Downloadable content was a concept so full of promise. Those of us who remember the early days of DLC can recall the high-minded ideals of the proposition. Play more of the games you like and stave off unnecessary sequels in the process! It sounded like a win-win for gamers and publishers alike. Years later, as the concept has slowly become standard practice, DLC announcements are generally met with a shrug. Why don't we care anymore?
We can partly fault the publishers. In practice, DLC hasn't usually prevented sequelitis or enhanced the game experience. It's used more as a sales tool to push pre-orders, undermine used game trade-ins, and serve as fodder for the inevitable "Game of the Year Edition." Each of these can have benefits for gamers, but they're clearly more slanted towards the publisher side.
Publishers have not exactly been cautious about their approaches. The early days were a wild west as game makers threw everything at the wall to see what stuck, creating some unexpected issues and backlash. The most famous of these was on-disc DLC, as savvy gamers noticed their downloads were a tiny file only used to unlock content that already existed. Any explanation of software licensing law or game budgets was moot--as far as gamers were concerned, if you bought the disc, you should be able to access everything on it.
Other problems have been more subtle and pervasive. Some publishers pump out far too much DLC, or overprice it. Activision has been criticized for its regular practice of putting out four maps (three new, one revised) in each Call of Duty pack for $15. Worse yet is when the content unlocks some extra weapon or ability that makes the game a cakewalk, as Square Enix tends to do with small DLC like Tomb Raider's Adventure Pack. This is still especially problematic when it comes to pre-order DLC, which is all too happy to ease you through the first half of a game with an overpowered weapon. Meanwhile, even DLC that sounds great upon announcement sometimes fizzles in practice. BioShock Infinite had ambitious plans and a season pass, but we ended up with some combat challenges and an uneven story presentation.
It certainly doesn't help that DLC availability can be incredibly confusing. A much-publicized graph showed just how complex a DLC release model can be when it comes to various retail editions and pre-order bonus content. Even your choice of platform can create baffling situations. Think back to how often you heard Microsoft or Sony reps call some piece of content "exclusive" to their platform at E3 this year, only for word to come later that it came with an asterisk.
All in all, what could have been a way to strengthen communications between gamers and publishers by giving direct feedback on content we want has more often been used to manipulate or goose sales in the publisher's interest.
The advent of DLC has also brought about a new game-changer: free-to-play. By offering content for sale, it was only a matter of time before the content became the main revenue stream, forcing the game itself lower and lower. The traditional $60 retail model hasn't gone the way of the dodo, but microtransactions are a subset of DLC that have arguably made a much bigger impact.
Our collective disinterest could be much simpler, though: it may be that we just don't care all that much about more of a good thing. As anyone who has checked out the deleted scenes or "Extended Cut" of a movie can attest, sometimes an experience feels more complete as a smaller, tighter package. Honestly, after playing through a 30-40 hour game like Watch Dogs, do you really have that much need for another few missions?
Obviously, some companies are still doing DLC right, and getting rewarded for it. Downloadable content can absolutely be worthwhile. The idea was bold enough to shake up the industry, and it still could be a powerful tool if done right. If DLC can get back on-track at all, it will only be possible if publishers restrain the easy buck and use it to fulfill its original promise of iteration and communication with players. As long as they're merely treating it as a sales tool, that's how gamers will see it too.
-
Steve Watts posted a new article, Opinion: How DLC lost its way.
DLC is met with shrugs, but why?-
-
-
-
-
-
I agree. Before the Shacknews front page would give you a paragraph preview of each article, which was highly informative and appreciated. Now it's literally clickbait summaries. "PC master race wins the day"? "Don't make this spirit angry"? It's a few steps away from "one weird trick" or "you won't believe".
Seriously, we have no problem with the layout overhaul. Layouts need to change from time to time. What doesn't need to change is hiding how visible the actual content is. C'mon guys, you're better than this. -
I wasn't very clear, that's on me. It actually does have to do with the images and overlays, because those are all the same thing. Currently the same field is used for triple-duty: the header overlays, the Chatty thread, and the blogroll description. But that means if we make it long like it used to be, it makes a huge paragraph overlay over the image and looks broken. The plan is to make a separate field for the image overlay, which will sort all that out.
-
-
-
-
Look at this. It looks bad and from a blog site from 2010
http://i.imgur.com/WTYdJbw.jpg
-
The reason descriptions are so short is because the same text that is written there,
(DLC IS MET WITH SHRUGS, WHY)
is displayed over the image on the article page. When you put a more descriptive paragraph in, which is what we always intended to be on the homepage, it also shows up over the image on the article page.
We asked the dev for a a solution but it hasn't been sorted yet, so in the meantime we told the writers to keep the descriptions short. Not ideal by any means and will change very soon.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Are we still doing the "randomly call out another person" thing for something entirely unrelated because we think it'll get lols? Seriously?
Rail on Fred if you don't like shit when he posts it, this hijack thread to take the piss out of someone thing is not only fucking lame, this is this shit the fucking mods should be discussing.
-
-
I actually thought the DLC (burial at sea anyway) for BioShock was really good. not only did it give you a complete new campaign but it actually made you wait for it, which felt like they hadnt already completed it and where just trying to get extra cash out of you for something that should have been in the original game. My biggest issue with DLC i think is the fact that it comes out so early, this always makes me think it should have just been in the game to start with.
Also DLC for extra clothes and accessories is a waste of money as far as I am concerned, however if people want to pay for a different look then I am not going to stop them, as long as I can choose to not buy that. Watch Dogs was a great example of a game that I was really looking forward to, but I didnt buy a season pass, because so much of it was useless stuff such as above. When I took the price of the useless stuff out, the few things I did want to buy came in under the price of the season pass....no brainer-
People are more hyped about the game near release. If DLC is released many months after the game has shipped most people have already forgotten about the game and moved on so releasing too far away from the release is a business problem. Releasing too close to the release makes it seem like the content was finished when the game was finished and tha tupsets people.
Though most people don't know content for the shipping game was probably locked 3+ months before the game shipped. -
Yep Burial at Sea was quite good. The Dishonored story DLC and Deus Ex DLC, also good. X-COM Enemy Within: super good. I even liked the Rage DLC.
It seems like the big chunks of DLC are often quite nice (assuming you liked the base game). The small bits of DLC droppings (weapons, skins, whatever) are a different thing, but easily ignorable.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
so you make a game, and cut out 3-4 bosses. the play time is still 100+ hours, it's a complete game!
after a while: Oh yeah here are some more bosses and areas (and hexes) that we were planning to put in from the start, they can be yours for 5-10 dollars!
is this to say i hated the game? hell no, it was amazing, i beat it multiple times. I will say that Manus can go right to hell though, fight destroyed me quite a bit.-
Features and content are cut from games in development regularly. Games have to ship to meet deadlines - this is the reality of business. You don't usually hear about the content that is cut to get the game out the door. DLC and expansion packs let developers deliver additional content to their customers. If you're a developer looking to make more Dark Souls content, where's the first place you start? All the things you wanted to get into the game, but couldn't for time or money constraints. This isn't a cynical ploy to sell you an unfinished product.
Your whole attitude about DLC in general is way off base.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I actually though Bioshock's was pretty good. Clash in the Clouds was a disappointment (though honestly I personally enjoyed the challenges once I played them), but the story was pretty solid and varied and the final episode was a dramatic shift in gameplay.
I think the rest of the article is spot on though. -
This is an easy question to answer. DLC typically does not provide value to the customer. It provides value to the publisher. The exception here is DLC like Deus Ex: The Missing Link. It was more of the game. It gave value to the customer. It was worth 10 dollars. Other DLC that just changes the game, or gives you an extra item because you pre-ordered is not value to the customer.
-
-
Agreed. DLC also needs a spectrum. Some was that feared $2.99 zerg rush, characterized by horse armor, TF2 hats, and MOBA skins and shit like that. Then... some is damn near full price. For example, there will be a standalone DLC for Infamous Second Son. I don't know how much that will cost, but they are using "DLC" as the term.
Overall, I'm ok with DLC, it really adds on a metric for the staying power of a game. The devs get to keep poking people for money, if they get responses... that kinda hints there are still consumers for that title, and they are doing a good thing by keeping it going a little here and a little there. DLC as a concept is great.
-
It depends on who you spoke with back in the day.
When Microsoft was going out pitching DLC for the Xbox 360 as an additional revenue stream, it was often described to studios as offering four benefits:
- Keep your staff employed. Rather than ramp down, keep your staff around and let them enhance the experience they've spent the last couple of years making.
- Keep your game relevant for longer. Rather than trading in games to GameStop, having DLC will keep your game in the hands of the original purchaser, and if the game is sold off, DLC will act as an additional revenue stream for those used copies.
- Release your expansions without all the headache of handling packaging, and keep what the retailer markup would have been. If you had a choice between selling your expansion and keeping 70% regardless, or maybe getting 20% assuming returns weren't too bad, the 70% was expected to win most of the time.
- Keep your "long tail" even longer. Your game may be off shelves, but DLC will keep income coming on that title for even longer.
-
-
Companies promise "a lot of DLC" for a game, then deliver 40 costume packs and one campaign DLC. This more than anything is why I'm highly skeptical about DLC anymore, and why I rarely buy season passes.
The only game that's done it right in recent memory is Borderlands 2. Except for two examples (the pre-order DLCs) everything they've put out has been advertised and priced correctly, and the majority was new content. Also, rather than teasing us with "more DLC" and releasing piece after piece of costume/skin/crap content, they did all their skin packs in one go and made it clear what they were well in advance. That's how DLC releases should be. -
-
Just look at the new Aliens: Isolation game. Ripley dlc has been announced and the game is not even fucking out yet!
now if you pre-order you will get it, but come on really? you can buy the game full price and still not get this cut-out content.
and don't even get me started with capcom and on disk dlc bs.
thats why I don't even feel bad when I buy their games for dirt cheap on steam sales or buy used
at gamefly.-
-
there's definitely good dlc and bad dlc but if dlc creation began only after game ship, it would be out like... 4-8 months after the game. as teams roll off the full game, it makes sense for them to start on the dlc. that's just good business: scope the whole game and subsequent dlcs from the outset so you can properly project manage.
(not all games do this.)-
-
-
Have they basically just moved to where they don't put it on disk though? It feels like a horse by any other name if it is ready, it could go on disk, it could be part of the game but to avoid "on disk DLC" backlash they leave it out.
Personally I separate 0 day DLC from "shit we cut out of the game to make into DLC so we can milk the suckers buying our game." Like you said, it it makes sense to plan DLC and get it ready and to even have stuff out at launch.
But we will probably never know when a company cuts something to specifically make it DLC because you would have to be pretty stupid to make that public.
-
-
-
-
It's a little more subtle than that. Artists usually roll off a project well before design, then most designers, then some programmers. DLC allows staff members to be financially productive between projects. That's how it worked for the games I was on.
Now, restricted-content DLC (like Alien: Isolation) - fuck that. Seriously.
-
-
-
What if all DLC were standalone? I think I would be more inclined to make $5-10 purchases for games I don't own already.
I don't think DLC was ever for me anyway. I rarely have the time to finish games before losing that initial momentum, so I rarely ever play DLC (Dark Souls excluded).
Honestly I can't think of a single DLC I specifically enjoyed at least as much as the main game. They all feel like watered down afterthoughts -
-
-
I've always felt like post-horse armor, Bethesda has done a fantastic job making DLC exactly what it should be: new, additive content that extends the game's life while not ever feeling like stuff that should have been part of the full game.
Mass Effect *mostly* did this as well, except for that idiocy with From Ashes, which absolutely should've been a core part of ME3.
-
-
-
Honestly I think Mass Effect is a good example of a complete mess: http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Downloadable_Content
-
Some of the Mass Effect DLC felt like it was done right. Stuff like The Citadel was not only great, but felt like a good piece of DLC, something that brings you back to play the game again. Some of their other DLC though, like Leviathan and From Ashes didn't feel right at all. The actual content was fantastic, but it very much had a "this really should have been part of the main game and I think you held this back to get more money" kind of feel to it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
only the host needing the map DLC is what gets my vote. BF4 DLC, for example, fractures the entire community(and our thursday night shackbattles) because someone with vanilla BF4 can't join a vanilla map if their is DLC in the map rotation. besides it's a coop game, you aren't at a disadvantage against other players if you don't buy the weapon dlc
-
-
-
-
-
Bethesda, after creating the slippery slope, bought cleats and rope and did a pretty good job afterwards. And Shivering Isles was an Expansion Pack, basically. Though for Skyrim I did the wait on GOTY package.
Tripwire kept delivering nearly perfect DLC for KF until the last year or so (content free to all, costumes cost money). And Rising Sun for Red Orchestra was ...basically an Expansion Pack.
Blizzard came with a full size Expansion as well, for D3. But we kinda knew they work like that.
So you see where my head's at.
-
-
Don't forget games that use free-to-play mechanics as DLC (specifically, the "coin doubler" DLC in Forza 5 and Dead Space 3, both of which led Giant Bomb to place a category in its "PLEASE STOP!" GOTY section in 2013, called "PLEASE STOP Full-Priced Games That Are Lousy With Microtransactions" (which only lost out to "PLEASE STOP Gams That Require Post-Launch Apologies"). http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/giant-bomb-s-2013-game-of-the-year-awards-day-five/1100-4807/
EA was also legendary for selling "cheat code" and "unlock all" DLC, but most of that was in the Riccitiello era. -
Because for the most part it forgets everything that made expansion packs of the past great, and leaves you with not nearly enough content to even motivate a person to bother downloading it.
Great DLC is like the 2 made for GTA4. Those are much more like an expansion pack of old.
I wish we could go back to the good old days of expansion packs that brought quite a bit of content to the table, rather than just dribbling out a bunch of hardly any content packs over the course of a year. -
-
-
The 'Game of the Year' angle is I believe the most interesting in this. Myself, for example, will tend to at the least wait for that edition of a game to come out if I am at all on the fence about playing it right away. It completely undermines the fans willing to shell out the money as soon as they can to experience the content they want to as soon as they can.
Those fans should be rewarded, not punished.-
-
It's just too bad that an intangible feeling of utility is the *reward* for paying early. Some folks don't have enough cash to shell out for a Season's Pass or all DLC packs, etc; yet they could be among the biggest of fans.
I get the idea of enjoying something the moment it comes out, so you can be part of the "water cooler" conversation. I just feel that the way DLC has been utilized (in some cases), it has taken that joy and monetized it, which is unfortunate.
-
-
-
I come from a time when expansion packs where the norm.. DLC, I thought for a time was just a modern word for expansion. But when MS started charging for things we used to get for free on the PC. Horse armor, colors, maps, guns...things went downhill.
And truth be told its not MS fault, the fault lies with gamers, the hobbyist.
There was a rally call, but then the segregation started fueled by the love of certain games...at the fore front was Call of Duty.
That battle was lost, but the war rages on.
Now free demos are being given a fee and "games" that we all know that would be relegated to demo status are being charged a third of what a full fledged game would cost. We defend these things. Again, some fight, most defend this behavior.
Exclusive Alpha's and Beta's are waved in front of us as if they where carrots on a stick and we go gaga for it.
We abandoned Nintendo in favor of "gritty, hardcore gaming" and this is the gaming school we indoctrinate our children into and we call ourselves gamers cause we play Candy Crush.
I just read an article that read: "remembering The Last of Us" As if the game was 20 years old. on that note, well we remaster games that we all know has already Hi-definition visuals, and get charged full price.
Some call foul, most defend this behavior.
Its not just the state of DLC, there is lots wrong with this business and no single consumer voice to help and advocate for us.
ESA is a nice idea, but it lacks teeth.
Now I hear that Gamestop is going to directly influence game development? -
At first I was Ok with the DLC concept when it was just downloadable versions of expansions but when it morphed in to small cosmetics and overpriced map packs is when they crossed the line. It really annoys me that retail releases are releasing DLC using the free-to-play model where progress is gated or unnecessarily high xp requirements to incentivize the boosters.
DLC is fine when it is done to genuinely done to expand the game and not done as a purely business decision. I have no love for day one dlc at all.
-