This is my second blog post today, made
almost entirely out of the desire to artificially inflate my already buoyant ego. This post is, however, spurred by an event which transpired only moments ago.
Yes, even knowing that my exclusive downloadable content is incoming, I've decided to trade away my copy of GTA IV in favour of something new. Why did I do this? It's true I don't really like the game all that much, so the prospect of 15 hours more of what I consider mediocrity doesn't appeal to me. But I also no longer possess Mass Effect, a game which I
did enjoy, and also skimped on the downloadable content from. And the ever-popular DLC for Burnout didn't keep me holding on to that title very long either, as it now hovers on my Goozex list nearing a trade.
Even the titles I still have hold no DLC appeal to me. Lost Odyssey released a pack I believe which I dutifully ignored. For some reason, the specter of additional content doesn't appeal. It seems like diving back into a game I've already finished with, just to experience some minute new detail is an experience much paled in comparison to experiencing an all-new game. I'm not going to be playing a new island of GTA IV this fall; I'll be playing a new world in Fallout 3.
So who does DLC really appeal to? I'm curious. It seems tailored to the hardcore community, a bastion of which Destructoid most certainly is. So, fellow robo-heads, I'm curious: do any of you subscribe to the cherished notion of DLC, or do you like me feel it most often comes at a time in which you've already moved to greener pastures?
thefil's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
Nuff said.
If it's a game I've since moved on from, I'd probably pass. Unless it's Oblivion. I'll never turn down DLC for Oblivion.
@Retrocalypse
Horse armor? Please tell me you haven't purchased horse armor.
Yeah, as AKK said, DLC makes all the difference with Rock Band. That game's replay value skyrockets with each new set of tracks that is added. That seems to be an exception, though.
My outlook is that I'm already paying sixty bucks for these games. Unless it's a game like Rock Band, I don't wanna have to pay to squeeze a little more gameplay out of 'em. If they provided a lot of this DLC for free, that would be another matter entirely.
Then there's the DLC that should have been included in the game. Lost Odyssey is an example. a DLC pack with a couple of items, one of which lets you rewatch cutscenes? Going to have to decline that too.
Look at the Ninja Gaiden DLC, the mission mode should have been on the disc in my opinion - compared to Devil May Cry 4 the bonus stuff for completion was rather scant and the lame difficulty put me off playing through again. Think I'll pass.
When I see post-release content that is substantial, value for money and not removed from the game to charge at a later date I'll be interested but there isn't a lot of it. Some people argue that 800/600 points or whatever isn't much and they are right, it isn't a lot of money. That doesn't mean the maps are value for money though.
Horse armor no. Cosmetic changes should be free, like with the Dead Rising DLC.
Now, when they release DLC that should have been in the game(extra stages in Katamari, Mission for NG2), that's a dick thing, cause you do need that.
DLC is for the fans who still play older games. I find that it seems more popular with shooters, which by nature are longer lasting due to their online multiplayer. The only DLC I've ever really bothered with was for a handful of shooters: Gears of War, CoD4, and Halo 3.
Well I was mostly referring to Knights of the Nine, Shivering Isles and the class specific DLC they've released. Let us never speak of the horse armor again!