Are we losing the plot with DLC?

[TheOtis]

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.

The DLC for Fallout 3 is incredible, they add so much more to the game. You can run through the main story line pretty swiftly if you stuck to it, the side quests do add quite a bit, but DLC adds a ton more to it. It's totally worth picking up the GoTY edition. I'm exempting Fallout 3 DLC from my statement below.

I won't rant until I make myself angry, like Slaymate did haha. I feel like what's really made DLC more common and games getting released with a patch released for download the same day, are this generation of consoles and the spread of broadband. I'm going to guess the companies look at it this way (I have zero knowledge about the process, but this is what I think the big wigs who are out for profits are thinking)...

Finish game ASAP and put in as little as possible dev time so the game can go gold and it can hit the streets. Start working on a patch and have it ready the day the games released, the patch will be available to download to fix major bugs. Create levels/modes for DLC that add a bit more entertainment for $20-$30, even though the content should have been released with the game at no additional cost. Release and push digital sales of the DLC. Make moneys.

 

[overlord20]

That last part was spot on... Make Money. And that is all most care about now.. *Cough* Bobby Kotick *Cough*

 

[TheOtis]

That guy has way too much money haha. Greed comes to mind when I see his name. Taken via Wikipedia-

"...This is in part due to advocating a business strategy focused on developing intellectual property which can be exploited over a long period, occasionally to the exclusion of creating new, risky or niche titles.[7] In responding to why Activision Blizzard chose not to publish certain games following the Activision/Blizzard merger, he stated that focusing on franchises that "have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises" has "worked very well for [Activision Blizzard]"

That's what kills creativity and good games. Seeking profits and gain is what kills art. Instead of getting new and exciting games published by the folks who have the money to promote and supply them, we get rehashed poo poo that they know is going to sell.

 

[TristanPerry]

Yep, it's definitely gone too far. As others have pointed out, something like Fallout 3 (which is already fairly comprehensive and didn't release DLC straight away) did it okay IMO, but in other cases it does seem like the game producers have said 'Right, these features would make the game great. Lets release x of them, and then do the remaining y features as quickly-released DLC'. Doesn't seem the best way to go about things really..

 

[TheOtis]

Oh not at all for, but it's a great business model for the greed driven. They know if we can afford $50-$60 for a game up front, we can probably spend some more cash a bit later for more content for the game if we want more out of it.


EDIT: I should add if I haven't before, if anything I see DLC becoming more and more popular as time goes along. Gaming's getting more popular ever year and the install base is only going to grow. Games that are crossplatform and are ridiculously popular like CoD are cash cows from the start and releasing more maps they could have included in the games launch is guaranteed to bring in more profit.

 

[Druid]

I can see how some dlc can be viewed like mini-expansions and is worth it, but most of it is bull. It should either be a free update or should have been included in the game at launch (cod dlc).