So, with that out of the way, here are my personal feelings on DLC. I like it, and I think it's a good thing for games and most gamers. Assuming you only buy DLC for games you like (why would you pay for an add-on to a game you hated?), it allows you to play that game longer, and gives games more replayability. But I also think that often we are overcharged for it. Take for example Halo 3's new "Mythic Map Pack," three maps for $10 (800 MS points). Three. Maps. To quote Gob: "COME ON!" (the Halo 3 map pack dropping today is what inspired this rant... I mean post). The entire game of Halo 3 only cost $60 when it came out, and included several multiplayer maps, a whole single player campaign, and, oh yeah, the whole game design which the DLC are based off of itself. It just seems to me that 3 new maps (one of which is only useful if you like to build maps yourself, which I dont) should cost 1/6 of what the original game itself did. That being said, I bent over and took one from Microsoft/Bungie today, as I did in fact spend the $10 to buy the maps. But I am not happy about it. Same thing with Gears of War 2 (which I have not purchased any DLC from)- they have a couple of map packs out that have four maps each and also cost $10 each. For four maps each, that's still a little expensive for my blood.
Also, the Resident Evil 5 DLC got me a little upset, but not because of the price, but because it really should have shipped with the game or have been free. The versus mode is fun, and it was only $5 (400 MS points), but you could tell that the mode was already programmed into the game (the download was less that 2MB and the item in the menu for "Versus" was already there, but with "???????" until you buy the DLC), and they basically made you spend $5 to unlock it. I hope this doesn't develop into a trend where developers release new games with certain modes, maps, characters, weapons, etc. already built into the game at release, but then just make you pay extra to unlock them online.
While most of this post has been negative, I would like to say some good things for a moment. Although I still thought the price was too high, I did really enjoy Fallout 3's DLC "The Pitt" (Operation Anchorage was okay, but the only really good thing that came out of that was the scoped Gauss Cannon). Also, I would like to take a moment and praise Valve, whose upcoming DLC for Left 4 Dead is going to be free. The DLC will add a survival mode where players see how long they can last against wave after wave of zombies (think horde mode from GOW2), and will unlock the other two maps from campaign mode to be used in versus mode (which is something that probably should have been released with the game, but that is why I assume Valve is making it free). Thanks Valve! I hope other developers take note of this a realize that if you're not releasing something actually new for a game, you really shouldn't charge for it.
Lastly, for anyone who likes beer and hasn't tried George Killian's Irish Red, I would really recommend it (especially if you like ales). I had it once a long time ago, but I couldn't really remember what is was like and if I liked it or not, so I went and got some on a whim yesterday. Delicious.
P.S. I didn't feel like spell checking this after I wrote it all, so sorry for any typos/grammatical errors. If you find any, feel free to point them out in the comments and I will fix them.
5 comments:
I disagree. While DLC often costs more than what a gamer wants to spend that may be a simple fact of "free is better". DLC content is produced separately from the original games content. It can have a different production team and different time tables. The Resident Evil 5 DLC is a good example of costumer outrage that may have merit but ultimately loses the battle.
The RE5 DLC for versus mode generally sent players into anger. It is DLC announced before the game was even out. It cost five dollars. The arguments generally went, "Why are we paying for content that should have been part of the normal game?"
While it is wrong to force online unlocks into games that have the data on the disc, RE5 did not do this. Rather the extra content took time to finish. Had the DLC taken a few months longer there may not have been as much anger. The ?????? in the menu was thrown in at the last minute to entice sales.
But like RE5, Halo and GoW had a complete game released that didn't need DLC. Content wasn't held back from players in order to make a profit. In fact many players resist buying DLC and have just as much fun sticking to the original maps.
Now imagine for a second if RE5 did not have online co-op or mercenaries mode. Would it be a much different game? Not really. It is true that the single player AI is horrible. It is much easier to play with another human but the game wouldn't have anything detracted from it.
A whole slew of games have been created simply through the addition of content. Every new Tetris update, every Pokemon, etc. The core idea stays the same while new features are added. Are sequels a bad thing? Do players suffer by paying for the same game concept with updated graphics and game modes?
While I may have gone on a tangent the ideas are very similar. In the end the players are losing money but gaining content be it DLC or paying for a sequel. The former angers players because of the micro-transaction. They feel they are getting nickel and dimed for minor new features. The latter gets players excited because they feel they are getting a complete with added features. They are happy even if it means that most of those features and content are mere updates or copies of old work.
I'm not sure what you're actually disagreeing with. I have no problem with DLC costing money, if in fact after the game was produced more time and manpower was spent developing and creating the DLC. That seems fair to me. Mostly what I have a problem with are things being built into a game when it is shipped, and then having to pay extra just to unlock it, even though it is already there. You seemed to agree with this when you said "While it is wrong to force online unlocks into games that have the data on the disc..." As far as Halo and GoW, I was not complaining about the DLC costing money, but about the actual amount of downloaded content you get (only 3 or 4 maps) considering the price ($10) compared to the original retail price of the full game.
Do you have a source for your RE5 information? As stated before, with the versus mode dlc weighing in at under 2mbs, I feel like most of the mode had to be data that was already on the disc. What was actually contained in the 2mb download?
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=210655
Your post seemed to be saying that paying for DLC was bad.
"But I also think that often we are overcharged for it. Take for example Halo 3's new "Mythic Map Pack," three maps for $10 (800 MS points). Three. Maps. To quote Gob: "COME ON!" (the Halo 3 map pack dropping today is what inspired this rant... I mean post)."
You said that you like DLC, so you like new content, but that paying for said content was bad. I agree that some DLC may seem overpriced but that price covers production costs.
The time you liked DLC was for "The Pitt" but you still said that you didn't like paying for it. You did praise Valve for releasing free DLC.
DLC has existed for a long time. It was simply called patches and they were free until recently. I agree with you that paying for new content isn't fun but by the same token a company wouldn't give out their sequels for free.
DLC is generally small and optional. Players still pay for it even if they don't want to. The bad situations in DLC come when game changing DLC is available for a price. Or when a game isn't complete without DLC. Paying just to be on equal ground with everyone else isn't ethical. Neither is leaving items on the disc that are locked.
But your post began on the basis of anger towards the Halo DLC and paying for DLC so I wanted to address that.
As for what the RE5 content actually was, it was most likely a patch to allow networking for the versus mode and to set up the game. Games often have toolsets that allow a multitude of changes. So the 2MB could have been flagging who was friend and enemy, changing the spawn rate, setting what weapons spawn, etc.
The RE5 content probably could have gone on the disc if they pushed back the release date. I'm not denying that. It wasn't planned for the game but often feature-creep occurs. Designers want to put extra features into their games. Ideas they think are neat or easy. Often times they are not.
The mercenaries mode was not originally planned to be released with the game. It was going to be DLC. Most likely they finished mercenaries but didn't have enough time for versus. The time in between the game going gold (being finished) and the versus DLC being released is under a completely different budget. It may be the same team but to the corporation it is now considered a new project.
The true question is what should be DLC and what should be free patches? If Capcom put out mercenaries and versus two months from now, should they simply say here are free modes or should they make a profit? In PC gaming a company would simply put out an expansion. What is a console game to do?
I'm not saying it is wrong for you to be angry. I've had a bad taste in my mouth when I see high priced DLC. 3 dollars for a single map is ridiculous. 4 dollars for a Sackboy costume in Little Big Planet is stupid. I just wanted to say that companies do have a justifiable reason for charging something. Whether or not that price is a just one requires a lot more discussion.
Hey, thanks for posting the link here on your blog. Even if we do disagree somewhat, I'm really not "angry" over DLC being (arguably) overpriced, and I dont think all DLC is overpriced, only some of it. I like to take it more on a case by case basis. That being said, I absolutely cant wait for Broken Steel this Tuesday (dont know if you play Fallout 3 or not). Anyway, thanks for your posts.
I personally see DLC in two ways. The Halo 3 mold and the Gears of War 2 mold.
The Halo 3 mold is not what I would classify as optional. If you look at the matchmaking playlists a few weeks after new DLC drops you can see they usually add a DLC requirement. This is in essence taking a complete experience and removing features for those who don't get the DLC for whatever reason. I went to do some matchmaking today in Rumble Pit (the only playlist where infection is in the rotation) and was told I didn't have the required maps. I understand that people want to play the new maps but essentially removing playlists for players who dont have the means, money, or will to purchase DLC is not the answer.
The Gears of War 2 approach is optional. Gears of War 2 matchmaking (at least as of my last play) does not require DLC unless you choose a DLC specific playlist. The other playlists make an effort to match you with players who have similar content so that those with extra maps have the opportunity to play those maps. This way I can still play my favorite playlists and the DLC owners can play their maps.
Halo 3 DLC causes problems because the developer is removing features that used to be available in the game for those who don't purchase it. In the simplest sense, it is charging me a $10 subscription fee to continue to have complete access to Halo 3 multiplayer, something I had when the game launched.
Post a Comment