DLC and Expansions?

I hate DLC. Its too small. I don't like a little chunk of a game at a time, I like the whole thing in one big fat sexy play through. Thats why I have done 3+ full BG plays, thats BG, TotSC, BGII and ToB - seamless.

I really feel like im not getting the full experince if I don't have the DLC. I wait until I have all that makes sense before I play.

So, nice big chunky expansions = GOOD. Small tiny unfullfilling empty DLC = BAD.

Giving all the DLC away for free on PC release of a console game = Im okay with that, that is one way to make the pc version a bit better than a cheap port. Im just scared all the second rung down games will drop PC altogether, Gears 2 style. If they arn't making money on the DLC for PC then there is even LESS reason to develop for the superior platform.

To sum up, I would reinstall a game for an expansion, not for DLC.

I agree with you i would reinstal a game for A Expansion not DLC i have been saying this for a long time however no one ever listens to me. Great to see that someone else feels the same way

What do you think of games like Dragon Age having DLC and Expansions? Don't get me wrong, Dragon Age was stupid fun and addictive... but... don't you think this is getting a little redundant?

its a mixed bad to me. I really like that I can get additional content for a game I like without waiting a LONG time. But, let's just focus on dragon age. The are clearly milking things here. We get an awesome game (even without any DLC) on release date. And we are getting an expansion in like a month. Oh, and there's also all this DLC. I really don't see any reason at all to do anything but bundle all of the dlc with the expansion. If I remember right (I might not), the expansion is 30-40 bucks and only lasts 16-20 hours. I really hope I'm wrong about that. But, I hate that they are milking us for money.

Anyway, marketing should take notice. I am hesitant to buy DLC but not at all to buy expansions... it may sound idiotic, but if I'd be MUCH more willing to buy the DLC to borderlands if it was released in about a month and called an expansion. Games like starcraft: broof war and sins of s solar empire: entrenchment have left an excellent impression with me for expansions.

My view on expansions is pretty much contrary to everybody else's on this forum: they're a cheap way of avoiding having to do a proper sequel. Which was what I expected from Dragon Age, the game, some nice-but-not-really-necessary DLC and that's that, not some half-assed, full-priced expansion on top that has to screw over the original game's ending just to fit into the storyline, but a *proper*, 60-hours-and-counting sequel with a plot that may tie into the original but not require it, ala Mass Effect 2 or Baldur's Gate 2.

So for me, give me DLC or give me a sequel. Or at least if you're doing an expansion have the decency of pricing it like DLC ala Sins instead of asking full price for it. The fact that they expect me to pay as much for the lone expansion as Sins does with *both* its micro-expansions is simply shameful.

No one except yourself forces you to buy the DCL and/or the expansion pack, No one unless you totally lack any kind of willpower. But then, who is to blame for that?

That said, the real problem with DCL is price vs content. Seems quite a subjective topic and players usually base price on the number of hours while developers based it in (more realistic but not always precise and/or correct) development time. DRM stupidities forced by publishers are another hot topic against DCL, maybe even more than price sometimes (especially if it was good DCL). I'm not against DCL but I think that it still needs to improve about how it's done. And I also see it as a way to fund expansion packs (in DAO case, fund something else due to already huge sales of the game).

Expansion packs feel best though. More content at a time, less problems with DRM, easier to install, a better developed story (if it's rpg)...

Quoting Aractain,

reply 1

So, nice big chunky expansions = GOOD. Small tiny unfullfilling empty DLC = BAD.

100% agree. Hey if they want to give me DLC for free to register my game, verify it's a new purchase, not a second-hand, fine but 10-15 bucks for what has been coming out for some of these games... pass.

I think DLC is great. As long as they don't release it the day of or soon after the games release. If that happens you have to ask why it wasn't included in the full game.

I prefer expansions, but I don't have a problem with DLC. I just never buy it. Since I prefer boxed, retail versions of games, I just assume wait on an expansion, or even better, a "gold" or "game of the year" edition that combines all of the DLC and expansion (like Oblivion and Fallout 3 did, and Dragon Age probably will).

My opinion is DLC should never be about playability. You should not be paying extra for gameplay. They can sell all the DLC they want for customizing looks and the like. But any kind of gameplay advance should either be in the game, a free patch, or else in an expansion.

I think both have their place, and I enjoy both. I do agree that DLC is really only good for a short period of time after a game is released. I wouldn't play through a game again just to play DLC. That is why you have expansions and sequels.

In the case of Dragon Age the expansion makes sense because it expands on the original story. Dragon Age isn't built quite like Mass Effect so I don't know if bringing an entire sequel based in the original game would work. Plus, you can usually get expansions more quickly than sequels!

I hate DLC. Its too small. I don't like a little chunk of a game at a time, I like the whole thing in one big fat sexy play through. Thats why I have done 3+ full BG plays, thats BG, TotSC, BGII and ToB - seamless.

Right with you there...had to quote you as well just to bow humbly at your 3+ play throughs of all 3...legend

About Dragon Age, apparently I got some sort of armour or something with my purchase but I never looked into it, I just couldn't be bothered tbh. I just want to start, play, finish, not ditz around filling out forms and having post quest renovations on my game world or kmart style bargains for my character. Among other things, it degrades immersion/continuity. I will only get the DLC for that game if it is bundled and there are at least 5 of them, the idea of saving 20odd gig of install just to run a dungeon every whenever, bores me to tears.

Quoting Leo in WI,

reply 9

My opinion is DLC should never be about playability. You should not be paying extra for gameplay. They can sell all the DLC they want for customizing looks and the like. But any kind of gameplay advance should either be in the game, a free patch, or else in an expansion.

I completely agree with this.

Quoting Leo in WI,

reply 9

My opinion is DLC should never be about playability. You should not be paying extra for gameplay. They can sell all the DLC they want for customizing looks and the like. But any kind of gameplay advance should either be in the game, a free patch, or else in an expansion.

Totally agreed. All this does is give devs an excuse to hold back content and charge extra for it later. Hell, there are some cases where $60 retail games don't even have a proper ending unless you pay for the DLC! People might try to defend DLC with, "You don't have to buy it if don't want to." But this current trend is like buying a book and finding out someone ripped out the last 30 pages. That you can pay another $15 if you want to read. It's bordering on extortion; pay us another $15 if you don't want your $50-60 purchase to be a waste.

Not the mention the price/gameplay ratio on most DLC I've read about has been a bad joke. The worst I read about was the FEAR 2 DLC. $10 US for what was about 1-2 hours of recycled gameplay. Excuse me?

Totally agreed. All this does is give devs an excuse to hold back content and charge extra for it later. Hell, there are some cases where $60 retail games don't even have a proper ending unless you pay for the DLC!

As opposed to expansions, where you spend the whole game being told how you need to stop the three Prime Evils but you can't fight the third one without paying for the $40 expansion which also *happens* to include the ability to change your henchmen's equipment.

Rip-offs have existed long before DLC. Don't blame them for greedy publishers.

Quoting DraekAlmasy,

reply 14

Totally agreed. All this does is give devs an excuse to hold back content and charge extra for it later. Hell, there are some cases where $60 retail games don't even have a proper ending unless you pay for the DLC!

As opposed to expansions, where you spend the whole game being told how you need to stop the three Prime Evils but you can't fight the third one without paying for the $40 expansion which also *happens* to include the ability to change your henchmen's equipment.

Rip-offs have existed long before DLC. Don't blame them for greedy publishers.

I don't know that saying you think expansions are okay and DLC is generally a rip-off also means that you think ALL expansions are worth their price.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.