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.
All of the above mentioned expand the gameplay of their respective games. All of them are essentially, "Expansion Packs".
Expansion packs are a continuation of the storyline and plot of the game, along with a jumbo pack of new objects and concepts.
Downloadable Content is just a small addition of code that is added to the game, without any "expansion". This can be in the form of levels, characters, items, and texture and mesh packs.
The expansion packs are a sensible buy, while each DLC is not.
About prices....An easy way to put it then: Video games are like an unassembled bike Bought from Wal-Mart. You get the box, open it up, and notice a few missing parts. Although these parts are not necessary to ride the bike they make it look better, or feel better. A map pack would be the kickstand. Guns would be like a few extra nuts and bolts. Extensions (For example BF:BC2s Onslaught mode) would amount to a better seat, or thicker wheels. Is this a correct analogy? You see, because it didn't have a kickstand, you gotta buy one. Same for the others.
....no. An expansion pack would give you a larger bike, protection gear, and some neon rims. DLC would give you the squeaky horn accessory to attach to the bike to warn stupid kids across the street that you're going to run them over.
Both are not needed to run the game. The expansion pack just extends the game. You get an extended storyline, game updates and patches to make the game more suitable, and some extra tidbits. The Downloadable Content just gives you an extra tidbit. While both are not needed for the game, as I've said, the expansion pack is far more worth your money than a silly DLC.
All of the above mentioned expand the gameplay of their respective games. All of them are essentially, "Expansion Packs".
My point is they're not sufficient to amount to what once was called an "Expansion Pack", not just that but a usual Expansion Pack would bring at least one new and hopefully innovative thing to the game which you couldn't have previously.
Expansion packs are a continuation of the storyline and plot of the game, along with a jumbo pack of new objects and concepts.
This. And especially the new objects and concepts.
Downloadable Content is just a small addition of code that is added to the game, without any "expansion". This can be in the form of levels, characters, items, and texture and mesh packs. The expansion packs are a sensible buy, while each DLC is not.
Yeah this. Now, if it were a free game, like Age of Empires Online which will come out or League of Legends, donating money to them to buy something in return is great. I don't like how Age of Empires gives you an advantage in a fight if you buy the right things but League of Legends gives you no direct advantage, it sells skins and XP or Influence Points boosts (as well as extra rune pages) which isn't a direct influence in how well you can play but does effect out-of-game advantages.
Personally? The out of game advantages aren't supposed to be that big in League of Legends (which I don't think they are) but they do not make up for any lack of skill - especially if its a team fight.
The Downloadable Content just gives you an extra tidbit. While both are not needed for the game, as I've said, the expansion pack is far more worth your money than a silly DLC.
This. Plus DLC's as I've said is not a high moral standard, I'm just gonna say that. I don't expect it to change of course but hey, just pointing it out. - H
Dragon Age, for example, has several DLCs that do the same thing. There's even a DLC in which you get to play the final battle as a Darkspawn.
Correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't buy any DLC whatsoever, but being able to play the final battle as a Darkspawn is not a continuation of the storyline, but more as an alternate ending.
I don't even know why we are disputing DLC and Expansions, as they are two different definitions, as I've pointed out. Whichever is the better buy can be disputed, but I'm sticking with Expansions. If they expect me to buy small bits of code with cash that isn't something extra to experience, then I'm not caring one bit. Like they need the extra money. They are software corporations.
Correct me if I'm wrong, since I don't buy any DLC whatsoever, but being able to play the final battle as a Darkspawn is not a continuation of the storyline, but more as an alternate ending.
No, but there are DLCs that you can play during your playthrough, which add to the story, and I can think of at least one that takes place after the story, as well as one where you can play as one of the party members before the story.
And no, neither of the ones I mentioned are the expansion pack.
Still, what I'm saying is that not all DLCs are pointless. And even if they are, they're all optional. Basically, if you don't like 'em, don't buy 'em. All games can be enjoyed without DLCs.
Sometimes though DLC's make a large part of a game and are optional - every time you buy a game and not get a DLC for it though you're not getting the full package, and even then if you do get it you're paying for what should be free. I say "should", but it is their property and people are willing to buy it, so I'm not going to touch that subject.
Sometimes though DLC's make a large part of a game and are optional - every time you buy a game and not get a DLC for it though you're not getting the full package, and even then if you do get it you're paying for what should be free.
You act like they leave things out on purpose. They finish developing a game, and then they release it. That's a full game right there. Any DLCs released afterwards are additions, and not missing pieces. Very few non-MMOs continue to work on additional content after the release. The DLC changed that. Personally, I think DLCs are a good thing.
But my anger against DLC is mainly because of Activision. People are stupid enough to pay 15 bucks for 5 maps, 3 times over. It blows my mind.
I know man, 15 dollars for a map pack? Bah. I'd prefer my twenty for two packs in Halo, or my free maps in Bad Co. 2. Or even just how much money it costs to get all the Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 DLC.
I think that Call of Duty, thanks to its popularity, is once again headlining how bad DLC is getting. It's over-pricing its content, but the overall quality is low, while one can spend much less on higher-quality 10 dollar arcade games, DeathSpank, Limbo, Super Meat Boy, Oblivion Plug-Ins, Fallout 3 Add-ons, and Borderlands Add-ons (which is some of the best DLC in recent memory)
