Print

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

I thought the DLC was worthwhile and I bought it

82 (44.6%)

It was part of a Season pass/complete edition

32 (17.4%)

I wanted to complete the collection

16 (8.7%)

I wanted the bonuses the DLC came with (Weapons, extra levels, skills)

22 (12%)

It was cheap so why not?

32 (17.4%)

Total Members Voted: 97

[Neonivek]

There is no one reason why I get DLC, it depends on each game individually and what it adds.

It is why I allowed people to vote on any and all of the choices available.

THAT and if given the choice people would just chose "Worthwhile" no matter what actually went on at the time or how much value they honestly thought the DLC had at the time, or whether its honest value was enough to sell it on its own.

So allowing people to chose "Value", allows the nuance of their decision to emerge.

[Mech#4]

There is no one reason why I get DLC, it depends on each game individually and what it adds.

It is why I allowed people to vote on any and all of the choices available.

THAT and if given the choice people would just chose "Worthwhile" no matter what actually went on at the time or how much value they honestly thought the DLC had at the time, or whether its honest value was enough to sell it on its own.

So allowing people to chose "Value", allows the nuance of their decision to emerge.

Well, certainly. I did only choose "Worthwhile" because most of the others don't factor in when I buy something. "I wanted the bonuses the DLC came with (Weapons, extra levels, skills)" maybe but not if it's just one of those things. If it's an extra class or character for a game then it's more likely I'll buy it if I've been enjoying the parent game.

[Alastar]

None of the above.

Paid-for DLC was one of the things that drove me out of commercial games. Priced fairly, I like old-fashioned expansions... they can keep things fresh for relatively little effort, allow striking a balance between a clean&elegant base game and additional features for those who want them.

Imo the big difference between expansions and DLC: Even with the best intentions, it's easier to keep things balanced and polished when you know players have ALL of optional features available or NONE. The DLC model further encourages unwholesome tricks to keep customers coming.

[Paul]

There is no one reason why I get DLC, it depends on each game individually and what it adds.

It is why I allowed people to vote on any and all of the choices available.

THAT and if given the choice people would just chose "Worthwhile" no matter what actually went on at the time or how much value they honestly thought the DLC had at the time, or whether its honest value was enough to sell it on its own.

So allowing people to chose "Value", allows the nuance of their decision to emerge.

If you're trying to determine value like that, the poll is flawed. I'm a value conscious DLC purchaser, so I chose the first option only.

"I thought the DLC was worthwhile and I bought it" sounds more like a value determination to me. Worthwhile as in I would get enough enjoyment out of it to justify the price.

"It was cheap so why not?" to me sounds like if it's on sale low enough you'll buy it just because it's cheap even if it isn't necessarily worth it.

Just my two cents

[marples]

Not to mention that the gaming community in BAY12 games is openly hostile towards people who have a "Complete" mentality and consider them insane and crazy (no really! if you ever bought something in order to have a complete experience. Bay12 doesn't like you!)

That's some grade A, hyperbolic shite.

[itisnotlogical]

Imo the big difference between expansions and DLC: Even with the best intentions, it's easier to keep things balanced and polished when you know players have ALL of optional features available or NONE.

Pure hypocrisy. What about a Morrowind player that has Bloodmoon but not Tribunal installed? There's nothing magical about the words "expansion pack" or physical media that forces a player to have all or none of the expansions, or that forces the developer to make that so.

[etgfrog]

One of the biggest factors for me is how much I enjoyed playing the game. Although I tend to avoid cosmetic dlc.

[Tawa]

Where do we draw the line between "expansion pack" and "DLC"? "Expansion pack" pretty clearly refers to something like Bethesda expansions or EU3-era Paradox expansions, but "DLC" seems to encompass everything from horse armor to doubling the length of the base game.

[Ludorum Rex]

I generally buy DLC for the same reason I buy games and other forms of entertainment - because I expect I will get my money's worth (or more). I do understand why some would have a motivation (fully or partially) based on collecting, but it's not one I have myself.

There is a however another reason I sometimes buy DLC, one that is not listed in the poll: To support the developer. As a gamer and a fellow developer I think DLC is a great way to be able to financially support game developers. In these cases I will buy DLC (or even full games/expansions) that I would not otherwise buy, if I did not have a desire to support the developer. A variation of this is when players buy a DLC to increase the likelihood of future support/sequels/similar games from a developer/publisher. There is also a negative variation of this, where players actually do think the content is worth the price, but they want to punish the developer for something directly or indirectly related to the DLC.

As others have mentioned I think the "it's cheap, why not?" option is identical to the first option of value for money. Personal finances dictate how much value we require for our money. For some people, a very low price can mean that the very act of purchasing is worth the price (the value of performing the purchase can be surprisingly high, as shown by how common impulse buying is), or at least adds enough value to the actual product, that purchase becomes worthwhile. Incidentally, the pleasure of an impulse purchase is rather short-lived, and for some people prone to causing buyer's remorse - no different than other luxuries really.

I also think "I wanted the bonuses" is very much the same thing as "I thought the DLC was worthwhile and I bought it", unless we're talking about a competitive game. The poll option doesn't mention competitive/multi-player gaming, so I have to assume it's not the intent.

For me, a better breakdown of motivations for buying (or refusing to buy) DLC would be:

1) Content is worth the price.
2) Desire to add the DLC to one's collection.
3) DLC gives a power advantage in a competitive game worth the price.
4) Desire to show off cosmetic DLC in a multi-player setting.
5) Desire to show off DLC to visiting friends (probably not very common)
5) Desire to financially support the developer.
6) (no buy) Desire to financially punish the developer.
7) (no buy) Ideological opposition to this DLC (in particular or in general).

Also, it is not a binary state as to whether a purchase is worthwhile. I may think something is really good value for money or we may think something is expensive, but still within the bounds of what we can accept. As with other purchases, players can also be disappointed at the DLC not delivering as much value as they expected. This happens fairly often for me, and a developer having a history of this, is of course something that can dissuade me from making a purchase.

Another relevant factor is what expectations players have in terms of content updates assumed to be part of purchasing the base game. If the developer promises a lot of content patches for no additional price, and does not deliver on this, players will generally be really unhappy about any paid DLC. Conversely, delivering quality free content updates tends to make players more accepting of paid DLC.

[ArchAIngel]

It's good stuff usually.


If I want to have fun, and I finished the game, DLC usually adds more fun.


Admittedly I utterly ignore little shit like cosmetics, but that's me.

[nenjin]

It's almost always because the price was acceptable for me. I think most of my DLC comes from buying games a year old that go on a bundle sale, I rarely ever preorder anymore even for games I want.

For a newly released game when I feel like I can't pass up the DLC, or when there's so much DLC at release you feel like you have to buy some of it or you're missing out on a lot, that's when I begin to question the model.

There's some games I play through and enjoy and the DLC is like "wanna do that again but even more awesome?" Like Binding of Isaac. That's DLC I like, that encourages me to buy it and come back for a second playthrough. What I don't like is the DLC that says "Here's additional missions, gear, new mechanics, all that jazz...." right as a game releases. Because then you feel like you're playing a cut down version of the game.

My least favorite kind of DLC, but simultaneously the one I can live the most with, are the single one-off ones that are like "have an extra character" or "unique gear set." That is stuff I always feel like I can easily and safely ignore, or wait until it's all bundled in a GOTY edition. Bethesda DLC is in a weird place for me. It's pricey and it's a mishmash of different kinds of new content. Like I felt no compulsion to buy any of the Skyrim DLC. For all the new mechanics there's just so much game to enjoy without them I don't feel compelled. But FO4 DLC....is a different beast because I feel like it slots in to normal gameplay a lot better, especially if you're in to building settlements.

Generally speaking through I'm unwilling to buy most DLC, either at release or on sale. I'm probably more likely to buy small DLC for games I already own and have played a lot of just for the sake of completion, but only when the price pretty much feels like bottom dollar.

So much so that if that is your viewpoint, it is a good idea not to share it out loud here.

I like how Neo starts out with his own super negative opinion and supposition about "Bay 12" right before telling everyone else not to share an opposing opinion if they disagree with him.

[Flying Carcass]

Personally, I find that nowadays I generally wait for a game to get its deluxe edition with all the DLC packaged with it before purchasing it.

[Neonivek]

I like how Neo starts out with his own super negative opinion and supposition about "Bay 12" right before telling everyone else not to share an opposing opinion if they disagree with him.

No I mean if you have a completionist attitude towards DLC purchases, don't share it. Bay12 hates your guts.

I also think "I wanted the bonuses" is very much the same thing as "I thought the DLC was worthwhile and I bought it", unless we're talking about a competitive game. The poll option doesn't mention competitive/multi-player gaming, so I have to assume it's not the intent.

VERY similar. Yet by "Bonuses" I mean more the tangible benefit over any sort of intrinsic quality.

Trust me there are a LOT of single player DLC that just amounts to "Do you want the game to be easier?" including one for Fallout New Vegas that ruins survival runs. Or DLC/expansions where players rush through the content for the bonus you get at the end. Developers know this happens.

Then there are games like Borderlands the Presequel where the Arena DLC raises the level cap by 10... but otherwise you will never really want to play the Arena. (Which isn't the first time this series included other benefits to the Arena because they knew no one would buy it otherwise)

[nenjin]

No I mean if you have a completionist attitude towards DLC purchases, don't share it. Bay12 hates your guts.

Uh huh.

[etgfrog]

No I mean if you have a completionist attitude towards DLC purchases, don't share it. Bay12 hates your guts.

Projecting your opinion on others a bit there?