Why all the hate for DLC?

[Pshaw]

I read comments all over the game trailers sites about how people seem to think DLC for console games is evil and I wanted to get an idea of WoW players think on the subject. After seeing how much hate there is on the topic I've begun to wonder if maybe paying to play an MMO monthly has simply conditioned me to the idea that there is nothing wrong with paying for additional content.

My stance is mainly that most of the time a company continues to develop content for a game after it has gone gold. So it's either you buy the DLC to expand the game or you just play the game as is. I don't understand all this raging over 'it should have been in the game to begin with' since for the most part if it wasn't in the game when it went gold then it would have simply been cut rather than delay the release of the game as that slows the return on investment to the publisher/developer. I mean it's not like WoW, you're not being forced to pay in order to continue playing (WoW still is a great value to me I'd rather pay 14 bucks to play a game all month than pay 12 bucks for a 2 hour bad movie,) rather you're given the option to buy it or not.

So if it's your choice to buy it or not why all the hate?

What are your thoughts on DLC? Is it okay for companies to charge for additional content or should it be free? Is it extending the lifetime of a game or is it milking the game for all it's worth?

[Senaelanna]

Remember expansion packs? Pay 20-30 dollars, get a solid amount of content that expands on the game that you love? DLC is a joke because most of it is cleared in 30-45 minutes and then there is no reason to go back to it. I never have, and never will, pay for DLC. It's a complete ripoff.

Operation Anchorage, anybody? lol. Really. Get out if you think I'd actually pay money for that pile of garbage. Same with the majority of Mass Effect, and Dragon Age dlc.

[therobfather3]

Only have issues with paid DLC.

What's stopping a game company to release half the content of a game and then demand money if we want the rest ?!?

Depends on how good the "first half" of the game is. If it feels like a complete game, and I enjoyed it enough, I would be willing to pay for the "second half". If it's literally split in half, with no story arc completion or anything, then I probably wouldn't buy the game in the first place.

OT: I like DLC, and I don't mind paying for things that I feel are worth it. Castle Crashers on XBL was 100% worth the money I paid for it. Sonic 4, unfortunately, wasn't. But them's the breaks. Just because it's not a physical copy in my game library doesn't mean it's not a real, full game. People still spent a lot of man hours making it.

In terms of add-on content to a game I already paid for, it would depend on if I felt it was worth it. Left 4 Dead 1 didn't have great DLC, so I didn't get anything, but L4D2, I believe, has some decent stuff that (if I had internet at my apartment currently) I would probably buy.

[The Ogdru Jahad]

DLC is something I get reluctantly, friends get it, are like, OMG ITS AMAZING UR A NOOB IF U DONT BUY IT! U MUST BE POOR! In a joking way of course, I buy it, play the maps or w/e the DLC has and realize wut a huge waste of money, but for the bit of entertainment it offers I'm happy!

[Against the Modern World]

DLC price/DLC playtime=more expensive than the original game.

That's why I legally own ME2 and Dragon Age, but got all DLC from torrents.

[Pshaw]

I won't deny that lots of DLC isn't worthwhile, at least not for me. Map packs, different outfits, a new gun or two, these are the things I try to stay away from. I loved the Secret Armory of General Knoxx in borderlands but I'd never buy the underdome riot DLC simply because it doesn't seem like enough additional play for the price. Still that's what DLC is to me, I buy the ones that seem worthwhile and ignore those that don't. I don't have companies for making it like so many people seem to.

What's stopping a game company to release half the content of a game and then demand money if we want the rest ?!?

This sort of thing seems like it would sort itself out as people won't buy a game with a reputation like that. I mean MMOs are the closet thing to that in my eyes but people continue to pay-to-play because they see the value of playing to be worth the cost. If not people quit the MMO just like people would not buy said game or it's act 2.

[Manito]

Only problem I have with DLC is if they are releasing the DLC on game launch day.

[DoktahDoktah]

IF you want to see bad things about DLC look at Bioshock 2.
Its DLCs were all multiplayer aspects that didn't really add anything to the game and just added more multiplayer stuff thats exclusive to itself.
Along with that some stuff was on the disc already and you had to pay for a key to unlock what was already on the disc.
So you basically just milked my money for something I already own.

---------- Post added 2011-01-26 at 02:21 PM ----------

Actually here is a better way to put the Bioshock2 Disc.
Its like a box of cereal with a prize inside.
Oh cool a prize!
But I have to pay 15 dollars to open it.

[melodramocracy]

I can't imagine that anyone is suprised at DLC. Game companies learned their lesson with old school PC gaming.. give the gamers the tools to make whatever they like, build up homegrown support for a title, and while you build up an appreciative fanbase, you effectively slow down your revenue stream due to the gamers extending the 'shelf life' of said title through their own means..

Alternatively, give them few or no tools, shortened gameplay, then release the rest in small doses via payable dlc, and you can make far more. And console gamers happily flock to this horseshit in the name of convenience.

Up next? Rent your title, no install or ownership, and just pay by the hour to play. If you think it sounds insane, just wait a few years.

[Zorgen]

The only DLC i've purchased is the Red Dead Nightmare Collections and it was 100% worth it. If you think the price justifies the product then by all means buy all the DLC you want, If not.. move on to another game.. oh wait that will cost you money also..

[eldritchknight]

I don't really see the problem. Releasing half a game, sure, but none of the games I've played with DLC (mostly Bioware games) were half a game. They're all full games that I can CHOOSE to get extra content for. If I don't think I'm getting the full game from the start, I don't buy it.

DLC is just extra stuff. If the full games was there to start with, there's nothing terrible in paying some money for some extra content. I usually wait for reviews and the like to see if the DLC is going to be any good, and then I decide if it's worth it for me. If I like the game sufficiently to want more content, I get it.

Up next? Rent your title, no install or ownership, and just pay by the hour to play. If you think it sounds insane, just wait a few years.

Isn't that basically what an MMO is? You install, sure, but you're basically renting game time when you pay a monthly subscription to play WoW. It's not like you can access it without the sub.

[Zonas]

Meh nothing wrong with them in my opinon, just aslong as the content and price match up. Rather not spend 20+ on somthing that wont give me a few minutes of content.

While I have seen some DLCs that are obvious means to gain extra money from players, there are still some that show the game is still being updated and isnt forgotton.

[HeyJoe]

I had no problem with DLCs in the beginning when they were afterthoughts. What I do have a problem with is the current strategy which pre-plans DLCs before releasing the actual game. I feel the same way about "Director's Cut" DVDs. At first it was a cool idea (Lord of the Rings for example), but now it seems like they actually plan it in advance... which annoys me.