Okay, going a little deeper than that. I'm currently on the fence about download content in games. If it truly adds something to the game, I think it's a fairly good idea; for example, the DLC being released for Fallout 3. But on the other hand, you're paying $10 a pop for maybe 5 hours of gameplay. Fallout 3 is/was $40-60, and has DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of hours of gameplay by itself. Now here comes Mr. DLC to add a small piece of that on top of the original, a tiny fraction. And it's not really anything that different from the regular game in the grand scheme of things. Does this add up? I admit to having paid quite a bit for entire 5 hour games before, but I have to call this a different situation. And don't even get me started on the stupid shit that is "new costume DLC!" or "horse armor"....
On the other hand, I can see DLC being a good incentive for companies to use for people to buy their games instead of pirating them. Use a simple serial key that comes with the game, no DRM, and have free DLC released later that requires that serial key to download. Of course, the DLC could then be shared by less savory characters, so maybe require the key be verified every time you start from then on? But now we're getting into DRM territory again, so.... back to square one. Egosoft, the makers of the X series of games does something like this with their patches, requiring people to register their games on the website to download them. I have no idea how successful this is, however.
Finally, the true terror I foresee and pray every day will never happen. Companies use DLC to release a half-assed game, then sell the DLC to "complete" the game. Hopefully this practice would be completely nuked off the face of the planet by we savvy consumers, but in this age of casual players and people that don't really pay attention to the games they're playing who knows what companies could end up getting away with?
Could you please bother to define DLC before you begin a thread about it?
Anyway, DLC is each company's own business. As long as it doesn't become a necessity to be able to have full access to the game's main features I don't mind it. If DLC becomes a fee for patching or for buying half the game I wouldn't be happy but that would be the issue with a specific company.
And restricting piracy a) not going to happen (DLC content can still be shared, remember, piracy includes buying stuff but also sharing it with other people); isn't anything consumers should be striving for.
Well for those of you who do not know what DLC. It is Downloadable Conent. Wikipedia - Downloadable content (DLC) is a form of digital media distributed through the Internet. The phrase is used to refer specifically to content created for video games that is released separately from the main video game release
Anywho, as Iggy put it, DLC is good as long as it provides enough to actually be worth however much you are paying for it.
I don't see what the problem with DLC is. It's not like you're forced into buying anything. It gives developers a way to continue improving on a game. Valve has slowly been adding more and more to TF2 at no cost to players. It's part of the service-oriented change in the industry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Walk tall, kick ass, learn to speak Arabic, love music and never forget you come from a long line of truth seekers, lovers and warriors.
-Hunter S. Thompson
A lot of DLC for games does cost money though. Unless it's like a small feature or patch to improve features or balance out gameplay.
Bethesda certainly pioneered the idea of shitty pointless DLC. I think even now they're embarrassed about the whole horse armor thing. For a moment, I was even tempted to buy the DLC for Fallout 3, but ultimately I just didn't think it was worth it. Shivering Isles wasn't even that worth it.
Mass Effect had Bring Down the Sky which was kind of some fun content. Basically just an extra long mission with some new cinematics, but it would've been especially nice to be able to play it my first time going through the game.
Okay, going a little deeper than that. I'm currently on the fence about download content in games. If it truly adds something to the game, I think it's a fairly good idea; for example, the DLC being released for Fallout 3. But on the other hand, you're paying $10 a pop for maybe 5 hours of gameplay. Fallout 3 is/was $40-60, and has DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of hours of gameplay by itself. Now here comes Mr. DLC to add a small piece of that on top of the original, a tiny fraction. And it's not really anything that different from the regular game in the grand scheme of things. Does this add up? I admit to having paid quite a bit for entire 5 hour games before, but I have to call this a different situation. And don't even get me started on the stupid shit that is "new costume DLC!" or "horse armor"....
On the other hand, I can see DLC being a good incentive for companies to use for people to buy their games instead of pirating them. Use a simple serial key that comes with the game, no DRM, and have free DLC released later that requires that serial key to download. Of course, the DLC could then be shared by less savory characters, so maybe require the key be verified every time you start from then on? But now we're getting into DRM territory again, so.... back to square one. Egosoft, the makers of the X series of games does something like this with their patches, requiring people to register their games on the website to download them. I have no idea how successful this is, however.
Finally, the true terror I foresee and pray every day will never happen. Companies use DLC to release a half-assed game, then sell the DLC to "complete" the game. Hopefully this practice would be completely nuked off the face of the planet by we savvy consumers, but in this age of casual players and people that don't really pay attention to the games they're playing who knows what companies could end up getting away with?
Ideas? Comments?
Anyway, DLC is each company's own business. As long as it doesn't become a necessity to be able to have full access to the game's main features I don't mind it. If DLC becomes a fee for patching or for buying half the game I wouldn't be happy but that would be the issue with a specific company.
And restricting piracy a) not going to happen (DLC content can still be shared, remember, piracy includes buying stuff but also sharing it with other people); isn't anything consumers should be striving for.
Wikipedia - Downloadable content (DLC) is a form of digital media distributed through the Internet. The phrase is used to refer specifically to content created for video games that is released separately from the main video game release
Anywho, as Iggy put it, DLC is good as long as it provides enough to actually be worth however much you are paying for it.
-Hunter S. Thompson
TED . LEAP . Woot . MF
Bethesda certainly pioneered the idea of shitty pointless DLC. I think even now they're embarrassed about the whole horse armor thing. For a moment, I was even tempted to buy the DLC for Fallout 3, but ultimately I just didn't think it was worth it. Shivering Isles wasn't even that worth it.
Mass Effect had Bring Down the Sky which was kind of some fun content. Basically just an extra long mission with some new cinematics, but it would've been especially nice to be able to play it my first time going through the game.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.