Ben-DutkaThe idea of expanding on the games that already sit in our collections is a relatively new one. Even though PC gaming has seen expansion packs for years, we're now talking about direct and almost instant delivery of continual upgrades and enhancements that enrich and lengthen the experience. However, while it's admittedly more difficult to provide single-player downloadable content, I think we're being absolutely inundated with multiplayer DLC…that I honestly don't care about.
Yes, I'm aware I'm in the vast minority. Everybody loves multiplayer. I get it. I also understand that if you were to continue to expand on the story and plot of a game, fans might feel really short-changed: they paid their $60 for a full adventure, which of course includes a story that starts and finishes. To charge for extra "episodes" all the time would probably wear thin, right? I can only imagine getting three-quarters of the way through Uncharted 2 and then being hit with a message that said, "play the rest of the story for only $9.99!" Yeah, that would suck. But that's not necessarily what needs to be done; perhaps a good example of some single-player DLC that adds to the experience without feeling cheap or unimportant is the stuff available for Assassin's Creed II . I don't need to play multiplayer and I already saw the ending. Sure, there were a few spots left in Venice I couldn't access, but it didn't affect the story.
And we need more. At this point, it might be fair to estimate that 90% of all DLC is multiplayer-oriented and while I'm well aware of the popularity of multiplayer, I'm not quite sure that 90% is indicative of the reality. Do 90% of all gamers really only care about multiplayer? Obviously, it depends a lot on the type of game; FPSs are certainly better suited to multiplayer, but those do have single-player campaigns, you know. Expanding on the Killzone 3 story would be quite interesting, as would adding more missions that give us new perspectives to the plot in Sucker Punch's inFamous 2 . But maybe I'm alone in this. Maybe there are millions of people out there scoffing and going, "who the hell even plays single-player anymore?" If so, than I'm way more out of touch than I had initially thought. And I can accept that.
Won't change how I feel, though. Single-player is not dead and contrary to what many want to believe, it remains the backbone of this industry.
Amen brother.
Here are some examples of DLC done right. There are FAR greater instances of DLC gone wrong, but let's point out the most essential DLC purchases.
1. Fallout 3 Broken Steel and Point Lookout- The first time you get sucked into Fallout 3's world will have you to level 15 about 12-15 hours into the game. You can hit level 20 and barely scratch the surface of Fallout's world. The level cap raise should have been free, but props to Bethesda for fixing the problem and giving us some cool side quests to go on.
2. GTA IV: Episodes from Liberty City- Haven't played it, but its reputation and pedigree precedes it.
3. Oblivion: The Shivering Isles- Those who have played this know that it can be constituted as its own game. It's absolutely massive.
4. Little Big Planet: Metal Gear Solid and Pirates of the Caribbean Packs. The ability to add the paintinator (paint gun) and water to levels greatly expanded the diversity and amount of activities available to do.
5. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2- The Stimulus Pack. Just kidding guys…
DLC has its benefits, but truth be told, most of it is a rip off. FIFA's Live Season is a rip off, but it's cool and I like it. Should be included for all new copy buyers. Like, all the leagues. Not just one.
Single player is the core of video gaming, but the demographic has changed and it is now aimed at being a much more social activity.
i was just thinkin about this the other day when i was clicking around in the store. Bioshock 2 is one of my favorite games this year and it is supposed to have that single player dlc comin. can someone remind me when that was comin? are there any more details on what that was?
Heavy rain was gonna have the single player dlc but that was cut. so disappointing. i want more story for my favorite games not more places to shoot idiots online.
this small community here at psx seems to really appreciate the single player experiance and the story telling that draws me into all my favorite games.
*Starts slow clap*
Absolutely brilliant Ben,standing ovation!And you are not in the vast minority of gamers wanting single player DLC.
Honestly expansions on story's is what is really needed.Thanks for being one of the few gaming journalists with the gall to say it Ben
LOL @ "vast minority"
That's an oxymoron I sometimes use myself.
It may not be a vast minority, but I would assume that those that wouldn't care for it does outnumber us. That being said, I'm torn on single player DLC for games. It isn't just that I can't get it (again, no broadband, I'm seriously considering it for when GT5 and LBP2 release though), it is that so often it is done incorrectly.
Assassin's Creed 2 DLC is an example that I like to use. Yes, it added to the story, which is what I want, but when the devs come out and say that we cut this from the game because we didn't have time to put it in, here pay us ten bucks for it, that's just price gouging. It's an Activision thing to do. If a development house admits to cutting content, then release it later, it should come very cheap, if not for free.
Another incorrect (from my point of view) way to do SP DLC is to split the team to work on it while the game is still in development, regardless of whether or not it pertains directly to the story that is offered in the game. If they want to do it, that's fine but wait until the game has been released.
The way I see it: You can add to the story of the game, provided work doesn't start until the game has hit the market, or feel free to write it during development, but don't start actually devving it before release. For example LittleBigPlanet. Sure, it may not be directly a part of the story, but it helped to advance and extend the single player experience. Imagine if the Assassin's Creed 2 episodes been implemented into the game as half chapters, or better yet, adding extra techniques for Ezio/Desmond to learn and adding them onto the end of story, implementing them properly if you're starting a new game, rather than unlocking so-called corrupted data.
Another good example is GTA IV. The episodes may have been announced before the game was released, but the fact that together they were essentially the length of a new, full game is a good thing. Not only that, but the way they focussed on different characters than Niko really helps me to think that I made the right idea by supporting R* in this endeavour.
I know that I'm ranting, but it needs to be done right, or not at all. That being said, I'm also sick and tired of the hullaballoo over multiplayer. Sure I enjoyed it in the two months that I was able to play it, but so far as I'm concerned, that's not what gaming is. I think if I keep going I'm going to really lose it.
Peace.
Unrelated but HOLY CRAP! I just read about the Signature Edition of GT5 for Europe and Australia. I think, no. I MUST HAVE IT. But 300 bucks, that's a big din squeeze. Aww, hell, for the chance to win a Mercedes SLS AMG, it's well worth it, even if my chances of winning it are all but none.
Peace.
FWIW, those chapters of ACII would probably just have been gone forever if not for the ability to sell them as DLC. They would not have delayed the game to allow for them to be finished.
Also, if they don't start working on the DLC before the game is released, the DLC won't appear in timely fashion and then you get what happened with the GTA DLC on PS3: gamers fail to buy it because they've "moved on".
Although the next 3 DLC's have been nixed so far for Heavy Rain, at least the Taxidermist was DLC done right.
I'm still hoping for the 3 missing DLC's to be made after QD's annouces that their newest game, "Horizon" has gone golden.
You are not alone.. I dont play much multiplayer either… and i think DLCs are good, but only if they are a bit longer.. some of the DLCs ex: dragon age (except awakening), are well.. too short..
i dont really care for MP either.
BLOODY OATH WE DO!
i just finished the signal the first DLC to alan wake and absolutely loved it and it also left me pissed!
they leave us on such a cliffhanger, and the next DLC is not out till chrissy.
BASTARDS!
how the hell am i supposed to keep the story fresh in memory for another 4 flippin months?
i could barley remember what happened at the end of alan wake not even 2 months after so how am i suppose to remember 4 months after?
i love DLC as long as its released close to the games release, theres no point releasing the game than releasing the DLC 6 months after release because 99% of people would of A lost interest or B sold the game for another one.
i cant sit there saying no i wont play that, no i wont play that, no i wont play that either, im waiting for x DLC to release.
its just stupid!
if your going to release DLC for your game, release it maximum 3 months after the release of the game and make sure the DLC has a back story so people can remember the story in the game.
thats one thing i was shocked to see in the signal, alan wake at the end of each chapter has a previously on alan wake trailer reminding you what previously happened, but the DLC had nothing like that!
so during the DLC when you trigger those memories, most of them i could not remember where they were from or when in the story they occurred.
just make sure its not the BS ubisoft pulled in assassins creed 2 that sh*t really freaking pissed me off!
you cant lead a player up to a certain part, than leave a massive gap in the story and charge people to fill it in!
its like selling someone a car, than charging extra for seats!
they have to be way longer too, the signal DLC only took me not even 50 minutes to finish if i had paid the 15 bucks M$ were asking for it id be pissed!
im seriously in 2nd thoughts to weather ill buy the writer or not.
Last edited by ___________ on 8/5/2010 3:18:56 AM
Um…you do realize that to release DLC within 3 months of the initial release of a game, the developer pretty much *has* to be working on the DLC before the game is released which is precisely what many commenters here have and would castigate a developer for doing? In fact I believe you yourself may have suggested that a developer that says before release that they are working on DLC already is conning the gamer (or words to that effect). You can't have it both ways. The reality of software development is that with development, testing and eventual approval for release, DLC will take more than 3 months to bring – unless it's little more than skins for the game.
mm, whats the problem?
allot of games are finished months before release, halo reach for example is done, dusted but its not out till mid september!
uncharted 2 was finished in late july, even though it did not release till late october.
GOW3 the same, i think they said it finished in jan in there unearthing the legend documentary.
what is the point of releasing DLC so late after the game releases?
i dunno about you but i cant sit there waiting for them to release the DLC.
ill move on to other games, get stuck into those.
im not going to replay through a whole game just so i can remember the story so i can play the DLC.
id love to replay some of my favorite games, im itching to get back into alan wake but i simply dont have the time for that.
this week alone i had 3 programming assignments, a MAYA assignment and 2 SQL assignments due!
I don't want more single player DLC for one reason alone, it should already be in the released package of the game. I have nothing else to say on the matter.
But… what if it's stuff developed after the initial release…?
Should have been in the original game.
i do love a good singleplayer game but dlc always seemd a bit weird for it….whereas new maps are in addition
More Heavy Rain DLC…..Oh wait, nevermind.
I buy single player games that have a nice long campaign. If they have DLC, that's great. If not, I've probably experienced enough of the game that it's time to move on to something else. There are a very satisfying number of games out that fit my preferences, so I guess I don't really care too much if everybody else wants to dish out ten bucks so they can do continue doing the exact same thing on three new maps or whatever.
As far as creating DLC for single player games, I don't see what the confusion is. Most stories have a main plot as well as subplots. You have the DLC expand upon the subplots, making them into the main plot of the new story.
Yes please, more single player DLCs! I think the only multiplayer DLC that I got have been of games with a big multiplayer community (like MW2 and Battlefield:Bad Company 2). For the rest of my games, I would definitely buy their single player DLCs if made (Demon Souls, Red Dead Redemption, Valkyria Chronicles, Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, etc).
How about a long, full, well written and drawn out single player game with no loose ends unfinished plot sequences or questions to be answered. Just skip the DLC and come with the sequel if necessary? Just a thought.
Ben, I couldn't agree more. Well said!
well, we r the minority (The guys who replay the single player over and over).
i guess thats y they dun invest too much into SP DLC.
Burnout Paradise did a good job with DLC.
Yeah they did. They had a plan from the beginning to incorporate what they called game changing content. That's why we ended up with the Island, online modes like Cops and Robbers and the motorcycle mode. These add-ons were more than new car models or skins, the island expanded the game map considerably. The new online modes extended the replay value of the game enormously.
Burnout Paradise certainly stands alone as a champion of proper dlc.
horse armor
best single-player dlc ever
LOL! Your avatar deserves this….
Hyperbole is no substitute for thought!
BioWare has done a decent job with DLC I think. They've been releasing stuff for ME2 and DA:O on a decent schedule. Some of it is pretty fluffy (gifts, weapons, etc.) and the prices are low (DLC-wise) for them. They've also released some actual content to add to the story as well, with more on its way.
Shivering Isles for Oblivion was awesome DLC. Heck the Knights of the Nine, or whatever the heck it was called, wasn't too bad either.
SP DLC is a welcome addition in my opinion. Some of it is crap but that doesn't mean all of it is.
Last edited by SirLoin of Beef on 8/5/2010 11:27:06 AM
I still play SP cuz it came with my $60 u damn sureIma play it…But SP DLC I'll rarely pay 4 it, Same goes with MP DLC unless if its new maps..
But I guess SP people need some DLC Love… oh wait…then Devs r gonna get carried away and release half finied SP…
Last edited by Luiscosmo2 on 8/5/2010 12:55:33 PM
I liked it when we used to call single player dlc "expansion packs." They used to add LOT to the game. SP dlc is so trivial these days.
Perhaps the trick is to call them expansion packs and only call trivial re-skins as DLC?
Technically, Warhawk and Burnout Paradise and Siren are DLC, if you download them instead of buying them on disc.
Today's coinages are so poorly conceived. They actually knew how to create new words in the Eighteenth Century.
If more games would release DLC like Fallout 3 I'd be a very happy guy. However I can see this working with a couple games, primaraly open world ones. Otherwise like in the case of Uncharted I can't really see them working more story into it without messing it up. Anyways I really hoped they would've released inFamous dlc, but I guess I will just have to wait for 2
I don't even play multi-player and I have over 20 PS3 titles with LB2 and GT5 on pre-order. Single-player isn't dead if a "single player" can invest that much into his PS3.