The only DLC I've paid for on any retail title would be Rock Band games. I just can't justify purchasing much else.

Oh wait, I did also buy the MGS level pack for LittleBigPlanet.

Only 15% have downloaded map packs? That's kind of surprising, to be honest. Other than map packs for FPSs, I've never bought DLC. Until some developer releases some DLC that's WORTH THE COST for some game I'm interested in, I'm doing just fine without it.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

I haven't bought a LOT of DLC. I got Death Magnetic for GH, and just recently the Borderlands DLC (both).

The only DLC I've ever bought was Saint's Row 2's first pack. I don't even own the game, it was just a standard 5-day blockbuster rental. I'm an idiot.

I buy lots of DLC. I'd like to know the stats on DLC buyers. Its it like being a cat owner: You're likely to have more than one?

See, Activision. We don't want DLC. We want full games. DO YOU FUCKING SEE!?!

Sorry to say I have a very play and forget mentality with new games. The chances of me still giving a shite about a game more than 2 months after it's release are slim to none.

And by the time I go back to play it again, the cost of the DLC suddenly seems pretty outrageous since the game is X year(s) old now. I caved in for Beautiful Katamari and Borderlands, but to date I can't think of any other DLC I've purchased.

DLC is a good idea in theory.

In practice, however, it is seen as a way to generate more money with minimal effort. While an expansion pack, like the upcoming Dragon Age Awakening and Star Craft Brood Wars, required actual effort, most DLC packs are seen as nothing but throw-away additions.

With the popular advent of DLC, developers feel they must rush to provide it, resulting in rushed work that is generally very short and feels weak. Or, they push it back and put it on the back-burner, resulting in delayed work that hasn't had enough attention put into it.

Take Mass Effect for instance. I loved that game to death, I played it over 5 times, but the DLC for it was terrible. Bringing down the sky was too short and Pinnacle Station was an absolute rip-off. Warden's Keep for Dragon Age wasn't too good either, and the Blood Dragon Armor was "blood-y" useless (although the Stone Prisoner was alright). Fallout 3 DLC was very hit-and-miss, with The Pitt and Anchorage being awful, Mothership Zeta being boring with only Broken Steel and Point Lookout being worth the money spent.

I'm glad that most gamers don't want to buy DLC, because I just can't help myself. Even knowing that the Mass Effect 2 DLC will probably be rubbish, I will buy it.

The question is: who were they asking: kids that cannot make purchasing decisions in their households, parents that just buy what their kids want, people with or without internets etc

Studies are nice and all, but I highly doubt with how much in-game advertising some DLC gets that that many are unawares

I don't buy DLC for the same reason I don't play WOW. I have no interest in spending money on a game that I've already paid for.

I bought the Dragon Age DLC that didn't come with a new copy of the game, can't remember which was which (and will soon buy Return to Ostogar too, then the expansion in March). I got my Fallout 3 in the GOTY pack, didn't buy Mass Effect DLC on 360 and got it included on PC version free . So nothing really cost alot, the Dragon Age Dlc is like a couple of quid each. I have nothing against DLC done right especially when it's only a couple of pounds, who the hell can moan about a couple of quid?
You will however always get the traditionalists - see above - moaning but get used to it, this is the way of the future I reckon, digital distribution and DLC

Apparently people didn't notice the whole 800 people surveyed part, many of which played on PS2 and Wii where DLC is near non-existent.

This article kind of made me snicker because of the 'Get 800 MSPoints from EA!' thing where I purchased BF1943 and two DLC add-ons for Mass Effect. As well as the '2009 Countdown' Deals MS had going where all 5 add-ons were 50% off. How could I not?!

Also, 'Downloadable Content' should really not have to mean simple maps/songs/cosmetic additions. When are developers going to learn that we want actual content in our Downloadable Content? Enough with the lame map packs(any CoD), costumes(SFIV) and songs(any rythm/music game). How about some new features too?

So yeah, grain of salt, skewed survey results, blah blah blah.

I always look for DLC when I buy a game. If it's free, I download it automatically, no questions asked. If it costs a good sum (like a mini-expansion) I'll look for opinions to sway my opinion. But I always take DLC into account for games.

I'm not surprised that a lot of people don't download DLC; I have friends that barely visit their console's digital store.

I'd take this more seriously if he disclosed how he defined gamer. If 600 of those 800 are Wii owning older parents and grand parents, no shit they never heard of DLC.

@Letshavecake: Not all developers out there have the massive amounts of funding Valve does. Its the same reason most MMOs worth playing have a monthly fee. When you have developers making new content constantly for a game, you need money to PAY THEM SO THEY CAN FEED THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES

I guess this is a good sign. I would have figured everyone bought the crap, but I guess developers just keep plopping it out for the same idiots who do buy it.

i'm guilty of buying dlc though i hate the idea of launch dlc that should be the dam game ( cough dragon age, resident evil cough), especially when you can obviously tell the game isn't complete. launch dlc is about the worst. costumes and other non-interactive shit is a close second (cough soul caliber cough). namco has to be the worst when it comes to dlc. imo.

i love free dlc though, like the warhawk jetpacks.

I buy DLC on a regular basis, but one thing I've found is that a lot of my friends who don't buy DLC often just don't get the abbreviation when I use it. They just call it extra content or expansion packs (probably cause they're lame and don't read game blogs/sites).

I think part of the reason why launch DLC is a good idea, though, is when there is a code included with the game package, it gives DLC a physical feel that more traditional gamers can more readily use. It also assures them that there will be more soon (if they enjoy the game) and will hopefully push them to explore what other games have extra content available to buy.

er, GTa4. but same meaning >.>

Did they poll 600 PS2 owners, 150 Wii owners and like 25 PS3/360 owners? Because if nothing else people download map packs, and with first person shooters being so popular, especially on the 360, lots of people download map packs.

@Midgetsnowman Never looked at it that way...

I love this:

"A spokesman for Magid reveals that those who don't know about DLC typically play Wii and PS2 games, where DLC is not so rife."

Out of the 800, how many of them fell into this group? One thing I learned from college classes dealing with statistics, you have to take polls with a grain of salt until all the details are revealed. They could have easily blind-called people, asked if they played video games EVER, and then asked them about DLC. A good majority of those people could have said they played games, but meant they played back during the days of Atari.

Now, if they stated they went for PS3 and 360 owners, I'd put a bit more merit into their findings.

On that note...I buy DLC on my 360. My wife and I play a lot of Rock Band together, and there are other games that, if the price is right and I think it'll extend/enhance my gameplay (that sounds kinda dirty), I'll pick it up. If it's something stupid, like the Prince of Persia epilogue bit someone mentioned in the IGN comments, I'll pass.

is there some tales of vesperia dlc that i'm unaware of? other than that pay to level up poppycock.

i heart tales and the word poppycock.

I wonder if that would be the same amount of people who complete their games?