Source: Microsolft Games
So lately games have taken to the addition of downloadable content (DLC) to their games. Typically released after the release of the game to include extra content such as missions, graphics, features, at a certain price point. What concerns me is how DLC is becoming synonymous with a game patch but with money involved and how does DLC affect games differently from how expansion packs used to? Expansion packs were add-ons to a base game that were typically very large in scale usually including new campaigns, features, graphics almost to the size of the actual game.
A couple of habits I’ve noticed with DLC are the inclusion of Day 1 DLC’s, basically content that is for sale as soon as the game is released. Personally I feel that this is a shady practice to be charging gamers extra money for something that could have easily been sold with the game’s initial release. Games like CD Projekt Red’s Witcher and Witcher 2 have included DLC on Day 1 but for free, which I found very nice.
The other habit I’ve noticed is the advance marketing of DLC as “Season Passes”, which charges a person a flat base price for all the upcoming content coming out. For example Battlefield 4 released the game as well as a Battlefield 4 Premium on day 1. Priced at $60 and $50 respectively, B4 Premium does not come with the base game but simply is a subscription to upcoming DLC. I find it ridiculous that a company like EA could ask someone to pay $110 upfront to stay relevant with their game over a 6-9 month period.
What do you all think? Does DLC provide a shady way for publishers and companies to make money or does it deliver quality content to gamers who want to get more out of their game?
This isn’t true all of the time, but to me there is nothing that screams “cash grab” like day one DLC. I feel like big companies like EA who will do anything to maximize their profits despite the public opinion/community opinion are bad for the gaming world. Most gamers despise the idea of being able to pay to get an advantage over other players, especially in a competitive and fast-paced game like Battlefield 4. Day-one DLC specifically feels like they are just releasing an unfinished game and making you pay to get the rest of it. Like free-to-play games, DLC is one of those things that can either be done very right or very wrong. Day-1 DLC in my opinion is simply a cash grab and aggrivates many games, including myself.
DLC is a concept that I personally have a hard time grappling with. On one hand, I agree that DLC is an acceptable way for game studios/publishers to make more money by selling skins, maps, etc, but I also feel that, if you spent $60 for a game, why should you have to pay more for added content. As Timofei said, DLC is unacceptable if it enters a pay to win situation no-matter the cost, but from an extended gameplay or custom skin perspective, it is simply a minor annoyance.
As for day 1 DLC, I had never thought of the situation that Muneeb brought up. In that case, I feel like the ethical thing would be to make the DLC free, but payed for DLC is understandable since it is technically work above and beyond the intended (or time frame allotted) game-play.
I personally don’t have a problem with DLC in general. You have to look at from both sides. A lot of the smaller DLC purchases can be spread out over time as they get done, instead of developing a lot then selling them all as one big expansion. This way the customers are happy with the new content and they keep playing the game over that entire period of time. It is also a lot easier/cheaper for the developer who can just allow an online purchase then the customer downloads the data, instead of shipping out new disks and cases. The part of DLC that does bother me is the idea of on disk DLC. This is where you have to basically pay extra to unlock a part of the original game. The developers had enough time to ship the game with that material that you paid for already, but you have to pay again to play the full game that you already bought.
Something can be said about how with DLC, developers don’t really need to add a lot of additional features. If a developer is getting a lot of money for their cosmetic DLC, they don’t need to make a crazy DLC that can take a lot of time, energy, and money. Instead they can release another cosmetic DLC and worry about the next game that they would get a bigger income from. Sure you can argue that the ‘good’ developers would give the fan what they want, but there are also developers who see nothing but dollar signs.
Day one DLC is really misunderstood. From my listening of the gaintbombcast on http://www.giantbomb.com , the folks over there say that day one DLC is the result of how the development processes works. Often times after a developer finishes a game , they have several months ahead of them that are either filled with another project or more likely empty. This is where a developer can add on extra features to their game as it goes through QA and bugfixing/ market testing and whatever else. I’m not saying this is always the case but the majority of developers out there claim this is why they do day one DLC.
The most egregious example of DLC i think is the prince of Persia (2008 ) Game that literally LEFT the game hanging and in order to finish it you had to buy a 3 hour DLC experience. Asura’s wraith was similar ; the game had a number of chapters but once again to play the ending you had to download the DLC, and in my opinion asuras wraith did not end on a suttle note.
From my perspective, the idea of downloadable content is fine but DLC doesn’t necessarily have to be a part of a game. In other words, whichever side you are, it doesn’t matter if you are gamer or game publisher, you just can’t expect too much out of downloadable content. If you a gamer, like if you are playing FIFA and you expect to improve your players overall rating by paying EA for a DLC, just stop day-dreaming because that would lead to extremely unfair situations when your opponent had better skills than you but he can’t win the game because the higher overall ratings of your players counterbalance your poor skills. However, if you want to pay for a better-looking boots, a brand new goal celebration, that’s totally fine because these things would not have a big impact on the core mechanics of the game. Similarly, as a game publisher, you can’t expect DLC would make you much money because you don’t want to sell something that will cause the unbalance of your game. Anyway, DLC is just fine. You just can’t give it a high expectation, from either a gamer’s or a game publisher’s standpoint.
In my opinion, the core idea of downloadable content is perfectly fine. You play the game, and pay an extra few bucks for a cool looking skin for your gun. Alternatively, perhaps you finished the game and are left wanting a bit more gameplay, which you can purchase in the form of a DLC map. Most people would agree that this is OK.
Problems arise when DLC either hinders players that dont want to pay additional money, or break the game all together.
If a player can spend an extra 50 dollars to gain an unfair advantage over everyone else, it obviously ruins the balance of the game. Similarly, if the only way to enjoy the full features of a game is by spending more money, then the full game was never released to begin with. At that point you’re really buying the second half of the game in a separate bill.
I still do believe, however, that DLC can be good if it is done right.