Dlc's

[Sunrise Driver]

 

I remeber I had a few idea's for themed packs for GTAIV, had 4 weapons, 2 vehicles and 2 sets of clothes, which if they were priced at about 600 Microsoft Points and added a bit of fun to the game, I think it'd be worth it.

Thanks to people like you we still have these stupid DLCs because it's NOT OK to pay 600 points for that. On PC for 1200 Points (600*2) you can buy TBoGT which has a lot more content than 8 weapons and 4 vehicles.

[Blackadder.]

After a few bad DLC purchases I'm behind the idea that we should get content comparable to what we pay. If for example I paid $60 for the game and the DLC costs $5, I feel I should get something worth $5 against the original $60. This is why I feel TLaD and TBoGT were good, becasue you paid $20 vs the original $60, and got a storyline and new features that suited that price point perfectly. $15 for a map pack on the other hand, seems kind of odd considering you paid $60 for the base game which contained new weapons, achievements, maps, characters, storyline etc and now you're paying 1/3 of that and recieving far less.

 

Pre-order/buy new incentives are getting crazy now. People have to pick which one they want the most and lose out on other choices until it's offered for as paid DLC. This stuff used to be free. Taking out a game's online capabilities is a bit sh*t if they happen to buy it used, especially if they're already paying a monthly fee to use online features in 360's case. The only buy new incentive I've seen that has any semblence of sense was the Flashback Map Pack for Gears of War 2. You get the full proper game, you just don't get the additional maps that are only re-hashes anyway. It's more of a reward for new purchases, instead of outright punishing those who buy pre-owned.

[sivispacem]

Bethesda have got the idea of DLC about right, but the execution is still off. If I'm paying £30 for a game, I expect £10 worth of DLC to contain approximately 33% of the play-time of the game, not about 5% in the case of the New Vegas DLC. The map packs for CoD and the like are just stupid, I remember the day when that kind of stuff was hosted for free...

 

 

Personally, I think there's a market for the idea of "modular" games- ones where users pay a set fee for as much of the entire game as they want. Of course, it would only work for certain kinds of game, but it seems to make sense to me. That way, no-one can accuse the companies of milking the whole DLC thing. If you want the whole game, buy it. If you want to try a game, pay £5 or so for part of it, and then there's no real loss if you don't like it. Some bits appeal to you, and others don't? Just get the bits you think you'll like. The only issue would be trying to make it all "gel" together, but in something like the CoD franchise where elements of it (well, the single player at least) are broken and disjointed, with weeks and even years between each setting, then it would work well.

Edited May 22, 2011 by sivispacem

[Wolf68k]

I like the method that Ubisoft does for AC2 and ACB. You earn points while playing the game to unlock things.

I would have gladly worked to earn enough points or reach a rank or some other level to unlock the SPECTACT DLC for BFBC2. Now however if they said for $6 (which is what it is anyway) and you can unlock it right away then fine too.

 

Now for COD it's a whole new mode/content that you have to pay for to get the zombie stuff, that I'm cool with. That's like buying a mini expansion pack.

[Claude4Catalina]

I remeber I had a few idea's for themed packs for GTAIV, had 4 weapons, 2 vehicles and 2 sets of clothes, which if they were priced at about 600 Microsoft Points and added a bit of fun to the game, I think it'd be worth it.

Thanks to people like you we still have these stupid DLCs because it's NOT OK to pay 600 points for that. On PC for 1200 Points (600*2) you can buy TBoGT which has a lot more content than 8 weapons and 4 vehicles.

damn straight it has a lot more content at double the price, which is brilliant value, but then take a look at the overprived DLC. for the same price as a GTA IV add on, you can buy a Call of Duty map pack for example, which if you want to make use of them you'd need a Gold account on XBL...which requires more money. singleplayer add ons like weapons, cars and clothes, if they were at a reasonable price given the fact that no matter how much we complain at how extortinate the prices are, companies wont lower them. 600 points for singleplayer content isnt nothing compared to 1200 for multiplayer only content.

[Cheat]

It's amazing how DLC's have come a long way from loads and loads of discs with enormous amounts of content (take The Sims for an example) to huge online markets full of downloadable content - Live Marketplace, PSN Store. The gaming industry has used internet as a brilliant intermediate to evolve itself, this is seen most visibly with the DLC's and the steps they have taken to become more easily acccessible, and the whole avaiability is just overwhelming - there's always something for everybody online, always a way to make your favorite game a bit better and add that extra flavor.

[Pat]

(sometimes for impressionant amounts of money, they're f*cking robbing us!)

No, they aren't. Robbing you would be forcing you to pay for the downloadable content against your consent. No one is forced to buy it; it's there if you want it and can afford it, and if you don't, you have to play without it. I also think the "I already have the game" argument is incredibly flawed. Take, for example, my car: I already own it, and it's completely stock, but there are better parts I could purchase for it. Using your argument, I already own the car, why shouldn't I get those better parts free?

 

Game developers are businesses. Their primary concern is earning money. You stick two multiplayer maps in front of a hundred thousand twelve year olds and price it at ten dollars, and around eighty percent of them actually pay for it; why not continue doing so?

[*MURDOC*]

(sometimes for impressionant amounts of money, they're f*cking robbing us!)

No, they aren't. Robbing you would be forcing you to pay for the downloadable content against your consent. No one is forced to buy it; it's there if you want it and can afford it, and if you don't, you have to play without it. I also think the "I already have the game" argument is incredibly flawed. Take, for example, my car: I already own it, and it's completely stock, but there are better parts I could purchase for it. Using your argument, I already own the car, why shouldn't I get those better parts free?

 

Well said Pat.

[Prometheus]

Well in these days most of the DLC are things that were supposed to be in the game, like Jimmy's Vendetta of Mafia II, some people already found it in the game content, and also the stupid CoD maps, most of them are just maps from the previous games, a waste of money really. There is a tall list.

Edited May 22, 2011 by PrometheusX