I've seen a lot of opinions on DLC, some of it very negative, some of it very positive, but all of it very strong. There are a few points that I would like to make about DLC, and a few opinions I'd like to express.

First things first, I think we can all agree that DLC is a relatively new phenomenon. The digital age and prevalence of high speed internet has made it very easy for developers to release small-scale content packs for a fee. People have the ability to pay for this stuff online, they have the ability to download and install it quickly, and most of us have the desire for "more stuff." So DLC seems like an obvious choice from a market perspective. And it's only recently been a viable concept.

But it's important to recognize that the demand for DLC has always been there, it's only a new phenomenon because the ability to actually distribute it widely is new. Expansion packs used to sit where DLC is now, largely, because it was much easier to distribute a CD box set than it was to try and offer content online. And if you were going to distribute by a CD, you needed to have as much content on there as you possibly could, because CDs are expensive to distribute. Nobody would have ever been happy with DLC sized expansions in the past, because the cost would have been way to high to offer a small bit of content on a relatively expensive CD.

Now I like DLC. I like it a lot, and for several reasons:

• DLC comes out faster. If I had the option to pay $2 for a thing today, or wait 8 months for it to be packaged with an expansion but only pay about $1 for it, well I'd rather spend the extra dollar and have it today. Some agree with me, some don't. Point is, for those of us that would rather pay a little extra and get our stuff sooner, DLC is great for this.
  
  
• DLC can get the small things. There are lots of things that a developer might want to do, or think to add, but won't bother with because it's not worth putting it into an expansion. DLC is the perfect outlet for this content. Thus, DLC lets gamers have a taste of some things that the developer might never have done otherwise.

Now there are some major complaints against DLC as well, and I don't want to ignore those at all. Here are the ones I am aware of, and I would be happy to add or edit more if someone brings them up in the comments:

• Developers withdraw content from the released game so that they can sell it as DLC later.
  
  
  • For one thing, this is a really bold claim to make, especially since there's little to no proof of it anywhere. But even if it is true, and we'll just assume for the sake of argument that it actually is, that doesn't matter. Developers have been pulling content from their finished games since the dawn of gaming. Songwriters do it for music, and film studios do that for movies too. Removing fully developed scenes and content is just part of the creative process. Sometimes the content owner decides to sell this material later, and sometimes they decide to release it for free. Other times, they just throw it out. Whichever way it goes, it shouldn't matter to us. We either decide to buy what they are selling or we don't. What they sell, in the end, is their decision.
  
  
  • Besides, there's no reason to think that this is something new, or that it has anything to do with DLC. Any developer that decides to pull content so they can sell it as DLC has probably been doing the same thing with expansions since they started making games. Have whatever level of faith in a given developer that you want, but don't blame the concept of DLC for the slightly shady-ish greed of a particular developer.
  
  
  • Lastly, DLC is now part of the budgeting process. Seasoned developers that have released DLC in the past have a business model for how much of it they can expect to sell, and they work that into their project budgets. Part of the reason a game you buy can be so big and fancy in the first place is because the dev knows they can sell some DLC on it again later. That's all budgeted in. So don't go thinking that your $2 is just going to buy a developer some more gravy on their steak. No, they've been waiting for that $2 the whole time, and your extra money isn't just paying for extra content. It's also helping to pay for content you already have.
  
  
  
• DLC reduces the quality of expansions.
  
  
  • This argument really just can't get off the ground. There's no way it could be true, in a sense. Think about it for a second. If the DLC has content in it that you were going to get in an expansion, well, then you still get the content. No harm done. But if the DLC has content in it that you would not have gotten in an expansion... well then you never would have seen it at all! DLC is an outlet for more content, no matter how you slice it.
  
  
  • Also, don't forget that the time=money argument is still valid here. If the developer releases something that would normally have been part of an expansion, but they release it as DLC, then chances are that you are getting it months earlier than you would have. That means that yes, while you might be paying marginally more for it than you would have, you also get it sooner. That's a very real trade-off to make. If you actually want to wait for the bundle and save some coin, I can assure you that there will be a GotY or Gold edition somewhere along the line that has all the content bundled into one giant package, for a reduced price. If getting it early doesn't mean the extra dollars for you, then go ahead and wait. It will be available eventually.
  
  
  
• DLC Costs too much for what you get.
  
  
  • Well, sorta, but not really. If you bought the DLC and you think that it was not worth the cost, well you might be right. You would not have paid the $2 if you knew that this was all you were getting. However, if you have any idea what you are getting and you go ahead and buy it anyway, then it is worth the cost. If you've bought some DLC before and you still buy more again later, then it is worth the cost. Remember, the concept for pricing something is to get it just high enough so that you almost don't want it, but low enough that you cave and buy it anyway. By definition, that price is right on the money. So if you feel like you are getting robbed but you keep buying anyway, well then the developer is actually doing it right. If you really don't think it's worth it, then don't buy. The money is in your wallet, and you have to take responsibility for that. If you keep your dollars in your pants, then maybe enough other people will do the same and the price will come down. That's economics 101.
  
  
  • Also, you have to take into account that DLC is worthless if there isn't a great game behind it already. If nobody buys or likes the game, then the DLC for that terrible game certainly isn't going to sell either. So this sorta goes back to the previous point about DLC reducing the value of the game. It doesn't. You can't reduce the value of the game very much and get away with that, or nobody is going to want the game itself. That's really important to keep in mind before you hate on DLC, because the developer is really not trying to screw you over. They need to find that price point where the game is great for the price, and has just enough content in it that they can sell it for the price they want, and then sell some more later for more. That's fair business.
  
  
  
• Day Zero DLC and New Purchase DLC are inexcusable.
  
  A few people have been good enough to point out that some games come with DLC at launch, or that some games hand out DLC for free if you buy the game new, and then charge you for it if you buy the game used. For some, this seems unreasonable. Here's why I disagree with that:
  
  
  • For one thing, buying a used TV and buying a used Game are very different. The used TV is used, there are fewer years of its life left, there might be some damage, the warranty probably won't transfer, etc. For all this, you get a discount. But a game? A used game is exactly identical to a new game, except it costs less. Consumers realize this very quickly and start playing games so that they can finish it, and then turn around and sell it to someone else. The next user doesn't lose anything, though. So while I understand some concern about a lack of consumer protection in video games, there's also a glaring fact that there's no producer protection in software gaming. Their primary market can literally trade their own product amongst themselves, and cut the producer out entirely after round 1.
    
    Here's what I mean:
    Games are one of the few things that you can literally buy and sell used and get a discount, but not a lower quality product. I meant that round 1 of gamers can buy the game new and then play it. Rounds 2 and 3 can all just buy their game used from the round 1 people, and have the exact same experience. In the eyes of a lot of software developers, that market is unfair because they are not even competitive with their own products. And to be honest, in a completely unregulated market, it's true. Gamers will buy and sell to each other a lot cheaper than the game companies can do it. So it makes sense to me to see game companies taking steps to shut that problem down. They want a piece of round 2 and round 3 gamers, and I think they deserve the chance to try and snag a piece.
    
    Because of this, it makes a lot more sense than you think for the produce to attach incentives for people to buy new. Among those, "free" DLC that you have to pay for if you don't buy new, or activation fees are perfectly normal. In effect, if you buy the game used, you still get the core game, but slightly less. That's exactly what you would get if you bought the TV used, the same core TV but slightly less. This is exactly what I'm talking about, right here:
    
    Personally, I thought the "free" DLC that came with a new copy of Mass Effect 2 (and you could pay some $$$ to unlock it if you bought a used copy) was a much more elegant approach to 1) encouraging new game sales, and 2) getting some share of the profit being generated by used sales of your intellectual property, then most of the other things that people have tried.
    
    If you think about it, stores like Gamestop are reaping huge profits off the product of the software companies' work, without giving them a cut. If I were the software developers, I'd be right pissed about that.
    
  
  
  
  • Another piece to the puzzle is the dis-satisfaction some have expressed about "ripping" content out of the game in order to just sell it later, while leaving a door or a cave in the game somewhere with a sign over it that says "DLC Only." They feel cheated, or conned out of that content. However, to the contrary, that little piece isn't any worse than a reminder, or even an advertisment, that more content is available. There's a big difference between ripping out something essential, like the physics engine, and selling that piece by piece, than from removing a room like the Orrery and deciding to sell it separately later. Some claim that there's no reason for removing it in the first place.
    Au contraire, mon ami:
    
    There is a reason to remove it. To sell it later. There's nothing wrong with that.
    Imagine yourself doing the same thing. You have a garage sale, and decide to sell your couch and the pillows for $150. Then, later, you decide to pull the pillows and sell them separately for $20 instead. What's wrong with that? Nobody in the world would argue that you can't change your mind and decide to sell a few things separately. Why would you get upset that Bethesda did the same thing? Now sure, garage sales aren't major industries with regular business practices. But do you seriously want the regular business practice to be the standard for what game companies do? How regular is DLC? Is that not the standard for the industry? Do you really want game companies to be able to do whatever they like, just because the other companies are doing it? No.
    
    The standard is that they can sell whatever they like. That's really all there is to it. If they decide to sell a little less, or a little more, that's entirely their decision. The only choice that belongs to the consumer is whether or not to buy it. That's a decision nobody can take from you, and you must always bear the responsibility for making.
    
    In effect, if you come across a door in the game somewhere that says "DLC only beyond this point," well, then you are no worse off than if the door had never been there to begin with, except now you have a taste/teaser that there's some more content coming. There's nothing wrong with that at all. Of course any game can go too far, by locking every third door in the entire game with "DLC only" signs. My only counterpoint is that this is a judgment the consumer has to make on a game by game, or developer by developer basis. And even then, games aren't the only industry that do this. Who's ever watched a movie that felt more like a commercial for Adidas than an actual movie? Any studio can take this concept too far. That's your choice to make.

Those are my thoughts. I really look forward to some of Bethesda's DLC concepts. Primarily, I'm looking forward to more houses, maybe even some in crazy places like the tops of mountains, or Blackreach.
Also, more spells, more guilds and factions, and maybe even more shouts would all be welcome additions.

Let me know what you think. If you disagree with anything, let me know about that too and I'll work it into my points.

I agree with the majority of your post. DLC allow devs to add things that might not make an expansion push, and keep content flowing at a reasonable pace.

The only problem with it is that forcing it all in one push usually means it is more cohesive than individual pieces.

?Lastly, DLC is now part of the budgeting process. Seasoned developers that have released DLC in the past have a business model for how much of it they can expect to sell, and they work that into their project budgets. Part of the reason a game you buy can be so big and fancy in the first place is because the dev knows they can sell some DLC on it again later. That's all budgeted in. So don't go thinking that your $2 is just going to buy a developer some more gravy on their steak. No, they've been waiting for that $2 the whole time, and your extra money isn't just paying for extra content. It's also helping to pay for content you already have



exactly, the most obviously glaring representation was dragon age, game gets released, go to walk into a cave, need dlc to go in there, meet a person who wants you to go on a quest, need the dlc.
they did not release a full game, it was only half finished! the only reasons I can come up with why it happened are all negative.

if there is dlc like an expansion, i'm in, but if like above, or just minor add ons, I feel cheated in to taking part of their up selling culture.

You probably wouldn't be interested anyway.


The rebuttal is that you never would have had the cave at all. Selling the finished product doesn't necessarily mean that they have to give you everything that it sorta looks like could have fit in the original release. The "finished product" rightly well may have been a game with no cave at all, or no quest at all. Had the teasers not been there, you never would have known about it at all, and wouldn't have been inconceivably in the least.

Beyond that, though, I can see how it's frustrating to walk up to a door in a game, try to open it, only to find out that whatever is behind it is sold separately. That's annoying, but it's not bad business. Placing teasers and leader into products that are sold separately has been done forever. How many times did you watch a really cool commercial for G.I. Joes when you were a kid, only to hear at the end, some announcer say really fast "Vehicles and figures sold separately." It happens, that's business.

Think about Pixar Movies. I've never seen a single one where there isn't at least one scene from the next movie tacked on in the bonus features or at the end of the primary. What's that there for? Just to get you interested in the next film. That's the same concept that's being used with the cave that you can't get to without buying the next DLC.

I agree with some of what you say, but I remember Oblivion's Mage Guild had a pretty damning locked door to the Orrery at release. And players were understandably upset about it only being unlocked with DLC.

I think it's justified being a little peeved when they leave an obvious hole in the game waiting to be filled with DLC, regardless of whether or not that DLC was withheld or created later.

But my larger point is that it shouldn't matter. Whether they had the orrery finished at launch or not, it wasn't part of the vanilla game. It may well have been intended as DLC from the start. Even if it was originally in, and ripped out later, that doesn't matter either. The developers decided that they had included too much content for their $60, and so they sold some of it separately.

Plus, there's no indication that the orrery was finished and complete, then removed for launch. In fact, I highly doubt that's the case at all. More likely, they knew ahead of time that they wanted to do the Orrery as DLC to begin with. However, someone said "Wouldn't it look funny if a door just showed up here when there wasn't one before?" To accommodate that little continuity hitch, they put a door there and locked it.

That's not "damning" in any way. There's nothing unfair about it.

But in this case it was like selling a pie with a slice taken out of it, because something was blatantly missing and it simply made the product look worse. It was like they were selling something incomplete, and asking more money to complete it. And even worse, in this case the pie is in a box the customer can't even see until they buy it. We weren't told there'd be locked doors we'd have to pay to open. It wasn't quite as bad as the DLC vendor in Dragon Age, but still pretty lame.

Sizeable DLC a few months after release? +GOOD
Day one DLC? +BAD
PreOrder DLC? +VERY BAD
Horse Armour? +HILARIOUS!!!

I guess you could look at it that way. I don't see it as a missing slice, though. I see it as a whole pie, with an extra half-slice of something else included so that you know what else there is to buy.

:confused:

Why look at it negatively? There are a lot of positive ways to describe it, and I have no reason to think that they took anything from you. Ask yourself, did you get a $60 game or didn't you? If the door wasn't there at all, would you still have been happy with the game?

If so, then why look at the door as something you lost? If it was never there to begin with, you would have been just fine without it.

For some reason, I enjoy the large expanion packs later on. Perhaps its because it allows for more content and a bigger unified playspace. An expedition to a large island in the Summerset Isles would only be possible as an expansion, and I would much rather have 20 different things to be unified in theme than have the 20 different things be sold separately and remain different. If that makes any sense.

For example, I'd rather have a Summerset Isles arena-type activity and a Summerset Isles vampire guild than a Skyrim fighting pit and a Morrowind vampire guild.

It's late. I can't really think straight.

People have a problem with some DLC because it feels like a con. People don't like feeling conned. People don't like companies who release DLC that makes them feel like someone is trying to con them. Some DLC is brilliant, some DLC feels like a con. Unfortunately, there are no consumer protections (in the USA) for software. As your signature says, you don't even own the box Morrowind came in. If a lot of people are complaining about a particular DLC being a scam, it likely is.

Suppose I were to release a board game with sections missing from the middle of the board. Even if the game doesn't use those areas until the board game gets an expansion people are going to be upset because they feel conned. Dragon Age felt like someone was trying to trick me into buying something. Online passes are starting to take hold now. In many current and upcoming games, you won't even be able to borrow a game from a friend and get the full experience because you didn't "buy it new". This is my biggest gripe right now. Buy/Borrow/Rent Batman: Arkham City used and you have to pay extra to get the Catwoman storyline "DLC" that is included with a new game. EA and Ubisoft are doing the same thing for multiplayer in their games.

Publisher's need to realize that just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's right. A lot of this seems very subjective, but there are plenty of parallels you can draw to real physical products. Does the disclaimer, "Batteries not included" ring a bell?

Good topic, but it fails to address these smaller issues that are the things that piss most people off about DLC I believe. Pre-order DLC's and day one DLC's. Of course it is marketing strategy but that is ripping out content that is already part of the game and ready to be integrated into the game.

It is just blatant greed and any purchaser is more than entitled to be a little miffed about it. Especially when all the exclusives pre-order bonuses are bundled together and sold at a later date. Fallout New Vegas for instance with the tribal, mercenary, and the other pre-order exclusives. There should be a fine balance between making a profit from your consumers and milking them of their money when they are your loving fans. We can always refuse but it is capitalizing on the completionist mentality that most people have. It is taking advantage of our psycology. Which of course is something businesses have always done, and have rightly been looked down upon for in the past.

I'd be happier had there been no door, yes. Better to have no door, than to have a locked door with the key in a DLC. Put the key and the door in the DLC, that's fine.

As a consumer, the most important thing is content/price. The main problem with DLC rest within the inherent problem with consumer trend: Its easier to justify spending smaller chunks of money, that is, consumers become more scrutinizing when spending 50 when compared to 5-10 dollars. This becomes a problem because it allows developers to sell DLC with much lower content/price rations than what would be equivalent in an expansion.

Wasnt Diablo II the first game to have expansion packs? I totally cant remember that far back...maybe not. I remember the first Ghost Recon had an expansion pack. Anyway no matter, the first technical DLC I saw (meaning smaller content add-ons, not big expansions) were all the little in-house mods that bethesda made for Morrowind, Seige @ Firemoth and the rest of them. Not sure but I think that and the HUGE modding community that sprang from MW had alot to do with the current state of DLC. The first time I heard the term DLC was with Oblivion's extra content, and shortly thereafter was XBox live and it's DLC.

I totally dont know why I went off on that tangent, sorry.

It is rather bad business, I never bought any thing else from Bioware again.
DLC should be DLC, not a scam to finish the original concept of the game, if there had been no cave or dude asking me to quest for him, I may have bought it, and bought DA2, as i would not have felt duped for buying a half baked product with DLC compliments to make it complete.
I do not see it as a teaser or good advertising (nor do I want it, I just want to enjoy playing the game), I see it as a scam.

Also trailers for a sequel movie is the same as a trailer for a sequel for a given game, it's not like they block out parts of a movie and ask you to pay extra to see that content.

Every developer handles DLC in a different way. I just wish people would look at that and treat each company based on their merits/history with it and not lump everyone into one generalization.

I have no problem with DLC. I usually wait for the GOTY edition to get everything in one package, but it's a great way to get little incentives to replay the game NOW.

I've never really had an issue with the way Bethesda has handled TES DLC after the whole horse armor debacle- I forgave them, it was a new concept and they were testing it, whatever. Because every TES game is 1) in development for years and 2) set in a different province, I'm a huge supporter of DLC because it expands this current world for me and adds new concepts for modders to work with as well.

So...yeah...not sure why people hate on DLC for Bethesda. Hate on others if they gave you a bad experience all you want.

http://www.qj.net/xbox-360/news/eb-games-canada-dropping-pre-owned-games.html

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/EA-Says-Some-Online-Passes-Supposed-Expire-37500.html
There are many more articles out there about this fubar situation, but this one captures my feelings pretty well.

http://thisismyjoystick.com/editorial/ubisoft-and-the-growing-online-pass-trend/

http://blog.games.com/2011/11/16/nintendo-reggie-fils-aime-interview/
Look for "Will Nintendo ever release digital upgrades or add-ons to its games?"

Take a look at these articles. "New Game" DLC and online passes are really going to start blowing up. At least there is one console maker that gets it. If things keep trending like they have been I'll probably be a nintendo only gamer before long. Those that want to get nickled and dimed to death are welcome to it. I hope bethesda doesn't start with the "New Game" DLC nonsense in the future.

Good post... I agree with almost everything.. I still prefer expansions simply for two things: they're physical on CD's, they have much more content.... The foremost reason I prefer expansions is because an DLC has to have little content which makes it hard to have a good story with alot of impact... the Fallout DLC's always felt a bit of rushed because of the small content compared to for example Bloodmoon or Shivering Isles.

What the heck are these links even for? For one thing, that EB Games article is just speculation, and wrong speculation at that. Gamestop has never attempted to sell used games as new games, nor have they ever claimed to. I don't even know why that's in this discussion.

Secondly, what's your point with the online pass things? If EA wants to create a terrible system and screw things up, let them. If they want to make a well-functioning system that works, let them do that too. You are the consumer. The money is in your pants. Keep it there or don't. You are obviously smart enough to be reading these articles, so if you know something is a product you don't want, don't buy it. I fully expect that you don't own any commemorative coins or https://www.shamwow.com/default.aspx?did=&refcode=1002 because you know better than to buy them, right?

Besides, your view seems to be very one sided. If you were selling something that you built yourself, what would you do? If you sold one, and ten people passed it around and used it, you really want to try and convince me you wouldn't try to get at least a little bit of money from those other 9 people?

No, really? If it was your money that nobody was giving you, would you just sit in your chair and say "ah well, they are my loyal fans!" or would you come up with a couple of ways to get a dollar or two from them?

Think a little, there's two sides to this.

That post was just a follow up to what I already posted on page one. I added those links so people could see some of the things that have been going on. My view is only one sided if you fail to read my previous post where I said that some DLC is brilliant. There are 3 sides to this issue: End-Users, Developers, and Retailers. I'm not concerned with brilliant DLC. I am concerned with scammy DLC. Games aren't the only products in existence that get sold used. Cars can change hands many times. Could you imagine what would happen if there were no consumer protections in place for physical products? Imagine buying a car and not being able to use the power windows until you paid the manufacturer $10 for an activation code. OK, that's over the top. Imagine buying a used smart TV that couldn't access the internet until you paid the manufacturer a $10 activation fee. That's not over the top. My point? My point is in a industry with no consumer protection, there can and will be unethical business practices. Just because it's legal doesn't mean its right.

I do not buy games with online passes or "new game only" DLC. I accidentally bought Arkham City because I did not even realize it had "new game" DLC. I bought it new, but when I realized what I just helped to support I was pissed. I won't be buying a lot of games in the future. And I will also be very vocal in my opinion that it's bad for the industry and bad for gamers. When people stop buying games because the publishers have gone too far (wherever that imaginary line is) then everyone will miss out. How many grandma's are going to buy their grandchildren a used copy of (insert game here) this Christmas only for him to be locked out of a sizable portion of the game.

Like your signature says, you don't even own the box. In fact you have no protection whatsoever. If software deleted your entire HDD you would have no recourse.

This discussion is pretty well moot in relation to Skyrim. I can't remember the exact source after viewing countless interviews and reading any number of previews, but I remember Todd Howard saying that they were not planning DLC for Skyrim, but were thinking about one or more expansions.

Although you could say that technically, any expansion bought through Steam IS DownLoadable Content.