DLCs - your response and habits a few years in

[Loppan Torkel]

What do you think about it now that they've existed for several years? From what I understand, the gaming companies and dev's earn a lot from them and the whole idea seems like a success.
Do you buy DLC's regularly? If so - where from? Do you spend more money on games now than before? Do you buy more games via download than from stores now?


The reason I'm asking is that the new Xcom game seems like a very good game. I'll probably buy it as a physical copy at some point, but for the moment I'm not sure I'd spend a lot of time playing it. I wouldn't mind paying full price for it, it seems worth the money, but given the rumors and the certainty of DLC's, I'm put off buying it now. I'd like to play the full game when it's released and I don't mind delaying the purchase. However, I won't pay the full price of the game plus it's DLC's when it's been out for half a year or so, so perhaps I'll wait until they package it in a deal. In time I might have lost interest in the game and let it slip by altogether.

I'm not sure how common this behavior is. Who buys all the DLC?

 

[PhilBowles]

Quite possibly as a mental holdover from the days of expansions (which are all-content-or-nothing), I tend to buy most or all DLC that represents actual game content for games I like, to be 'completist' if nothing else, since the cost is typically trivial. Except for pointless things like aesthetics packs (though I even ended up with one of those for a Total War game). It's probably the same psychological phenomenon that prompts me to buy music by the album even in these days of selective MP3 downloads.

Regarding XCOM, all the suggestions have been of a DLC relating to the new achievements, but personally I haven't ruled out the possibility that this is just patch content for as and when they fix the promised "Second Wave" mode.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I pretty much never buy aesthetics packs, even for games I really enjoy. I don't enjoy any game enough to spend money for something that is just trivial content wise.

I do buy DLC's regularly, but only for games I really enjoy. Namely Sword of the Stars, Mass Effect and CiV. I don't think I've bought any dlc's for other games.

I'm kind of torn on them. I mean I like them, but I also liked the old expansions as they were often more bang for the buck. Then again, some dlc's are as big as expansions were and can even cost less. So I guess it's a wash.

I like supporting companies that put out good games by buying dlc's. But I can be pretty selective, as my buying habits show.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm more of an old school gamer (although I do play lots of new games), so I prefer expansions. But I think it may depend on the genre. As mentioned in the underrated games thread, there was an expansion for Neverwinter Nights 2 called Mask of the Betrayer which was damn good. You most likely will never see something that long and in depth as dlc. It seems to me dlc is marketed towards the short attention span people. Mask of the Betrayer is a good story that you just wouldn't have time to tell with just dlc.

Now onto a DLC example. My favorite game is Fallout: New Vegas. They released quite a bit of dlc for this game. Because it is my favorite game, I bought nearly all of the DLC (except the courier's stash which are just items you can find I think). That said, none of the DLC for Fallout: New Vegas is as good as Mask of the Betrayer expansion. They are too short. My favorite of the bunch is Honest Hearts (which most fans think is the worst coincidentally), because I find Joshua Graham the most fascinating character of the DLC. Despite that, the dlc is too short to have in depth quests, and not enough dialogue with Graham (and the missionary guy too). I would have preferred a little bit bigger map too.

I also bought dlc for Dragon Age: Origins. I originally held off because the price seemed too high. But last year I was in a DA:O mood again, and wanted something new (something that wasn't crappy like DA2), so I downloaded it. But there isn't enough value for my money. It seems to be less than 1 hour per $1. I know that's kind of an arbitrary number. For most things $1 an hour of entertainment would be damn good, but for computer games I expect at least $1 an hour of entertainment. So if I get 50 hours of entertainment out of a game, I consider it a good thing. Lelianna's song was probably the best dlc, but the drawback of that one is it reuses maps from the original game. Although I liked Return to Ostragar as well. Warden's Keep was alright too. The dlc was good, but a little pricey for me. I only bought about half the DLC available for this game. But I do love Dragon Age: Origins a lot, and part of me wants to rewards companies that make games I like, and punish them for games I don't like. I never bought Dragon Age 2 for example (I played my brother's copy). So I may buy X-com dlc if I'm still playing in a month to reward a company putting out this type of game. Because I want more games like this in the future.

So in summary, for RPG's especially I prefer expansions over dlc. You just can't tell a complete story with just dlc in my opinion. If it's something like weapons only, then I can see. But I generally don't buy that stuff. I only bought the Arsenal's dlc for Fallout: New Vegas because there were achievements associated with it (and they were kind of fun achievements too), and I can sometimes be a completionist with regards to achievements.

For things like MMO's, I never buy vanity stuff (I'm not sure that counts as dlc, however), or stuff to make me stronger. But I've only really played 2 MMO's anyways.

For games like Civ, I still prefer expansions as well. Only because there can be major gameplay improvements with an expansion you generally won't see with dlc. The obvious example is Civ5. I didn't buy any of the civilization 5 dlc. They just don't add enough to the game for me. To me, the heart of a civ game is it's gameplay, not the name and graphics of a civilization. But the Gods and Kings expansion I did buy, because I felt there was some value for my money. And I did get some value out of it (although I think I'm done with Civ5 for good now- it runs too slow on my computer, and it's just inferior to Civ4 in too many ways). Religion was a pretty good addition to the game.

Now onto X-com. I've only been playing 2 days, and haven't finished the campaign. Currently I'm pretty addicted, but will that last? Even the original X-com I didn't play that much. Once you've beaten the game, you've seen almost everything. Although like Civ games, the gameplay is the main draw. The original I'd play every couple months or something iirc. The new X-com has a few problems (they seemed to put so much emphasis on graphics, it seems like they had to make the maps small to reduce processing power I suspect), but I enjoy it. If I'm still into the game like I am now, there's a good chance I'll get the dlc. Although if the DLC is just a couple new weapons, probably not. But if it is more missions and maps, then there's a good chance I will.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'd just like to reiterate that there is some DLC that could stand well in a side by side comparison with old school expansions. But it is rarer, I will grant you that.

And I'd also like to second something you said: much DLC is too damn expensive relative to what you get out.

That's a real bummer of this new model. They get you to buy smaller chunks of content for compartively more money. And they do it again and again and again. Like I said, I don't mind supporting the companies, but often they seem to be really gouging customers.

I don't know how much longer they can continue at the current price points without a correction. We are in the midst of a big slump in the video game industry after all. I predict prices will drop accordingly for DLC's.

 

[PhilBowles]

Now onto X-com. I've only been playing 2 days, and haven't finished the campaign. Currently I'm pretty addicted, but will that last? Even the original X-com I didn't play that much. Once you've beaten the game, you've seen almost everything.

There really aren't many games of which that isn't true. It all comes down to differences in permutation, as well as the exercise of improving your tactics. Missions often play differently on different runthroughs, even given the same maps, same aliens and sometimes the same spawning locations.

Although I do quite like the irony of the people on several forums complaining that XCOM is a prime example of a modern game aimed at kids with ADHD, yet who object to it on the basis that they don't find it replayable and are off to find the next shiny thing...

Although like Civ games, the gameplay is the main draw. The original I'd play every couple months or something iirc. The new X-com has a few problems (they seemed to put so much emphasis on graphics, it seems like they had to make the maps small to reduce processing power I suspect),

There are maps of variable sizes; I rarely notice the maps being small, and when I do it's more likely to give a sense of claustrophobia that adds to the mission feel than "is that it?"

 

[Maniacal]

Most DLCs are inadequate for the price if they aren't just plain crap and I regret most of the ones I've purchased (frell you Bioware). Most are only worth getting during a big sale (extra units in TW games are cool, but I'm not willing to pay that much for units I'll hardly actually use), and sometimes it just makes more sense to wait for the GOTY edition.

The DLC for Fallout 3 and New Vegas are easy enough to get either cheaply (ie Steam, especially for NV which uses Steamworks) or in the GOTY editions and, like the BOrderlands DLC, mostly adds some pretty nice content. Though a few of them (especially in F3) don't add a whole lot.

Map packs are problematic for MP games since they split the playerbase. The map packs for Civ5 are a joke and I have trouble accepting that so many people are dumb enough to have bought them. They aren't even very good maps, or at least not something users couldn't easily make themselves!

 

[Rub'Rum]

I personally find DLC almost always unreasonably priced and lacking in content, compared to what we used to get for the same price. There are very few games I actually went ahead and purchased DLC for. For me it's really a price/content thing I have to consider. If the ratio resembles what my personal expectations are, then I might buy it.

However, because this ratio is rarely met at release, it means I have to wait until DLC is heavily discounted or sold in bulk in a "game of the year" type bundle. If I look at say, Borderlands 1 (and probably 2), once you get all the DLC, it's the equivalent of a decent old-times expansion. However, if you buy them as they come, you might be down 40-50$... For Borderlands 2, they actually went ahead and sold a "Season Pass", selling all 4 pieces of DLC even before it was released, for 30$ (I got it for 20$ through sales). That's getting close to a decent price for a full expansion of old and is starting to be acceptable, provided the DLC is good. But Borderlands 1's DLC was expansion-quality so I didn't worry too much.

As for aesthetics content being sold, it's frankly insulting. It's like a taunt. We all love these options, they improve my experience with the game as is, put it in. If you want to sell me stuff, sell me content, not options and fluff and immersion enhancements. Next thing we know there'll be extra sound effects DLC.

 

[Tambien]

Same as Rub'Rum.

 

[Darsnan]

The reason I'm asking is that the new Xcom game seems like a very good game. I'll probably buy it as a physical copy at some point, but for the moment I'm not sure I'd spend a lot of time playing it. I wouldn't mind paying full price for it, it seems worth the money, but given the rumors and the certainty of DLC's, I'm put off buying it now. I'd like to play the full game when it's released and I don't mind delaying the purchase. However, I won't pay the full price of the game plus it's DLC's when it's been out for half a year or so, so perhaps I'll wait until they package it in a deal.

Your echoeing a lot of my sentiments on the matter, especially in regards to XCOM. Even though I'm hearing lots of good things about the game, I'm having a very hard time convincing myself I need this new game, as I know if I am patient and wait a while I can get the main title and its DLCs in a bundle, and almost certainly for cheaper than what its being offered for just the initial release. And whats really convincing me to hold off right now is that I already have a whole suite of great games that I still thoroughly enjoy playing, so I really don't feel that urgency to rush out and spend $50+ on a new game. Is this backlash against the DLC model, just learned behaviour of the DLC model in general, or a by-product of the glut of good games that have been released over time that are now available to gamers? Don't know, but I see me more and more adopting the general approach of "I'll wait till its in the bargain bin before I buy it" mentality.

D

 

[Rub'Rum]

This is pretty much how I feel Darsnan. I can only hope most people adopt this attitude. However I think it just comes from getting older + buying more games in general. At any given time we have a lot of games to play... But that might not be so for a younger person, a kid who has to rely on parents, and whatnot... Or anyone who doesn't have to pay for the games themselves...

 

[Double A]

Like everything else, I wait until I can get it for 10%-25% of the original price. It's never important to me.

 

[Rooftrellen]

I'll never buy DLC and generally avoid games that offer it.

I see it one of two ways.

Either the DLC adds to the game and should be included in the game or an expansion, instead of sold off for $5 a piece. Charging people for parts of a game they bought is just greed. I don't mind supporting companies that make good games, but I do mind supporting companies that charge for small parts of their game that should be in the original or an expansion.

On the other side, sometimes DLC does nothing at all for the game, and then I won't be paying 5 good dollars for something that doesn't make me enjoy the game more, and that reeks of greed even more than releasing a good part of a game for several times more than you would charge for it as part of an expansion.

In the end, this kind of thing works because it can be priced for an impulse buy. Using Civ V as an example, paying for Babylon, the Inca, Polynesia, Denmark, Korea, and the wonders for $5 each (no idea what the actual price is, I can't even open the Steam store), you pay about as much as you'd pay for a physical copy of G&K, with espionage, religion, and 10 more civs, besides better AI, a revised tech tree...and it's a PHYSICAL COPY, so you even pay for materials.

It's just a poor value, and making a habit of buying DLC ends up costing a pretty penny in the end most of the time.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Under the correct sales prices, if you get all the Civ 5 DLC, you will get a decent expansion with many new civs and for a decent price. But the way it's sold when it comes out at first is insultingly priced. Then, there is a second expansion in the form of G&K, which was decent, if a bit overpriced (got it for 20$, what I valued it at, but it was sold 30$).

Like I said, I buy DLC when I can get it at a value of what I used to get as a customer for an expansion pack (and if it's as good quality and content wise).

It's all about waiting for sales and getting it at the price you value it. If you used to buy expansion packs, then you really have no reason not to buy DLC when it comes to a decent price and it's good quality. Most games' DLC is outright crap though. I'd say about 25% of games or less have DLC that I would consider buying because it compares to a good expansion pack. And even then, I wait for price drops.

Dogmatically never purchasing DLC is a little on the cranky grampa side (in an unfun and irritating kind of way).

 

[Rooftrellen]

Under the correct sales prices, if you get all the Civ 5 DLC, you will get a decent expansion with many new civs and for a decent price. But the way it's sold when it comes out at first is insultingly priced. Then, there is a second expansion in the form of G&K, which was decent, if a bit overpriced (got it for 20$, what I valued it at, but it was sold 30$).

Like I said, I buy DLC when I can get it at a value of what I used to get as a customer for an expansion pack (and if it's as good quality and content wise).

It's all about waiting for sales and getting it at the price you value it. If you used to buy expansion packs, then you really have no reason not to buy DLC when it comes to a decent price and it's good quality. Most games' DLC is outright crap though. I'd say about 25% of games or less have DLC that I would consider buying because it compares to a good expansion pack. And even then, I wait for price drops.

Dogmatically never purchasing DLC is a little on the cranky grampa side (in an unfun and irritating kind of way).

I consider it voting with my money.

I don't see a real third option, either the DLC adds to the game and shouldn't be sold as a side show, or it doesn't (most of it seems to fall here, existing as a cash grab more than anything) and shouldn't be sold at all.

The reason I won't buy DLC and normally avoid games that have it has nothing to do with the value of the DLC. DLC breaks a game into many different parts, as opposed to two or three. That leads to many things I don't like.

Lack of value is one of those things. Also, many games with DLC split the player base with it, which is particularly bad for games with a thriving community. I've also never seen anything less than an expansion come in physical form, which is still pretty much a must for me.

If I can't get a good value, see the community of a game needlessly split, and can't get it in the form I prefer, I don't think it's cranky at all, just not putting my money on a product that's not interesting.

As many chairs as exist in my apartment, I won't buy a swivel chair, just as I won't buy games with DLC. I just don't care for either one in general.

Believe me, I can get on the cranky grandpa side of things, but not being interested in certain products isn't my cranky side.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I vote with my money by doing the same thing as you and not purchasing most of it. Almost always. Almost. Because it happens eventually for instance that the game is sold as "Game of the Year" and contains it all for a normal acceptable price. If everybody did what I do in this regards, we wouldn't have the insulting DLC model we have right now in its current shape. It's just not a dogma for me. It used to be though.

 

[Disgustipated]

I consider it voting with my money.

I don't see a real third option, either the DLC adds to the game and shouldn't be sold as a side show, or it doesn't (most of it seems to fall here, existing as a cash grab more than anything) and shouldn't be sold at all.

The reason I won't buy DLC and normally avoid games that have it has nothing to do with the value of the DLC. DLC breaks a game into many different parts, as opposed to two or three. That leads to many things I don't like.

Lack of value is one of those things. Also, many games with DLC split the player base with it, which is particularly bad for games with a thriving community. I've also never seen anything less than an expansion come in physical form, which is still pretty much a must for me.

If I can't get a good value, see the community of a game needlessly split, and can't get it in the form I prefer, I don't think it's cranky at all, just not putting my money on a product that's not interesting.

As many chairs as exist in my apartment, I won't buy a swivel chair, just as I won't buy games with DLC. I just don't care for either one in general.

Believe me, I can get on the cranky grandpa side of things, but not being interested in certain products isn't my cranky side.

What do you have against swivel chairs?

And in response to Red rums's comment about waiting for game of the year, that's difficult sometimes. I tried to wait to buy X-com, but I couldn't. I have low impulse control I suppose. It doesn't help I've played all my games, and wasn't currently playing any. Sometimes I like to play a game when other people are playing at the same time, just so I can participate in the thread and ask questions. Rather than 2 years down the line when other people have moved on.

edit: sorry I got your name wrong, it always reminds me of Redrum from The Shining.

 

[Rub'Rum]

sorry I got your name wrong, it always reminds me of Redrum from The Shining.

Yeah happens all the time, the Shining confusion I mean.

 

[Sonereal]

I don't buy DLC that is just there to look good. Some of the worst DLC I've seen for a game were Fable 3 DLC because of that.

Depending on the game, I'll either get the GOTY version or wait until the DLC put up on market is discounted in a sale.

 

[ace99]

This DLC I'll probably get if it can let me ride dragons, use spears, and mess around in Solstheim with House Televanni. http://www.examiner.com/article/bethesda-responds-to-skyrim-s-dragonborn-dlc-rumors I'll cram the wadded up bills down Bethesda's throat. Take my money and give me my dragon mounts and Dunmer snob wizards!