then there was the 'ending' DLC ontop of that.

No, I don't expect them to just give me things for free, but I certainly don't expect them to keep withholding major bits of the game from me until I pay more for them.