Comments on: DLC – A Love/Hate Relationship

By: elquinto

elquinto — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:22:11 +0000

Halo 3′s map packs would cost me $30+, but I’d get $6 for selling the game at gamestop. Thats the main problem in my opinion. DLC needs to be regularly reduced in price, just like games are., and at a certain point should be free. I mean who would buy Call of Duty 3 map packs for $10 each now? I bet you can find the full game for $10 its so old.

By: mcloki

mcloki — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:55:11 +0000

I like the DLC. The issue seems to be pricing.
Horse armour was just the developer asking you you to bend over. but asking for 5.99 for two new maps and 5 skins for the new UC2 DLC seems about right. I like the game I just want more variety.
I hope that Naughty Dog bring out more Map packs. Buying skins with in game money might be great as well.
I think that the cost of developing a game engine needs to be amortized over a longer period of time now by developers. Adding a few more missions into an already built engine means more money for the developers. I’d love a Sully adventure as DLC. Priced at the rate that the Quest for Booty DLC would be great. Add in a few more multiplayer maps and skins and it would be great.
DLC is the future. It is totally in the relm of possibility that a game will come out where you buy just the basic engine and level packs are bought as you move along. Peggle, Jumpman, Mario esque type game come to mind,

By: JimmyMagnum

JimmyMagnum — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:09:05 +0000

heinous and eden understand what I was getting at lol. @Darrin: I never really played Battlefield 2, I was more referring to Battlefield 1942

nathan118: You’re ignoring the timeline of a development cycle. The games code has to go final weeks before it comes out, so I think it a GOOD thing that the devs continue to iron things out, so that it’s an even better product on day 1 with a patch. They’re hardly being lazy. Games with a lot of problems early on get bad press, and that can turn buyers away.

I like being able to get patches and all, but I'm referring to the ones that seemingly have 3 patches in one week and still come out buggy. Even when a game goes gold, they should still have the time to iron out bugs before it does go gold as a final reassurace. Of course, this would be a conflict between developer and publisher, because the publishers expect deadlines, so they should get most of the blame on that one, but still, the QA teams don't seem to be as thorough as they used to :-/

nathan118: I like what we have know better than what we had 10 years ago.

me too, but that doesn't distract from the fact that some developers take advantage of these open doors in a way that directly affects gamers in a more negative manner (like the examples EdEN pointed out) EDIT: And I totally forgot to mention a couple great positives that I wanted to include. Demos and Betas. Before, we had to wait on demos in disc form, if we got any at all (usually required membership with the PlayStation Underground). Demos came in the mail, whereas beta materials came via UPS. This was a hassle since you never knew when the disc would come in (they didn't provide tracking numbers) and they usually left the materials out in plain site if you weren't home. With us being able to download those types of content directly to the HDD, without wait times and possible damaged discs, we can enjoy these opportunities faster and more efficiently. If anything, this is probably one of the bigger positives of the whole scene.

By: fleakitten

fleakitten — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:19:55 +0000

You should see the guy in WKC that has spent over $100 buying DLC for his Georama ( town ). The prices range from $.99 to $5.99 too.

If it’s available, ppl are going to buy it if they want it and can afford it.

By: nathan118

nathan118 — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:01:14 +0000

“the point was, a lot of it is overcharged, especially for the stuff that’s supposed to be free (maps, etc.)”

-It’s only “overcharged” if you don’t value it enough to pay that. It’s all supply and demand. If game makers don’t include enough in the original $60 game, then people won’t buy it. If the add-on content is too expensive, people won’t buy it. Not sure how any of the stuff is supposed to be “free.” Just because a game only comes with 8 maps, and they release more after the fact…you think that’s supposed to be free? You thought the original 8 maps was good enough to warrant a purchase.

“they obviously know there are some issues with a game and let them get released anyway”

-You’re ignoring the timeline of a development cycle. The games code has to go final weeks before it comes out, so I think it a GOOD thing that the devs continue to iron things out, so that it’s an even better product on day 1 with a patch. They’re hardly being lazy. Games with a lot of problems early on get bad press, and that can turn buyers away.

So if you think the add-on content is worth it, buy it. If not, don’t buy it. I like what we have know better than what we had 10 years ago.