This one tends to depend on who you talk to and what game you're talking about.

What about the concept taken as a whole though? We've had one single console generation of DLC availability and we'd like to know the community's verdict on it. How has the implementation of DLC gone over with you? Do you buy it? If so, how often? What drives your purchase or your disinterest? Friend or foe, we want to know.

PC gamers had nothing to get used to but for the console-only crowd quite a few changes took place with the introduction of the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. The ability to add extra content through online downloads has enriched pre-order packages, allowed for massive expansion packs, supplied more characters and other in-game items, as well as kept multiplayer experiences interesting long after release day.

On the flip side of that there have been charges by gamers of holding content back resulting in incomplete campaigns, a lack of replayability because content that used to be unlockable was now for sale, inclusion of content on the disc that payment merely unlocked, and overpriced map packs. Plus any other grievance you can likely contrive or conceive.

Maybe you like it but you have a beef with how it is implemented. Just reading Ben's Week in Review made me wonder if folks prefer their DLC to be ready soon after release while their passion for a game is still fresh or if that puts a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Maybe you'd rather have it come out after all quality is assured like Bioshock Infinite 's 'Burial At Sea' next year.

So how about it? After your first console generation experiences with DLC, what is the verdict? Maybe one particular practice got under your skin. What can stay and what must go?

Related Game(s): Bioshock Infinite

Subscribe
Notify of
62 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Axe99
Axe99
7 years ago

Like anything, it's been a mixed bag. Things like extra MP levels were nice, but split communities. Extra single-player stuff was hit and miss, but some of the hits were enjoyable. At the end of the day, DLC is a choice, no-one needs to buy it. The XCOM: Enemy Unknown DLC was good value, Ace Combat's plane skin DLC not so much, from my perspective, but for the people out there that just have to paint their planes different colours, they could be happy, and I could be happy, and Namco could afford to do it :).

touchyourtoes
touchyourtoes
7 years ago

The only DLC I purchased in my 5 years with my PS3 was the Island in Burnout Paradise. Every other piece of DLC, announced and released, before or since has left a bad taste in my mouth.

pavlovic
pavlovic
7 years ago

At the begining of the generation I was very excited for DLC, given my previous experience with the Socom 3 Map Packs (available on the demo disc of the PSM), but after RFOM and COD4 I realized that only a few people bought the DLC and almost none of my friends, so I was skeptikal with other map packs.

Now a days I only buy single player DLC and only if I loved the game… right know thinking in Bioshock and TLoU.

Capcom and Activision have had milked DLC in a bad way

EndZero
EndZero
7 years ago

It's still a scam. Especially if it comes out the same day as the game or has a download size of less than a megabyte. If it "wasn't finished in time" and "was supposed to be in the game" why does it have a fee? And then it pisses me off when a game releases with bugs and glitches but the DLC is right there.
But then again cause I caught on with Resident Evil 5 gold, I wait for complete editions on games from publishers like capcom, tecmo, and Bethesda.

Akuma_
Akuma_
7 years ago

How about DLC that is released several months after a game releases? How is that a scam?

Tim Speed24
Tim Speed24
7 years ago

Because by then I already traded the game in and would have to re-buy it to enjoy DLC.

EndZero
EndZero
7 years ago

I guess that's fine. That's what I thought DLC was gonna be when I first heard about it. Back when the PS3 was just a baby. But for the most part it has been used FOR EVIL.

tes37
tes37
7 years ago

I thought it was a great idea at first. I liked having the option of additional content and bought a little bit of it at the start of this generation. Although some developers were falsely accused of withholding content, a few were actually caught doing it.

Since development time is supposed be at least a year faster in the upcoming generation, I hope to see less of it on offer. Unless they mess up the story in some way, there's no way to tell if the content was cut.

Masszt3r
Masszt3r
7 years ago

Hate it for the most part, especially if it comes out on the same day as the game's release. As someone here already mentioned, it could potentially split communities. I miss the days when DLC was called an "expansion pack" and was actually worth paying for, though I suppose this mostly applies to PC games, such as AoE or Starcraft.

Akuma_
Akuma_
7 years ago

Well, it happens the worst on COD.

The community is split into those who have DLC's and those who don't.

Thankfully, it still seems the majority don't buy the DLC's. Either that, or they just prefer to play the old queue.

godsman
godsman
7 years ago

Its just not DLC, update is what I hate. i just started playing god of war ascension. I lost internet for a couple days and was so angry the single player had a bug that kept me from proceeding without an update fix.

Developers just use the internet As an excuse to push the game out earlier. Games like Assassin's creed is even worse. Cutting back the single player content for DLC

Akuma_
Akuma_
7 years ago

All of AC's pre-order DLC is made as a pre-order incentive.

The truth is, most games go through a culling process, even up till a week before it goes gold. I have heard of huge levels, or major gameplay systems being removed in the last moments of development.

DLC is a way to bring those culled elements back into the fold. All of the DLC's for AC so far, have not been part of the story itself, they are all side-content, which means it was either a) created specifically as DLC or b) culled for not fitting with the overall game.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
7 years ago

First, the vast majority of DLC is not a scam. Twenty-five years ago, if extra content magically came out somehow for the new Mario a week after launch, everyone would be ecstatic. Now, everyone just thinks they're getting ripped off every time they turn around, which clouds their judgment.

There may be instances where a publisher has flat-out told a developer to leave out certain content, so they could charge for it as DLC at a later date. For the most part, I can tell you this doesn't happen often. Developers love games. Just like you and I. Most REALLY hate to make something incomplete. And furthermore – and I always have to repeat this – I have never, not ever, finished a game and said to myself, "This felt incomplete or lacking." As if it was missing content. No, that has never happened. And if DLC didn't exist, nobody would say this had happened because such a "lacking" isn't visible.

That all being said, I almost never deal with DLC. I'm usually too busy, for one thing, and for another, I don't feel like paying more for a game after I've already paid for it. That goes double when it feels like I'm already done with, and nothing felt left out of the experience. I'll do some single-player DLC here and there, though.


Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/11/2013 11:52:47 PM

xenris
xenris
7 years ago

DLC I am against. I would rather them do meaty expansion packs. I think only a couple of devs did DLC right this generation and that was Bethesda.

My problem with it is that it is a way to sell stuff that would have probably made it into the game, because of how corporate windows work the DLC model makes sense to keep profits up. I liked when devs tried to cram as much as they could into a game and what didn't make it was put into a sequel or a massive expansion pack, like Baldurs Gate 2 shadows of amn.

However I can live with DLC because in only a few cases have I felt like the DLC was cut from the game and sold back to me.

Microtransactions on the other hand are the bane of the gaming industry. They do nothing good, and when games are designed with them in mind the gameplay is usually designed to have the gameplay, drop rates etc be such a way that you want to make those impulse buys.

I have seen this in countless F2T PC games, and really the system is NOT for the benefit of the gamer. It doesn't add anything to the experience, it just makes gamers skeptical that the drop rates are low so we will want to pay money for an XP boost or drop rate boost etc.

Not all F2P games have scummy microtransactions, but more of them do than dont.

Its going to be interesting to see what kind of model is preferred this coming up generation. I have a feeling console gamers are going to see a LOT of F2P games coming out.

Akuma_
Akuma_
7 years ago

I am worried that flooding the market with FTP games will cause a decrease in quality, and overall sales.

They have worked so far, League of Legends is the first game I can think of that worked perfectly as FTP, but I don't want to see games like Ace Combat go FTP.

xenris
xenris
7 years ago

Its a slippery slope akuma and one that needs to be handled right.

League of Legend handles F2P well, but there are games that I have played that do it better.

Dota 2 for example is 100% free you only pay for cosmetic stuff and I think if F2P games do this they will be safe from the pay to win and balance issues that marketplace items can have.

I'm excited to try Ace Combat F2P because I don't usually buy those games and I usually will try out a f2p game at least once if it interests me. Whether they get money from me or not is dependant on how much I liked the game etc.

I have spent 30 dollars on F2P games that were done really well, and weren't pay to win. Mostly because I wanted to support the developers.

Either way I think that f2p doesn't mean its going to be a low quality game, but if it is high quality you have to be even more suspicious of how they are going to try and get players to pay.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
7 years ago

I tend to buy DLC only for games that I really loved and that I'd like to have the whole experience out of. Also to support the devs that I like for creating such a gem in the first place.

Otherwise single player DLC is good. (Just got Vergil's for DmC) Most games always overcharge for costumes though, I hate that.

Big expansions are good things when they work, but the Skyrim ones came so late I just don't care now.

Overall: I give DLC a 6/10

Akuma_
Akuma_
7 years ago

DLC really picked up a lot at the end of this generation. I buy all the DLC for games that I enjoyed, because hey, I want to continue the experience.

DLC offers a way to continue telling a story, or maybe tell it from a different point of view. I don't see DLC as a scam, unless it is locked to the disc at launch. So far, that has not happened in a long time.

A lot of pre-order DLC is meant to be built as a pre-order incentive, like the Assassins Creed stuff. It all becomes available to everyone eventually.

I prefer to see the bigger DLC's drop some time after release, give me time to fully enjoy a game before giving me more work to do. The Skyrim DLC was perfect timing, on the Xbox. PS3 was way too late.

Smaller DLC, give it a month after release, and then it can come and go as it pleases.


Last edited by Akuma_ on 8/12/2013 12:34:17 AM

duomaxwell007
duomaxwell007
7 years ago

Ive been used to buying expansions on PC since the 90s, doing the equivalent on a console doesnt bother me

Crabba
Crabba
7 years ago

There's a huge difference between a full game expansion pack and the typical DLC junk out there… In fact very few DLC would qualify as a full expansion pack.

MrAnonymity
MrAnonymity
7 years ago

In the instances where DLC is really just content that was cut for that purpose, that is bogus. However, I enjoy DLC if it proves to be worthwhile. (I will point out, though, that DLC can really nickle and dime you… Dragon's Dogma…)

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
7 years ago

Im good with dlc that expands the game but does not alter and is not an extension of the original story. For example Borderlands 2 has the best dlc this generation and expands the gameplay by introducing new elements without hindering or exploring further, the original story.

This is why Im against story heavy games having dlc. I feel like the story should finish with the original playthrough. And its exactly why I would hate to see sp dlc in a game like Uncharted. I like to know ive finished the original vision and story of the game.

Personally dlc should be kept in RPG's with open worlds and sand box type games as well as mp games. It works best because often times choice is a relevant gameplay tactic, and the open worlds and leveling leave options open.


Last edited by bigrailer19 on 8/12/2013 2:03:32 AM

Beamboom
Beamboom
7 years ago

There are some really great examples of DLC this generation that should leave gamers at least open to the possibility that DLC *can* be good.

Take the Borderlands DLCs for example. Most of them offer entirely new adventures on entirely new maps. Same with the Mass Effect DLCs, or the Saints Row main DLCs. Great stuff in all of them.

But there's also the annoying DLCs, and interestingly enough both Saints Row and Borderlands works as an example there too. Saints Row with their mini-DLCs with just additional weapons and outfits. That's just annoying. I also am very critical against the extra classes offered in Borderlands DLCs. That tastes like something cut out of the main game in order to make the DLCs more attractive.

But I agree with Ben in that I believe we can say that no game has felt incomplete because of it. And if there is a game that I really really love, I have always been fan of the idea that there might be more content in the future, for just a few dollars more.


Last edited by Beamboom on 8/12/2013 2:31:36 AM

Beamboom
Beamboom
7 years ago

Oh, and the Fallout DLCs. They too are great.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
7 years ago

I was bummed when I tried to pick a class in Borderlands 2 and it was like "hey you gotta buy this". I'm like "well don't put it there if I can't use it!"

Beamboom
Beamboom
7 years ago

Yeah I know, right? It's just Not Cool.

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
7 years ago

Yeah thats not a good idea actually. Thats a terrible tease. Im okay with having to buy new character classes especially in Borderlands 2 because of the different play styles and they do add longevity to the game. But they are not worth $10 and they absolutely should have been included in the season pass. Its actually why I didnt purchase the season pass. Otherwise theyve supported this game better than any other game has been supported.

Gabriel013
Gabriel013
7 years ago

I have bought a variety of dlc content for my games as I often take the view that once dlc is released, my original game purchase by default becomes less than 100% of overall game/content.

That said I feel the over-arching issue with dlc is that it is too expensive. The pricing should be based on what it costs to develop and the expected sales level.

Cost divided by expected minimum sales = minimum sales price. Add a little margin and there you have your sales price.

Dan
Dan
7 years ago

I'm gonna come out and say it. It's bull****!

I only say this because, people without access to the PS Store like myself, never get to enjoy them.

For example, Dishonored. I loved the game, but then I found out their were DLC for it. I had no way of accessing it. So gets me a bit pissed.

If I ever opt to by a Playstation, it would because of the lack of access on the PS Store.

Beamboom
Beamboom
7 years ago

Why can't you access the PS store?

Dan
Dan
7 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Store#Availability

The store is not available worldwide, only to a handful of countries. (I'm from Lebanon)

Although the PSN is available in more countries, and Lebanon is one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Network#Availability

Beamboom
Beamboom
7 years ago

Oh bummer. You can't even buy those PSN cash cards? They've got them in stores here for those who don't have a credit card.

I wonder why you can't. Can you shop online in regular internet stores, or is this a widespread problem for you guys in Lebanon?

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
7 years ago

I assume you guys have internet cafe's over there?, I have friends who live far east and they don't own there own cpu and they pay by an hour when access to the internet cafe's.

Underdog15
Underdog15
7 years ago

Nah it isn't something that can be solved at an internet cafe. My old roomie is teaching in South Korea right now. He can't buy anything on NA PSN directly. He always sends me cash via electronic money transfer, I buy him a PSN card, and send him the code.

It's weird that way…

Dan
Dan
7 years ago

It's not a payment issue, I wish it was.

The moment you try to go into the PS Store, Home, PS+, etc. you get a warning saying "This operation is not allowed in your country".

Vivi_Gamer
Vivi_Gamer
7 years ago

I'm sorry but I have to say it is one of the worst additions to console gaming this gen, because the majority of developers are exploiting it. I think we all know by now that a lot of developers hold back content for DLC, remember the Resident Evil 5 fiasco, where your DLC just activated content on on the disc, disgusting if you ask me.

Or what about Story DLC, Final Fantasy XIII-2's ending is DLC… this leads me to the biggest problem, I feel as if when I buy a brand new game at release, I am not getting the full game, just a game in bits. I bought the special edition to XIII-2 and feel utterly conned. It's got to the point now where I am hesitant to buy a new game because of this or in fear that five months down the line there will be a DLC edition arrogantly called the Game of the Year Edition (Which I think should be nominated to only 1 game per year – Dead Rising was hardly a GotY title…) So I will rarely buy a game on day one now, which is a shame as it ruins the excitement little and also makes them lose profit from me as a consumer.

There are some companies who can do it right though. Bioshock: Infinite felt like a complete game and this DLC really does feel like an expansion rather than just content that should have been in the game in the first place. I respect that and am honestly considering it as it looks like it will deliver. Hopefully other developers can learn from it. I bought Castlevania recently for the PS3, only to learn it has two chapters after the main story ends and I have to say it has put me off the game entirely.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
7 years ago

"because the majority of developers are exploiting it. I think we all know by now that a lot of developers hold back content for DLC,"

I already explained why none of that is true. There are a few examples that of course dominate headlines but for the most part, 99% of all DLC was not purposely "held back." Capcom made that mistake; most everyone else never did.

And by the way, most of the time, it just means more work for the developers. They're used to finishing a game after busting their butts for several years, and then taking a vacation. Many don't do that now, because they need to provide extra content that people have come to expect.

As for FFXIII-2, they had planned to do that from the outset of development. And it's Square Enix……they eff everything up, anyway.

___________
___________
7 years ago

i HATE DLC for many many reasons.

1 you would be surprised how much content on a disc is locked out awaiting a unlock key.
perorder bonuses for instance, most are already on the disc and you only get the key to unlock the bonus for the retailer you preordered at.

2 its spawned this obsession that ALL games MUST have MP otherwise the skies are going to bleed red and crash to the earth!
that hurts both the game itself because those resources could of been spent making the story better, and even the devs who put hundreds of hours of blood sweat and tears into something no one is going to play.

3 99.999999999999999999% of DLC MUST be MP related.
why?
i can think of oh so many games which would of benefited from some campaign DLC.
uncharted 2 especially, so many people were screaming for some more co-op maps but ND blatantly refused!

4 whenever SP DLC does come out, its so ridcliously overpriced and releases like 6 months after the game released, so late everyones already sold the game and moved on.
cough GTAIV.
id love to play as elizabeth in the infinite DLC, but yea come 2014 i dont think many people are really going to give a rats a$$!
play infamous second son, or BI DLC.
which would you choose?

Gabriel013
Gabriel013
7 years ago

Some good comments but I disagree with number 3. If a game is worth it's money then it's worth keeping and replaying. Dlc released 6-12 months after the game has launched gives me a reason to go back and play again. Dlc released within the month of game launch makes me a little bitter as it feel I've paid a lot of money for something which is not the full experience.

ulsterscot
ulsterscot
7 years ago

Love DLC maps – it keeps me going back to COD – the new map packs keep the game exciting. Worth every cent for a seasons pass.

Not so sure about campaign DLC, especially once the game has been completed. I bought all the ME3 DLC – only played the first one

PlatformGamerNZ
PlatformGamerNZ
7 years ago

i hate DLC as most of it was way over priced the only DLC i ever bought was the good old expansions on the likes of BF2 and RA2 and Heros 5 or 6 cos they were priced well and u got a good amount of content.

like if you got like 4 maps for $30 nz i can'tdo that i got the whole lot of BF3 tuff on sale for $45 which is 4 packs 45/4 thats 11 bucks per pack which is much more resonable but i relly need more time another time to elaborate but main too little for too much money.

happy gaming =)

bldudas1
bldudas1
7 years ago

It depends. If DLC expands a game's story, like the Fallout New Vegas DLCs, then I do not mind it and will buy it. If it's a cheap cash in, like maps or new tombs, then I do not like it and will not buy it. And price is a big thing for me, too.

Vivi_Gamer
Vivi_Gamer
7 years ago

I still cannot get over New Vegas, the game as a whole felt like DLC. So when you get a game which is pretty much DLC having DLC it becomes a bit of a joke.

bldudas1
bldudas1
7 years ago

Really? How?

Gabriel013
Gabriel013
7 years ago

If I had to guess I'd say because the graphical quality and a lot of the gameplay style is the same or very similar to Fallout 3?

To be honest if I liked anything about the game that would be it. If they'd changed a lot of the things which made FO3 a success then people would have complained that it was too different to the previous game. A lot like the complaints aimed at DA2.

Corvo
Corvo
7 years ago

If DLC was released with the quality of Artorias of the Abyss, Killzone 3 MP maps, Shivering Isles, and RE5 Lost in nightmares and some others i can't remember, i wouldn't mind DLC. Its just sad most DLC is literally designed to make more money out of you, and not add to the game you bought.

Underdog15
Underdog15
7 years ago

For me it depends on the content. New and unnecessary content that makes the bigger and keeps it alive is great.

Anything needed to make it feel complete…. I hate that so damn much. I don't mind optional things like costumes that give you options that dony affect the game, but I do wish I could unlock stuff like that by completing challenges.

Underdog15
Underdog15
7 years ago

I hate when I platty and get 100% on a game I like then 2 months later I see my trophy completion is 83% or some such nonsense.

Clamedeus
Clamedeus
7 years ago

Not sure, I haven't bought a single DLC this gen. lol

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
7 years ago

Avatar hilarity sir.