Welcome to the new age of gaming. Over the past couple of years Downloadable Content (DLC) has become the new way to game. You get your stock game and then you have to pay for any additions you'd like to download onto the game. The system itself is by no means something to condemn, unless it's in the current state it is now. Let's look at Call of Duty Black Ops.
The game retails for $64.99 (as far as I know). With taxes that's around $70. The game itself is very playable without the extra content, but if you want the whole deal you need to dole out another $9.99. Now, many people may not see the problem with this, however there is one. Essentially the game, in it's "full package" as it were is a total of $80. Rewind the clock and you could get a full game for $65 or under.
So, it's obvious the gaming companies are just out for more money right? And they made fine money when games didn't have DLC. So, why not drop the price? And then add on the DLC for whatever it costs. This would increase DLC and game sales. People have no qualms paying for something a little cheaper, and then paying some extra money for extra things to get the full experience.
So if a new Call of Duty game would sell for $60 but the DLC is $10, sell the game for $50.
Okay, the first issue is that people believe that DLC development makes is such that there is less primary content. While there has been 1 occasion wherein that has happened,that's the exception, not the rule. you need to remember that you can't get this stuff on launch day for a reason.
You still get the full package on launch day. It's just that you can also get another package at a later date.
Yeah, I also find DLC a bit annoying, but what's best, if there are no additional quests/game modes/whatever might be added, or if you have to pay for those extras? Basically, the DLCs encourage companies to keep working on the game even after the release.
And besides, The Sims has been doing that for a long, long time, and their additional content usually cost a lot more than the DLC for most PS3 or Xbox360 games.
Im not against DLC. I'm against how they have you paying the full price for a game, but you know it isn't the full game. I'm just saying lower the original price.
Im not against DLC. I'm against how they have you paying the full price for a game, but you know it isn't the full game. I'm just saying lower the original price.
What I'm saying is that you do get the full game, the DLCs are more like small expansions.
Though, you might have a point, because I have on several occasions seen DLCs that were available on the release date. If those are the ones you are referring to, I can agree, but if you're talking about DLCs that are developed and released some time after the release date, then I disagree.
i think everything should come in a DLC add-ons and the full games itself as it would save comapnies money from not having to print out the artwork for the cases or have to make cases or discs and all that stuff and with dlc you wouldnt have to worry about breaking or scratching the disc you can just have some kind of code when you buy the dlc to write down somewhere incase whatever you downloaded it on (wether it be pc or a gaming system) you can redownload it and you wont have to worry about someone stealing the game
they do that already on the ps3 at least but they cost the same price as regular games but they are older ones like infamous and red faction geurilla or ac 2
Remove DLC altogether imo, it should only be vanity if anything, many a time specific things like maps, campaigns or weapons are put on a buyable DLC and it's disgusting. I paid for Black Ops and I don't think doubling its cost with 2 map packs is a fair bloody deal.
I think it's worse that a content patch in World of Warcraft amounts to more than the new things introduced in each new CoD game, they're not expansions and they're not DLC's - people think they're getting a brand new revolutionizing game.
But yeah, give us everything with a free DLC, or don't make a DLC and get some innovative ideas on a new game or expansion pack.
I see why they release DLCs a while after the game comes out, considering people may be tired of the same old stuff.
But my only complaint is that they're too expensive. I understand that they're trying to make money, but I don't think they need to make that much money.
For example: The new Black Ops map pack costs approximately $15. You can get Call of Duty 4 for that price, and CoD4 is a much better game, with more maps.
If the expansion packs were, say, $5, then I wouldn't have a problem with them.
There is NO NEED, to have DLC's you must buy, honestly. I mean, in my honest opinion - I don't see why I pay for a game where then months more effort doesn't go on glitch fixing more map edits and instead goes on something made for more money (I mean, SCII edits and creates more maps for the ladder for FREE). I got all the maps for blimmin' free on CoD4 cos of the patches, I got all the maps for free on Battlefield 2 - screw any other FPS that tries selling off "map-packs".
Quick question though, Bad Company 2 - I preordered it (and I preordered BF3), meaning I don't know if I got any "map packs" for free. Are there buyable map packs in Bad Company 2?
They're not selling a game that isn't the complete thing. It's like having cookies and then adding milk, the milk is complimentary but the cookies are, by their self, complete. When it's £11 for 5 new maps, that's a joke. I could buy 1 or 2 games for that. But things like additional missions at a reasonable price? Sure, why not? If the game is worth playing then it's worth giving money to the developers.
Meh. It's rarely justified in these cases and people do take it too far. However I would prefer pay for the FULL game without any complimentary pieces. Paying for maps at any price is annoying since it is, in a way, a work on the game - why not shift the price of the game up and release it a couple months later when the map pack is complete?
