Does DLC cheapin the quality of the original released product?

Your reaction isn't uncommon, but I still don't understand it. If you paid $60 for a game, why would you feel entitled to ANYTHING that is available after your purchase?

Let's use a game like Uncharted 2 as an example. There are 26 levels in the single-player campaign. (For now, let's ignore the multiplayer aspect). That's it. 26 levels. For the most part, the game is one of the best PS3 games, and the universal opinion of the game is that it's excellent.

Now, imagine if the developer decided to release an epilogue that contained 4 more levels for an additional fee. Would you feel entitled to them? How about if they released them 6 months after the game was released? How about 2 months? How about at the same time?

Here's where people make the mistake. They would look at this game and say, "The developers made a game with 30 levels, but I only got 26!! That's not fair! I want all of them!!"

But in reality, the $60 game that you paid for came with 26 levels. That's it. The fact that there are more levels available does not reduce the value of the game you initially bought.


My guess is that they planned it from the beginning. Why wouldn't they? Companies are doing whatever they can to make money, and DLC is something that can't be lost to the used-game market.


And that's the issue, isn't it. Some people feel that the developers are making a game, and then removing content that they will get you to pay extra for later. But that entire argument is based on the fact that DLC was released. If no DLC was released, nobody wold complain that the game was "shorted".

The reason that I used Uncharted as an example, is because the single-player campaign is relatively short. If additional single-player DLC was released, one might be able to make an argument that it should have been included. Yet, Uncharted 2 is still one of the best PS3 games ever, so how could anyone argue that they deserved more?

To show that today's DLC is somehow "shorting" the user, we'd have to show that today's games have less original content than those from the pre DLC era. Frankly, I just don't see any proof of that.

The bottom-line is that no matter how much content a developer includes in their game, if they offer additional DLC there will always be people whining that they should have included it in the original game.


DLC is great. From Rockband songs to Map Packs, DLC lets the user decide if they want to expand a game.

You can always wait to see if a version of the game, including the DLC, is released later on (at a cheaper price).

For example, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves Game of the Year Edition sells for $45 on Amazon, and includes the DLC.

I like DLC too, but I'm a PC nerd, so the paying for it hasn't really sunk in yet.

Free DLC that is only available to original purchasers (using a code, or buyable by Used buyers) is really awesome...and if it's good, helps sell the original game. IMO, they can make way more putting a further value proposition (and REWARDING EARLY BUYERS) to sell a slightly older game for $40 than they can by selling $10 maps. Of course, that is the very thing Sony and MS won't allow, as free content that uses the console networks' bandwidth is frowned upon.

$10-$15 map packs really don't help sell the original game, as it increases the cost of the full game, thus encouraging people to buy the used copy. Sure, they may get $10, but they made $0 when someone just buys the used game. If the $40 game was made more awesome with the DLC (free to existing and New owners), they very well may sell a $40 game that fewer would buy otherwise.

DLC that is merely an unlock code for content on the disc already is downright sleazy. DLC that unlocks stuff for lazy people...I have no problem with that.

Best example of console DLC in recent memory? Minerva's Den for Bioshock2. the Uncharted2 DLC was just kind of a waste, IMO. I felt the same about the Killzone2 maps...I hardly played them. I also found the MW2 maps in the map packs are rarely played.

Best example of DLC in PC land? Oh, pretty much any Valve game like Team Fortress2 or the Left4Deads...it was 100% free. Worst example...Modern Warfare2 map packs...COD4 and W@W DLC map packs were free, and helped SELL THE GAME!!

I'm just picking nits here, but this is the point I was making in my post above. The issue here seems to be what constitutes the "full game".

DLC is additional content. It is not part of "the full game", it is in addition to it. When someone pays $60 for a "full game" they get, and are entitled to, everything that's promised to them on the packaging. Anything released afterwards - whether locked content on the disc or DLC - is not part of the full game. It is additional content.

But people pay $60, play the game, and enjoy it. Then suddenly there's DLC available and they feel slighted, because now they've redifined "the full game" to include additional content that they never paid for.

I like the idea of DLC, especially if it's announced early, around the game's original release, because then I know the original game will drop in price very quickly. Look at what happened to Assassin's Creed II. Within 3-4 months of its release, it could be had for about $30 on Amazon. I just picked up Bioshock 2, which came out 8 months ago, for $20. Do I buy the DLC? Since I hold on to most of my games, I'll wait out a sale or special bundle deal. Though I might make an exception for Minerva's Den, since by all accounts it's worth the full $10 price.

The problem most people have is DLC coming within weeks of the games release, cause its like they obviously had it ready to go (or damn close like they intended for it be in the game) and didnt put it in the game. Like buying a racing game that says "over 75 cars to drive". You buy the game which has 75+ cars, but a week after release they are selling the Porsche Pack for $5.99 that has 4 cars in it, then the next week a Ferrari Pack, etc.

Imagine if Borderlands was released, then a week later they through out General Knoxx expansion for $9.99. Its like "WTF! Why wasnt that included?" Its not like they coded the entire damn expansion in a week. But, It took months until expansions came. Same thing for Red Dead. Took awhile for Undead, so people arent all butt hurt. It appears as "extra content", but for all we know it could have been ready to go at launch and a greedy exec had an idea to hold out

I'm with th people that are pissed with DLC that comes out within a couple weeks and charges for it. My thoughts are they either purposely held out to charge us extra, or didnt implement it in time for the release date (their fault) and are now charging us for **** they intended to put in by release date.

But why would you be pissed? You got exactly what you wanted and what was promised - a game with 75+ cars. If no DLC was ever offered, you'd have nothing to complain about. Why would the offer of additional content suddenly make the game worse? Why do you feel you deserve something that you didn't pay for?

What if they gave the original game came with 83 cars (75 cars plus four Porches and four Ferraris). And THEN they offered an additional 4 car Lamborghini Pack? How about if the original came with 100 cars? 1000 cars? Would they still be screwing you if they offered DLC in addition? In other words, how do you determine what defines "the full game"?


But how do you know what was intended to be put in and what wasn't? It seems like circular logic to me. The very fact that DLC is offered makes some people argue that they were short-changed in the original game.

DLC funds post-game support, and the next game. It really is just that simple. If you don't like the developer, and don't want to see their next product, then buy the game used and don't buy any of the DLC. If it's a developer you don't care about though, then I don't understand why you would be buying their game in the first place, and therefore don't understand why you care if they offer DLC.

Beyond that, if the game in question is one that you like, then how could more game ever be a bad thing? If you don't like the game, then why the hell would you care enough to make the "boo DLC" argument?

The anti-DLC argument is very much like the Tea Party argument. Pretty stupid from top to bottom.

Bioshock on Steam for 4 bucks was well worth it.

Why is it stupid? Cause they don't like higher taxes? They don't like bigger government? Sounds smarter to me.

Congratulations on your poor attempt to shoe-horn your unwanted political opinion into this thread. (Some might say that was stupid from top to bottom)


Now, onto the subject: I like DLC. More cool stuff to do, more cars, more guns, more levels, etc. I don't care if it comes out a month later or a week.

Yea, shoehorning that nugget in there was just unnecessary.

While many tea-party members are outright idiots, the concept of limited government and lower taxes is certainly not stupid.

What is stupid? Telling people to give you money via the threat of imprisonment and then using that money on items that people just don't agree with. Kind of like putting something on a disc you sold someone for $60 and then telling them they have to spend another $10 just to use it.

Beware making similes using groups frequented by zealots! They will come out of the woodwork right quick.

one thing I don't like about DLC is the fragmented online community it creates for games. ie as soon as a mappack gets released and say most of the hardcore community buys it, you aren't left with as many ppl to play with and thus it devalues your online experience unless you also buy the mappack.

Though this probably such as issue in larger population areas such as the US. I live in a remote part of the world, and our internet is woefully laggy to larger population bases.

Coming from a PC background, some of what are now paid DLC, were once free updates and patches in past years

Oh I never noticed before but does PSN tailor it's advertising to what it determines is the most value to you? ie your PS3 logs that you play uncharted 2 more than any other game, thus it advertises to you that there is DLC availablem whereas puts less or no emphasis on games you don't even have or haven't played?

The only time that DLC seems questionable to me is when it's already on the disc, and you pay extra to unlock it. (For example, Bioshock 2's "Sinclair Solutions" DLC was like this.) DLC that comes out a month later seems perfectly fine to me; development schedules are tight, and every product manager has had to jettison features to make a deadline. If the DLC is already on the disc, though, then I'm less comfortable with it.

Vespaguy, your argument is entirely rational. However, economists have often noted that people are not perfectly rational agents. If you buy something for $100 and then discover someone else got it for $50, it's natural that you feel disappointment, even though you presumably thought it was worth $100 when you bought it. If you find out that it was the same seller in both cases, you may even feel like he wasn't being honest with you. Back in 2000, Amazon tried charging different prices to different customers for the same product, and they came under criticism; Bezos admitted the experiment was a mistake, and said they wouldn't do it again. I think the objection to DLC is based on a similar emotional response; you feel like the seller isn't being completely straightforward.

Thank you. I enjoy economics, so I have a lot of interest in topics like this. I just like to find out what exactly causes the irrational thinking. (By the way, if you find this stuff interesting, I'd recommend an excellent book that touches upon similar behavior called "Sway: The Irresistible Pull Of Irrational Behavior")

Very persuasive argument. I think it's dumb, I think this group is dumb; they're like each other!

Stay in debate school son.


Politics aside, make better damn arguments. Your argument really isn't much better then groups you're attacking, which is ironic to say the least.

The whole "they should ship a finished game" argument is just wrong, because the definition of a "finished game" is what they say it is. Truth is, a lot of this stuff is just cut content, and in the past we never would have seen it. Now we do because of DLC. Worth it or not? You decide. It's a fact that this stuff is budgeted into the game, and the companies count on the cashflow. Games are expensive to make and it could be argued that the existence of this paid-for DLC results in a higher quality product overall.

Some DLC just feels like rip-offs, like Call of Duty MW2's map packs or SF4's costumes, but that's not because it is DLC but because it is a rip-off.

Thats not true always.

I think it really comes down to the game, the developer and the publisher.

Some Publishers are utilizing DLC to squeeze the most out of their customers.

Others are using it to keep a long term fan base, and using it both financially as a way to increase the longevity of their game and player base while making a buck.

Personally, I'll only buy it if it's the second. I'm also against poorly thought out DLC that fundamentally effects the user base or changes gameplay.

Why do you feel that the MW2 mappacks are a ripoff? Was it the price? Or the fact that you feel you "already paid" for two of the maps?

Sales figures seem to indicate that both map packs were successes.

The growing problem, though, is that developers (or their corporate masters) want to truncate games, slicing off the ends and feeding them to us for additional costs. Designing a game from the start to be chopped into "episodic" portions and sold separately is in bad form. There's a difference between "leave them wanting more" and "leave them feeling ripped off".

no but it usually kills the online communities for that particular game

That's not true, though, because it's not in the game when it comes out. When you pay your $60 on launch day, you're not getting that stuff. The publishers have the power to dictate what is in the box on day one.



$15 for 5 maps, two of which are remakes (which ran on the same engine, so it's not even a redo like when Bungie moved H1/H2 maps to H3), is a ridiculous price. Of course they sold well. That doesn't mean they were a good deal.

No.

There are a lot of reasons why DLC is necessary for publishers and developers, and why it's good for consumers. They've been reiterated many, many times in this forum (and in other forums), but here's the basic rundown:

1) Prices of games haven't gone up in over twenty years. The audience kept expanding, so there was no need. But development and marketing costs have risen well beyond the ability of consumers to support those costs at the current average retail cost of $60. Either games needed to start costing more up front, or publishers look for new revenue sources.

2) Related to #1. Between last generation and this generation, the number of ("hardcore") gaming consumers hasn't risen very much. The growth has all happened elsewhere (Wii, DS, iPhone, and Facebook). As with #1, publishers needed to find another revenue stream, or else shift entirely to developing only for Wii, DS, iPhone, and Facebook.

3) The resale market has boomed over the last 5-10 years, cutting directly into publishers' bottom line. They needed a way to extend the life of a consumers' purchase. But because of exponentially rising development costs, they couldn't simply make a "longer" game. So they had to find a way to convince consumers to hold onto their games for longer. That way, new releases wouldn't be competing against resale new releases.

4) Consumers, as always, want more for less. But because publishers can't afford to make the same sized games they used to (and only charge 1987 prices for 2010 games), they had to find a way to make games appear cheaper and more filled out with content.

5) And the question of whether DLC is "already on the disc" or not is totally irrelevant. You don't own anything on the disc. Game consumers merely purchase a license from the publisher to use only that content that they've agreed to license. Nothing more. Doesn't matter if there's more on the disc that you need to pay for to access. Completely beside the point. That's like saying that by walking into a restaurant and ordering only one dish you also deserve everything else on the menu for free.

Those are the big reasons, but there are many more. Basically, there really was no alternative unless you (and millions of other consumers) suddenly were willing to pay $100 for your games and promised never to buy them used. Neither of those things was going to happen, so DLC was born.

Trust me, if you get the chance to talk to a developer about this, they'd completely disagree with you. That doesn't make them right, but they're the folks that stand the most to lose. So I guess that makes them "more right" than just about anyone.