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]

I am kind of wondering in this case. Since what a lot of companies do to justify even the worst DLC is that "Well, people bought it, thus they are happy with it!"

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!)

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

[Ozyton]

For the most part if I enjoyed something the developers made I usually don't mind throwing down a few extra bucks if the DLC looks worthwhile. This applies to things other than DLC, such as "Free to play" games and expansion packs and sometimes even sequels. In the case of Planetside 2, for example (the game I think I've pent the most money on ever) I bought things because I wanted to support a game I enjoyed. For something like Helldivers, a game with a bunch of DLC but only a handful which is worth it, I bought the whole pack because it was on sale at the time. I would not recommend doing that if I were to recommend the game to someone else.

So yes, it kinda depends on the situation. The more I like the game the more willing I am to part with extra money for extra content. I avoid "season passes" as much as I can. Even for ARMA 3, which is a game I like and have most of the DLCs for.

As for the way this subforum behaves... I don't know what to say. Just don't let people get to your head I suppose. This is the internet after all.

[Frumple]

Eh... mostly bundles/complete editions, almost always because of a sale ("it was cheap" is able to be folded into that, really). Next notch down is probably due to mods, if that first isn't applicable. There being something interesting fan made that requires a DLC is one of the easier ways to talk me into getting it. Though that said, most of the times I've done that were about as applicable to the base game itself, never mind the DLC. Civ 4 springs easily to mind, there -- I honestly kinda' straight up hate playing the base civ games (I... don't think I've ever actually started a vanilla Civ 4 game, despite probably having at least a couple of days of game play in raw hours), but stuff like Masters of Mana can get me to sink some hours into the thing, and when I got my hands on it, it was specifically for stuff that needed DLC to run.

... last is appreciation. Not because I don't appreciate stuff or want to give them money, but just because the way I play/purchase -- my comps have been consistently shitty enough I'm usually at least three or four years behind current releases. Usually by the time I get to the point I can actually play something, development's stopped and I'm getting the thing in a bundle with all the DLC I care about

Though yeah, that also pretty comfortably nixes season passes. Never had one, probably never will. By the time I get around to something, the pass usually ain't doing anything anymore, heh.

So far as the completionist thing goes, eh. It's not my cup of tea (never mind games, I've started book series two or three books in often enough it's not surprising), but I have family that collects memorabilia so it's not like the mindset's foreign or somethin'. Just not somethin' you'd get me to go out of my way to spend money on.

[Nighthawk]

I've bought DLC that I've considered worth it, and DLC that really wasn't worth it. Alas, most of them fall into that latter category because of one thing: price.

A lot of DLC is overpriced, at least in my mind. If a game takes a development team 2 years to develop and costs $60, then a DLC that they made in two weeks should NOT cost a third of that price.

Like Ozy said, though, I think most people will concur that it's situational. If I like a game and its developers enough, I might even buy somewhat overpriced DLC, just to show my support. This could potentially lead to them getting big heads and releasing more, pricier DLC, but I'd rather remain optimistic than decide not to buy content for a game I like just because I'm afraid of a slippery slope.

[Leyic]

I didn't intend to buy it. I didn't even know it existed. But there it was, standing out, calling to me: A simple paper sleeve hanging from a shelf in CompUSA. More maps for Warcraft?! Yes, please!!!

But now, these people are scum, trying to profit off of other peoples' enjoyment. If it isn't released for free, it shouldn't even exist! Or so people on the internet tell me.

(And yes, I'm aware that this arguably isn't downloadable content, being on a disc.)

[feelotraveller]

I didn't (=never bought DLC*).  Yep it's a valid option. 

[ZebioLizard2]

Like the game and I wanted more of it.

[Greiger]

Based on how common it is I buy DLC:

• 1st: I already know for a fact the DLC is worth it. I'll buy.  Why won't my CD drive take my money?
• 2nd:Well I don't really see much value in this dlc/optional paid currency/premium but I think the devs otherwise did good work and I'd like to throw some extra support their way.  I'm sure I'll find some way to use it eventually
• 3rd: I spend more on my lunch at work every day, and it has it's uses.  I may as well.  If it gives me more than a lunch break worth of entertainment we're good. If not, it amounts to a bad bag of pretzels.

That said, I generally dislike how prevalent dlc has become, and wish it had not taken off as it did.  But it's far too late to stop the trend now.  Sometimes a hill just isn't worth dying on.

[Ai Shizuka]

The main condition to buy a DLC is the state of the base game. If I enjoyed the vanilla game I consider the DLCs. The base game must be complete and enjoyable by itself, with the DLCs adding more content or additional features. If the base game feels incomplete and I think the DLC content should have been there in the first place, I don't buy it, because it's just a cheap excuse to milk some money.

If these conditions are met, I buy DLCs in two cases:
- I think they are worth it;
- I find a reasonable "game + DLCs" bundle on sale.

[itisnotlogical]

Most DLC that I personally own amounts to an expansion pack's worth of content. If we were fine with expansion packs, why not DLC? Just vote with your wallet, buy good DLC and not shitty ones.

[CABL]

itisnotlogical ninja'd me, but with the exception that I almost always buy new games and DLCs only when they have discounts. Microtransactions are beyond unethical, though, especially pay-to-win games.

[Virtz]

I pretty much only ever buy DLC if it's basically an expansion pack by another name, like the Paradox game DLCs.

[Cyroth]

As others have mentioned in the last few posts, large DLC that are basically what we used to call Expansion packs 10 years ago I'll almost always get for games I like, except when I have heard from friends that this particular DLC is crap.
When it comes to microtransactions I'll admit that I might be a bit of a hypocrite. I have no problems throwing 5€ (or sometimes more) at my screen for an armor design or other cosmetics I really like, when it is in an MMO"insert-genre-here". In singleplayer games I usually get angry at those very same cosmetics, especially if I feel like (or know that) the developers are at the same time trying to remove purely cosmetic mods, or that they're hostile to mods in general.
Microtransaction in MMOs that are an actual ingame advantage that can't be unlocked in any other way are a big no-no.

[IWishIWereSarah]

I bought DLCs for Civ6 and Stellaris.

For both games, I knew before buying the base game that they would have DLCs, and I included this fact when I purchased it : I though it would be worth it, before knowing what the DLCs would contain exactly

Also, the DLCs for those two games do not include "bonuses", but "extra gameplay mechanics", a bit like Virtz said. They felt like "if I want the complete game, I should get the DLC".

[Mech#4]

There is no one reason why I get DLC, it depends on each game individually and what it adds. I've been playing lots of Warhammer: Total War since it came out so the DLC to me is great because it adds even more to a game I've been really enjoying. Conversely, while I have been really enjoying Grim Dawn, I have not bought the Crucible DLC for it because an arena based challenge mode of enemy waves doesn't appeal to me for that ARPG. I will most likely be getting the coming expansion for Grim Dawn that adds the Necromancer and Inquisitor class. Nor did I buy any of the DLC for the Batman Arkham series even though I liked the idea of playing as Nightwing, Robin and others. Even though I might like something, sometimes I just hold off on getting it to save money for something better later on.
(For Batman: Arkham City I was planning on getting some of the DLC, but then the Game of the Year edition was added to my library for free which includes all the DLC so I got it without having to pay anything. Twas very nice).

I do prefer DLC to add something other than different visuals. I enjoy Street Fighter IV but I haven't bought any costume packs because they don't interest me, but even then it depends on the game and my own judgement. I trust myself in these matters to make the best decision.