I do too. I've never bought DLC for any game. I especially don't like the idea of nearly completed DLC that is ready to go immediately following the game's retail release.
I really like DLC in general, but Bioware is just annoying. Ever play any of the DLC on Mass Effect? $5 for half an hour of play on a side mission that you couldn't care less about FTW.
But then you look at something like Bethesda's DLC for Fallout 3 and you see a super successful DLC model that's keeping the game alive and players excited. I'm stoked to pick up the Assassin's Creed 2 DLC, anything that let's me spend more time in that game is huge win.
We are still rather early in the growth of DLC so I think it would be a bit presumptuous to sign onto one side or the other.
Having said this...
The market will slowly self-correct to what people think is worth buying, and what is not.
In other words, I would bet a pretty penny that companies who charge "more for less" as far as DLC's are concerned will slowly see a lessening in profits whereas companies who are seen by the majority of consumers as providing enough "bang for their buck" will see an increase in DLC profits. Ceteris paribus, all companies will move towards the equilibrium point of what consumers consider to be most worthwhile in the area of content vs. money.
So, in the end I don't think DLC is an issue, or ever can be due to the nature of it's existence.
That only works if companies are honest about what the DLC contains. They can say it contains 4 more hours of content, but what if it's actually only 1.5 under most play scenarios? I can understand DLC like buying a new helmet, but when it's supposed to expand the core gameplay, it's pretty hard to distinguish what's good DLC vs bad DLC before you've played it.
That only works if companies are honest about what the DLC contains. They can say it contains 4 more hours of content, but what if it's actually only 1.5 under most play scenarios? I can understand DLC like buying a new helmet, but when it's supposed to expand the core gameplay, it's pretty hard to distinguish what's good DLC vs bad DLC before you've played it.
No, it works always, just in different ways. If companies are not honest about the content of their DLC's they soon find themselves stuck with the reputation of being dishonest with their DLC's via review websites, random people, and what-have-you. People then begin to purchase less DLC's from said company. The company sees a loss in profits. This results in the exact same end as if the company had just made a crappy (content wise) DLC. The company is then forced to make a decision; make better DLC's and be honest about their content, or be resigned to making less money.
0
BlackHawkBible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1Icrontian
No, it works always, just in different ways. If companies are not honest about the content of their DLC's they soon find themselves stuck with the reputation of being dishonest with their DLC's via review websites, random people, and what-have-you.
Plenty of companies, game companies included, continue to make tons of money despite having bad reputations. With all due respect, sir, I think you overestimate the amount of pressure the market actually brings to bear.
I have to agree with Gargoyle and Snarkasm on this one.
Crappy DLC is rampant, and no amount of bad reviews and reputation seems to stop the creation of said crap, or the sales of said crap.
Wish I knew why it still manages to sell, but it does.
The bigger issue, I think, is when DLC is dished out immediately following a full product release. At that point, it's shady marketing. Content that could have easily been included with the full game is held off to make an extra buck. It's genius marketing, it does what the company wants, but that doesn't make it right.
Borderland and Dragon Age are two core examples of this practice.
Comments
-sigh- I miss the days when games were sold, played, and finished.
I'm looking at you, Dragon Age (of which I bought the SUPERDELUXEEDITION... I am a consumer whore).
But then you look at something like Bethesda's DLC for Fallout 3 and you see a super successful DLC model that's keeping the game alive and players excited. I'm stoked to pick up the Assassin's Creed 2 DLC, anything that let's me spend more time in that game is huge win.
Having said this...
The market will slowly self-correct to what people think is worth buying, and what is not.
In other words, I would bet a pretty penny that companies who charge "more for less" as far as DLC's are concerned will slowly see a lessening in profits whereas companies who are seen by the majority of consumers as providing enough "bang for their buck" will see an increase in DLC profits. Ceteris paribus, all companies will move towards the equilibrium point of what consumers consider to be most worthwhile in the area of content vs. money.
So, in the end I don't think DLC is an issue, or ever can be due to the nature of it's existence.
No, it works always, just in different ways. If companies are not honest about the content of their DLC's they soon find themselves stuck with the reputation of being dishonest with their DLC's via review websites, random people, and what-have-you. People then begin to purchase less DLC's from said company. The company sees a loss in profits. This results in the exact same end as if the company had just made a crappy (content wise) DLC. The company is then forced to make a decision; make better DLC's and be honest about their content, or be resigned to making less money.
Old. That's practically a lifetime for gamers
Good call on The Sims Black Hawk.
Plenty of companies, game companies included, continue to make tons of money despite having bad reputations. With all due respect, sir, I think you overestimate the amount of pressure the market actually brings to bear.
Crappy DLC is rampant, and no amount of bad reviews and reputation seems to stop the creation of said crap, or the sales of said crap.
Wish I knew why it still manages to sell, but it does.
The bigger issue, I think, is when DLC is dished out immediately following a full product release. At that point, it's shady marketing. Content that could have easily been included with the full game is held off to make an extra buck. It's genius marketing, it does what the company wants, but that doesn't make it right.
Borderland and Dragon Age are two core examples of this practice.