do you feel DLC is kind of a rip off?

[ForumModeregulator]

I mean we pay 65$+ for a game...why should we be expected to throw more money at it for content that should have just been included to begin with? I love the concept of DLC, I just think it should be free.

Rockstar DLC is really the only DLC imo worth paying for, because its always an entire set of missions to go with it...but when it comes for paying for a couple of maps, which in time become free anyways, seems like a big scam that takes advantage of our gaming habits...

anyways hatred was sparked after realizing that the DLC maps for halo reach were already found on the disc in the game files (POSSIBLY)...that seems wrong.

I know the main argument is that nobody makes me buy it, or that its not necessary to pay to play, but it just seems like the majority of DLC are items and such that should be normal unlockables or achievements that SHOULD be included in the entire game when you pay for it to begin with. blah blah...

 

[L3ggy]

You could always change the code.

 

[edgexx]

I hate DLCs. DLC is a fucking deception.

There should be released a full game, as good as possible like in good old times. Then maybe some patches. And then when authors (or rather publishers) see the game is successful, then they can work on some data discs / DLC.

I am not going to buy any game with DLC planned in advance. We must show the publishers that this is NOT the right way.

 

[darthsnake]

i hate DLC too

i want the full game when i pay for it

if theyb really want to do something different then it should come in the next game not just putting out small things out there

 

[Legzman]

DLC for rockband is a great idea. Lets you pick and chose the songs you want as opposed to the shit thats on the disc. Maps are a decent idea. Even if a shooter ships with a lot of maps, they still get old and stale after awhile. Just don't buy the DLC if you feel its a rip off. It is a ripoff but it's also a necessity.

 

[nickerdeemes2]

I agree with the Rock Band DLC, I love being able to get songs that I actually like. I wish there was a way to sell DLC to other people, I bough some DLC for a game and then sold it but could not include that DLC to make a little more on the game.

 

[Legzman]

I agree with the Rock Band DLC, I love being able to get songs that I actually like. I wish there was a way to sell DLC to other people, I bough some DLC for a game and then sold it but could not include that DLC to make a little more on the game.

that would be great.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

DLC is a neat concept; though an easily abused concept.

 

[Digibeat]

When DLC began, it used to stick to it's definition (DownLoadable Content) Like Rockstar's The Lost and Damned for example.

Nowadays I totally agree that the concept has become corrupted and abused, by making people pay for content that is already installed on the game disk... I mean that is an absolut rip off.

In other words, i don't mind paying an extra few bucks if the extra content is worth it.

 

[darkwarrior3007]

DLC is a double-edged sword. If a developer uses it correctly (like Rockstar Games) it can be used to expand the life of the game. Not all DLC is content that was left out of a game, some of it is content that very much is created after the game is completed.

The negative aspect is when a company like EA or Activision use DLC to bleed the customer. Content that was once a standard part of a game in the past is now locked on disc and only accessible by paying for it.

The only answer to this is with your wallet. If you don't like a companies DLC business practices, don't buy the content.

 

[D-rock]

DLC is only good when it's not used to milk money out of games where it should have been added anyhow but wasn't as a means of making people pay for it. If a game is well done and complete and has all the things in it when you buy it that it would of had if it came out before the concept of DLC then I don't see a problem with producers creating extra content that reasonably priced for people that want it.

For most games that use DLC I think they purposely withhold content that they otherwise would have put in it just to make as much money off of the players as possible while the players are fooled into thinking the game is going to be complete when they buy it.

 

[dp93]

im a PS3 guy (not biased to 360). I once entered a random code in the PlayStation Store to buy the new CoD maps, and the code ended up being a $20 card. I was so fucking surprised

 

[Joorpe]

That's why I love gaming on the pc. Most of the games receive DLC for free. Hell, look what VALVe has done with Team Fortress 2. Also, some of the mods people make for different games are unbelievable.

Back on topic, yes I feel having to pay for DLC is a ripoff especially day one DLC or DLC that is already on the disc and you have to pay to unlock it.

 

[wizzkid666]

i think its a rip-off if it's released like 6 months after the game is. but if it's released like a year to a year and a half later then i think it's fair enough.

 

[zell]

People need to realize the point of DLC.Yes it's to make money,but that money is to help supplement the profit of the devs.

Most of these guys aren't making a fortune like most people think.I'm sure that they aren't living on skid row or anything,but when they release a game,there's a lot of money that's moving around that isn't going into their pockets.

Another part of the profitability of DLC is to offset the money that devs are losing do to the resale of games to GameStop,EB Games,Ebay,etc.Think of how much money that these places are making off of the reselling of used games.That's why they are trying to implement registration codes for an extra profit boost.

Just for the record,I don't necessarily agree with it,but from a business perspective,I completely understand it.

 

[L3ggy]

It is also a way to keep gamers interested in their games.

 

[Doc Scurlock]

I'm fine with it as long as it's released some time after the game's been already out. As others have mentioned it just keeps you interested in that game longer that way. What I don't like is the companies who release DLC almost right after release of a game as there it just seems like a lame money grab as the DLC probably could have been in the game when it was released.

 

[KillTheIndustry]

It really depends. I think $15-$20 for an expansion is better than $60 for a sequel. But tiny add-ons, like one new item or weapon for $1-$2 each is just stupid.

 

[STDiva]

The price is usually too high for the amount of content we actually get.

 

[shayd]

Not as much as this recent horse shit trend of only allowing online play for one console. Paying extra to play online? Get the fuck out of here.