Are we losing the plot with DLC?

[Harper]

It seems theses days that if the devs can not make money on the single release of a game, they will decide to make more money from us by releasing DLC (DownLoadable Content)

If you are not sure what downloadable content is, it's a some between a Patch and full expansion of a game. Giving players some thing to a little extra to play with on the game. However it's it getting out of control.

Previously, it used to me about 3 months or so after the main game is release, you will get some DLC to help expand the game a little bit. And then after about 12 months, there is a GOTY edition release that has all the DLC (which you normally have to pay for) as part of the package.

Examples
Fallout 3 --> BrokenSteel, The Pitt, Operation Anchorage, Mother ship Zeta, Point Lookout
Borderlands --> Zombie Island Of Dr Ned, MAd Moxxi, General Knoxx

To these games credit, these expansions came out about 3 months or so after the original release. So by this time, you should of finished the game and you are most likely half way into your next game when the DLC is release.

However i noticed Mafia II. The game is release on Aug 26 2010, and 2 weeks later there is a Mafia II DLC : Jimmy's Vendetta. Is this a little too soon to be releasing a DLC for a game?
And what are your thoughts on DLC?

 

[Trotter]

If the DLC is small or insignificant they ought to either lump it with something else (combine two DLC) or release it for free. To me, a decent DLC would be something like what Special Forces was to Battlefield 2; it added new maps that were actually good, and also added a new set of weapon unlocks. Other expansion for BF2 fell flat (Armored Fury, and whatever the European/NATO expansion was) because they only offered maps (some of which sucked) and nothing that carried over into the main game.

I haven't played the DLC for FO3 or Borderlands, so I can't really say much as far as their value. But MafiA II releasing DLC only two weeks after the game is released? Sounds like that should have been included in the original game to me.

Any and all DLC should add to and continue the storyline of the original game. Take a look at Oblivion to see how that can be done properly.

 

[C0RR0SIVE]

I dislike the "DLC" that you pay $20 for, and only get a few maps or something that's entirely pointless.

 

[overlord20]

I will touch down first with Borderlands DLC.. Zombie Island and General Knoxx has decent amount of gameplay for $10 while Mad Moxxi's was a gimmick. But gearbox released good DLC for there $10 so its totally exeptable.

Mafia II... Even though the gameplay was good in the DLC.. They released it weeks after probably because the short game.. (Obvously done on purpose). But It was needed..

 

[Harper]

I haven't played the DLC for FO3 or Borderlands, so I can't really say much as far as their value.

I picked them up when they were going cheap a few months back. There will be new one coming out shortly featuring Claptraps. I know how much you like Claptraps.

But MafiA II releasing DLC only two weeks after the game is released? Sounds like that should have been included in the original game to me.

That was my thoughts too.

I dislike the "DLC" that you pay $20 for, and only get a few maps or something that's entirely pointless.

At that price, I would be almost expecting an Expansion.

I have been picking up the Magic The Gathering DLC. But hey, $5 is what I would be paying for a booster pack of magic cards in real life.

 

[overlord20]

Sept. 28th for Borderlands 4th DLC... But anyways, Mafia II DLC, as I believe it should have been included it has nothing to do with the main story so I can see why it was DLC..

 

[Elbatrop1]

I think that DLC's are fantastic for games that are already quite expansive. For example, I thoroughly enjoyed all of the Fallout 3 DLCs, because they made sense and didn't take away from the original game.

 

[Joeyboy]

Mafia 2 has been terrible for this, watch gameplay videos and trailer in 09, one was 8 minutes long and pretty much everything they showed cannot be done in the release, look at the map when you play Mafia 2, so many areas which are there, but greyed out and not accessible, folks have glitched through walls and such like and it's all there, you can walk around, buildings are their, farms etc. Also go on mafia scene and check out the modding community, they released a free ride(if anyone remembers Mafia 1) mod within days, because all the code for it is already there, there are just a few missing models/textures and the code needed to activate all and make it work, but it is there, hence why Jimmys vendetta was so quick. And who is Jimmy? You randomly live at Vito's house, it still says Vito Scaletta above the **** door. I will bet you another DLC comes soon and it includes countryside and trains on the train tracks, train were on the tracks in 09 gameplay, and files show actions like BOARD_TRAIN, FLAG_TAXI, CALL_TAXI_TO_HOME, PAY_FARE etc, they promised public transport...I have a feeling 2k games has been incredibly greedy and asked them to cut missions and parts of the game already made, which they can then release as multiple DLC's and pretend they must made to answer the player demand for it.

 

[overlord20]

We know most of this already and I believe it is what sparked the question.. Jimmy's Vendetta although had basically no story at all, was a good DLC. And its hard to say that they could have included it in the main game as it doesn't seem to do much with the main story. The main game had what Jimmy's lacks and vice versa. I think that Jimmy's Vendetta was decent as DLC although it was released way to early. They should have made the main games story longer and then released Jimmy's in a few weeks.

 

[Slaymate]

I remember when DLC was free and almost every game had a beta or a Demo. As soon as broadband got mainstream DLC was suddenly a money maker, Demos became unpopular and a beta just slowed down the money raking. DLC should be a reward for supporting the game. Every game should be Beta tested for bugs. But instead they would rather get your money now and release a patch later, if the game is popular. So now your reward for supporting a game is a patch instead of DLC that they can charge money for. Demo's, they give you a chance to try the game. No sense in giving a Gamer a chance to play before they pay, they might not like the game or it may be buggy. I find it funny when they say Pirating is killing gaming, they never say buggy or crappy games that cost $50+ are killing gaming. And Subscription Games, they charge you money to install a game and then they charge you to play. That's really good for gaming, why pay $50 a piece for say (4) games from different companies when (1) company can get all of that cash for a single game.

I'll stop now that I'm suddenly in a Bad Mood. I'm gonna have to stop reading these types of threads.