Downloadable game content.

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Hi all.

This came up recently in an article and I was wondering what your thoughts are...

As you all know, in many cases once you buy a game (in my case for the PS3) you can then download 'additional' material from the online store.

Given that the game itself is going to be £40-50, you are then looking at the odd bits and pieces (such as weapons and clothing) for a few quid each, through to new levels for anything up to £15. In some cases, you can nearly end up doubling the cost of the game if you buy all of them.

Is this just harmless fun - you don't have to download it, but if you enjoyed the game so much you may want to, or is it sinister money-grabbing? Are developers leaving out stuff that should have been included in the game in the first place? Is it just a hidden cost, broken into bite-sized chunks so you don't realise how much you are actually spending?

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

The whole DLC industry is based around masking what you are spending. MS (in particular) as invested into this methodology. After all, you dont spend pounds on the items, you spend points. It's all designed to dissociate you with the true cost of items.

I dont mind the DLC ethos in general. Sometimes they dont have the budget to do something for release, but the revenue from the game allows them the ability to write and add it on. I dont like bloody useless DLC, but then I dont have to buy it if I dont want it, so its all good.

 

If the publishers want to sell that way, and they've got enough customers who will buy the game AND make multiple microtransactions, more power to them. The customers are free to support or not support each publisher as they see fit on a game-by-game (and even content-by-content) basis.

Personally, I will selectively buy DLC for games that I enjoy. However, as a PC gamer, I don't spend nearly as much on the base cost of a game as console gamers do. I rarely buy games at full price, and Steam has been a blessing.

 

I don't mind downloadable content if its worth buying. What I really disklike though is games that have the emphasis on playing it on line so all you get is some crappy short single player mode.

Not everyone wants to play online.

 

I treat DLC on a case by case basis really. One example recently was Fallout New Vegas on the PC. They released exclusive Xbox DLC for it and then a few months on it came out on the PC. Having read the review of it though I'm not going to bother as I don't like the sound of the new content and the way it plays. It's only 7 quid, but still not worth it IMO.

 

Yeah, I'm that way. I don't like linking up with random strangers and playing multiplayer... and my evening availability is so erratic that I can't really meet up with a known group on a regular basis. So I'm usually stuck with single-player mode.

 

This.

Thats why I tend to love what ever Bioware puts out.

 

Yeah I liked the splinter cell games but over the last few years they have become shorter and shorter and more towards playing online. I want games like the used to be where you felt really involved in the storyline and you wanted the game to keep on going.

Thats why I am looking foward to games like the new Deus Ex game and Skyrim.

Playing online pisses me off anyway especially when you play games like call of duty and there's a bunch of campers or people with cheats.

 

It's tough as a parent too when JonnyMX jnr keeps pestering for the latest scakboy costume...