With consoles being connected to the internet, DLC is the next big thing. However are we getting ripped off or are we just getting a great service?
While Halo 3 continues to produce fantastic DLC which also becomes free over time, a lot of titles are not going under the same umbrella. I talked to
Fourzerotwo yesterday while playing COD4 and he said "no new maps are coming", while he could of just been saying that to surprise us later.. I really don't see any new maps coming.. and that makes me a sad panda. So many great titles are just getting one update.. .and then bam.. that's it. Like Mass Effect, only one download has come after all that fuss about plenty of episodes. They even put a DLC section in the main menu! It seems a little pointless to just come out with one DLC pack when everyone makes a big deal about it at launch.
DLC should be something awesome they think of adding after the ship date. I don't like the fact that Samba De Amigo (coming to the Wii) has "DLC FROM LAUNCH"... which means we are basically paying for content we should of gotten with the game. I feel like I am getting ripped off a lot of the time. There should never be DLC from launch, it's an obvious
cashwhore.
Plenty of music games do this and even
Beautiful Katamari cashed in by requiring the user to purchase an extra level to get a complete 1000 gamer score on the title. I am a sucker for purchasing online content, so much so that I will need to upgrade to the upcoming 60GB xbox hardrive as my 20gb is running out of space.
Soul Calibur 4 is offering characters as DLC who should of remained exclusive to the consoles they released on. Why am I paying for a character they got boxed? And visa versa. All this is confusing and frustrating. The games cost enough as they are not to mention the content I will end up having to purchase.
So what do you guys think? I am fed up with paying for content that should of been boxed from day one. The fact that I cannot even be FEMALE in
metal gear online unless I pay for the DLC.. it's ridiculous. I am all for extra content, but developers and the console companies them selves have got to realise it's turning into a rip off market.
atheistium's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
I would say that with Mass Effect, perhaps the DLC didn't sell that well? Who knows? Maybe they're just too busy making a Star Wars MMORPG and a bunch of other games? Seriously, Bioware has a lot on their plate, I would say.
That's certainly no excuse, especially when you promised to release DLC and all. It sucks, but what can you do? At least Bioware isn't releasing a fuckton of BS DLC to rip you off even more, I guess.
A lot of it's a rip-off, but there is good stuff out there, and I think in the end things will get a lot better when people start learning from past mistakes and speaking with their wallets. It will happen eventually, and then companies will have to either adapt or stop making DLC. They'll adapt because they know their's money to be made.
Also, I hope there is RE5 DLC. Extra missions, whatever. I'll hungrily buy whatever they throw my way. Just saying...
@ REDRABBIT: Bullshit? Paying for DLC? Really? I wasn't aware the guys at Bungie and Infinity Ward were working for free. So why would they give you 3 levels for free? That shit takes a few months to pump out, at least if you want quality. That's the way the real world works.
Also, I hope their is RE5 DLC. Extra missions, whatever. I'll hungrily buy whatever they throw my way.....
On the other hand, with the man hours being put into things I think asking for a small price is perfectly acceptable. I'd hate to see the games industry run out of money like the music industry has done over the years - I am happy to vote with my wallet for extra DLC but having DLC on release is a sham. They could so obviously just add it into the game from day one.
I also think COD4 could do well to maintain it's online community, which will continue to thrive even after COD5 due to it being a different setting and really good blah de blah.
That's exactly the way it shouldn't be done.
But then again, it has flamethrowers and swords and is an FPS.....
Also, not enough sockcock.
Paying for DLC that the developers were perfectly capable of putting in the original release and had available at the time of launch, now that's bullshit unless you're releasing the game for free or hella cheap.
For instance I don't think I'd mind paying for DLC in Battlefield Heroes on day 1, because I got the game for free. But I sure as hell wouldn't pay for DLC for Halo 3 on day 1.
"But then again, it has flamethrowers and swords and is an FPS....." - Tell me about it! Plus, vehicles. That could be cool.
I'm not saying COD4 will be better than COD5 (but it may well be), but I do know that many people will not revisit WWII so easily and will just stick to Modern Warfare. COD5 could go on and on.
And I'm fine with that! I'm quite happy that a good portion of the songs up for DLC aren't forced on me. Hell, if the Metallica pack had been in the game from the beginning I'd probably be angry. They're too difficult. Well, Blackened is on drums, and I can't beat any of 'em on expert guitar.
And Rock Band 2 will have near-launch DLC of 20 songs, all of them free. That's awesome. So, I'm fine with Harmonix putting out all the DLC they want, as far as I'm concerned, it's only better for me.
And I'm fine with that! I'm quite happy that a good portion of the songs up for DLC aren't forced on me. Hell, if the Metallica pack had been in the game from the beginning I'd probably be angry. They're too difficult. Well, Blackened is on drums, and I can't beat any of 'em on expert guitar.
And Rock Band 2 will have near-launch DLC of 20 songs, all of them free. That's awesome. So, I'm fine with Harmonix putting out all the DLC they want, as far as I'm concerned, it's only better for me.
Until companies start shipping hardcopies of purchased games/content to the customer, it's a risky game that people are playing. 10-15 years from now, will you still be able to get that map pack for <insert fps> or redownload tracks for <insert rhythm game> when your hard drive/memory card dies and takes your $500 worth of songs with it?
I understand that most console folks don't know any better, but folks on the PC have been dealing with "DLC" forever and can plainly see all the holes in the system that the console people are ignoring.
Now, as to whether it should cost money or not...well, I suppose it's a simple supply/demand economic model, right? We keep paying so why wouldn't they keep charging?
Sony is already doing it. Now we need to see how it all works out.
Although Live "pushes" for having more stuff. They are literally hurting themselves this way.
Really would want to see a "complete" title, without the need for DLC (unless its needed). Might be awhile till we see a game like that again.
Your question has been answered, not mine.
I've had 2 360's now and I know I can recover *some* content (I had delisted themes, demos, and pics that I can't get back anymore) so I know that it keeps track...but what happens 10-15 years from now when we're 3 to 4 generations removed from the current one? Do you honestly expect you'll be able to redownload all your hundreds of dollards of content?
Hell, I can't even restore my original Xbox Live content to an original XBox anymore since I migrated my account to the 360. When that original Xbox dies, so goes probably $20-$30 in content that I can't restore.
I don't think any console gamer has even thought about their digital rights as they potentially flush money down the drain.
That we are seeing a trend to charge for this and hold back content on the PC because PC gamers will rightly tell devs/publishers where to poke their microtransactions (Sims aside) is bullshit.
You console players should wise up and stop paying several pounds for a couple of goddamn maps. Don't cry about it while typing your MS points code into LIVE to buy the things. Compared to the work that goes into it the majority of DLC is way overpriced.
I never thought I'd see the day where people actually pay for a PICTURE. Why the fuck do you all find this acceptable? If Microsoft locked down your windows desktop or MSN Messenger to force you to buy stuff from the marketplace there'd be uproar. Why is it okay to do it on the 360?
Oh and @ Eternaldeathslayer:
No they don't work for free, but I'd guess that all the additions to TF2 are FAR more substantial than a couple of maps and Valve don't seem to be going hungry by looking after their fans. Fuck Bungie/Infinity Ward and their overpriced maps. The only thing more unjustifiable than what is going on with DLC are the arguments trying to spin it as a good thing.
What we can do is tag those companies, and don´t believe in his future game release (DLC). Said that, i have to mention Criterion... I have the Burnout Paradise, and it´s definitely s lot of game for the price. This certainly will came in mind when they release other games.
Bad DLC: Anything by EA, Metal Gear Online
I don't have issues with a lot of the DLC out there, some of it are things I legitimately feel are worth paying for. But when basic things are striped out of the full game just for the sake of raping users for a few extra bucks, gamers should be outraged.
But that katamari thing is purely wrong and unethical in many ways,most likely listed above.
But what has been over loked is the 360's blade themes. not only do you have to buy them at 120-150 pionts a pop but you have to buy them blindly. This is the biggest spit in the face really especially when you have such things as themes and wallpapers from PSN for free. Now not all the 360's themes are blind previews, but a vast majority wont show you whats on offer til you purchase and apply said theme, then find out how gag ugly it is.
There used to be a way around it with www.dashboardthemes.com but it died due to the fact no one was donating to help fund all the themes they were buying out of thier own pocket to preview to lots of 360 owners.
Sure stuff like mass effect only releasing that piss poor episode wasn't up to much to have it on the menu. as its most likely been realised all the content they would be using could be added to mass effect 2, if/when ever it decides to come out.
Otherwise DLC is pretty much alright, with the exception of rock band, I feel sorry for the person whos forked out over a second full copy of rock band and the instruments on just the insane prices on downloadable songs. i think its like 10 songs in the who pack 1600 points... EA can take a run and jump.
Ya know what's really gonna piss me off though? Siren. That was going to be one of those games where I just bought a copy and took it to a friends house to play so I would have to buy the system. Guess I'm screwed on that as well. (I know I could have it on an account or some shit, but that's just inconvenient when you move around a lot).
I think MS can afford to give things away for free later since they know a enough people will pay to get it early, giving them a return on the investment.
DLC seemed like a promising way for developers to quickly put a game out and expand on it if people liked it, reducing the initial investment.
But things rarely end up what they promise to be...
(# 33) on 07/28/2008 11:07
Good DLC: Rock Band, Burnout Paradise
Bad DLC: Anything by EA
xD
Considering Rock Band and Burnout Paradise are both EA products...
Here's another angle or take on DLC I wrote up awhile ago..you may find it interesting in a parallel co-existent sorta way.