I remember the days where you'd buy a game, and you'd have the whole game.

[Raven]

Back when I was a kid, we'd pay for the game at the shop, take it home, and all the additional bells and whistles (if any) were already part of the package. No downloadable content which costs money on top of the game you've already payed full whack for. These days, with the ever-increasing spread of the internet, it seems like companies are taking full advantage of this money-making feature, to the point where I feel it's being abused. There is absolutely no reason the extra content can't be included in the original product, or at the very least be available for free download if it's a late addition, other than to make them extra dosh. I think it's greedy, and I don't like it.

I'm sure that many of these additions are not necessary, but when you buy a game it's nice to have everything available to you from the start without having to pay more for extra things, even if they are not necessary. Take FE13. To enjoy this game fully, you must spend extra money to download extra maps and characters. You've payed for the game, but you can't use some units because you didn't pay extra. I think it's utter rubbish.

In terms of games that are free to play (take League of Legends as my example), you can pay for new character skins to play with during games, amongst other things. I think paying for this extra content is justifiable considering the game is absolutely free to download and play, and some people spend more time playing this game than they do playing games they've picked up at the shop for whatever price. So, why not give a little back?

What are other people's views on such things?

[VaikeTime]

True, some companies abuse it, like $15 for 3 maps or $5 for horse armor, but DLC is a great way to extend the life of a great game. True, it would be nice if this stuff was free, but most times these things have a separate budget and sometimes are developed after the game has released. I quite appreciate DLC when it's done right.

[Integrity]

There were always expansion packs.

[BrightBow]

It's really just about what you get for your money, just like with full games. And I guess no matter the amount of content, it shouldn't feel like you are buying the rest of the game. But on it's core, DLC is not really any different as the addons that PC games had since the 90s.

It just allows companies to sell new content in smaller packages. Which is okay as long as it has the appropriate price tag.

In Fire Emblem's case, I guess you could call out the DLC for requiring you to buy certain DLC before you can buy others. And it makes me worry that they will make the games non-linear just so they can handle it the way they do with Awakening.

But what I actually hate is the unpaid pseudo DLC. Stuff that is on the module the entire time but requires one to go online even though they don't even want money for it. Like the bonus missions for FE12. As far as I am concerned, If you don't even want my money, then there is no need to bother me with this.

I should never need to go online to get the most out of the single player experience. Especially since not everyone has online access in the first place.

Edited February 8, 2013 by BrightBow

[Agro]

You make it sound like this hasn't been happening for ages.

Pokemon has required you to have a link cable and friends with the game to get all the Pokemon.

Final Fantasy 8 had that stupid ridiculous little thing that you could use to play some pointless chocobo minigame.

As Integ said, there have been expansion packs since the dawn of time.

You can still get a full game of FE13, easily, without connecting to the internet at all. You almost always get the full game. But you think that you're not getting the full game without the DLC, and that's exactly what the gaming companies want, because it'll make you spend more money. No one is forcing you to buy anything. And so what if gaming companies are making more money from it? Are they hurting anyone? No. Are they keeping game developers employed? Yes. It is completely up to you, as a consumer, to decide whether or not something is worth buying. It's a business. It's about making money. What do you think they are, a charity?

Edited February 8, 2013 by Agro

[Gone2Ground]

1360324648[/url]' post='2277788']

There were always expansion packs.

There would be no bitching if all DLC was expansion sized like Knights of the Nine

[Agro]

Then again, expansion packs were the price of a full game.

[Nanami Touko]

The full game has so much content that I'm not bothered by not having all the extra. I already have my cake. It's already got icing. The DLC is just like strawberries and maybe some sauce on top.

So basically the game is good enough on its own and the DLC just makes it better so I think it's worth buying ~'3'~

you don't need the DLC to enjoy the game fully either

[Firespark Faerie]

Honestly I'm not too bummed about the DLC. I'm quite satisfied with the game as it is. With exceptions, I tend to play RPGs for the story and characters rather than 100% completion, so I'm really fine without the extra maps characters and whatnot. I may purchase them if I find myself addicted to the gameplay, which seems likely at this point. Personally I don't feel compelled to buy and play all the extra content to feel as though I've "beaten" the game. This is nothing at all like many MMORPGs that are 'free' to play, but if you want to have even a decently strong character, you need to shell out a good amount of money for gear and such (I'm looking at you, Maplestory).

Edited February 8, 2013 by Firespark Faerie

[Raven]

You make it sound like this hasn't been happening for ages.

Pokemon has required you to have a link cable and friends with the game to get all the Pokemon.

Final Fantasy 8 had that stupid ridiculous little thing that you could use to play some pointless chocobo minigame.

As Integ said, there have been expansion packs since the dawn of time.

You can still get a full game of FE13, easily, without connecting to the internet at all. You almost always get the full game. But you think that you're not getting the full game without the DLC, and that's exactly what the gaming companies want, because it'll make you spend more money. No one is forcing you to buy anything. And so what if gaming companies are making more money from it? Are they hurting anyone? No. Are they keeping game developers employed? Yes. It is completely up to you, as a consumer, to decide whether or not something is worth buying. It's a business. It's about making money. What do you think they are, a charity?

Yes, I was thinking about Pokemon and link cables and such as I was writing my first post. And while it's been happening for a while, it has of late become very common.

And that whole part about spending even more money on one video game is what I dislike about the whole thing. The rhetorical questions you're asking are things I'm aware of. I know they want more of my money. I know nobody is forcing me to buy anything. I know game companies are not hurting anyone by creating DLC. The point of this topic is to state my dislike towards this method of marketing.

Can someone tell me how much it would cost to purchase all the DLC available for FE13?

[Hawk King]

I feel ya Raven.

I remember the days when you had to beat a game on harder difficulties to get secret or special items, characters, or vehicles. Nowadays anything extra has to be payed for via DLC.

It's especially sickening when the extra stuff is ALREADY ON THE DISC and you need to buy the DLC just to make it available to you. Marvel vs Capcom 3 did that.

Now I dont absolutely hate the idea of DLC. It just shouldn't make a game's price double.

[algae]

Then again, expansion packs were the price of a full game.

While the content and pricing for DLC can range from "another full game" to "a skin for that gun you don't use". It's fine as long as they actually get the prices right.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Alg

[shadowofchaos]

Can someone tell me how much it would cost to purchase all the DLC available for FE13?

I don't know about the English version, but for the Japanese version:

7,550 yen.

The game is 3,827 yen. That's nearly twice as much as the game.

That's $81 in the current exchange rate.

And I bought them twice.

Edited February 8, 2013 by shadowofchaos

[Bryan]

I don't know about the English version, but for the Japanese version:

7,550 yen.

The game is 3,827 yen. That's nearly twice as much as the game.

That's $81 in the current exchange rate.

And I bought them twice.

BUT, the american version is less, and they're selling it in packs. It costs six(?) dollars for the "Champions of Yore" set. ($1.5 Savings over american price, and the Jap. would cost 9.17 dollars, so it's almost a third less.)

[Icon of Sin]

This is why I love PC gaming with its free mods. It's especially true for games like the last three Elder Scrolls which can greatly enhance one's experience.

Some of them even have mods just for the expansions too.

[Superbus]

Honestly, this is just an expansion of the old expansion packs of the old days. Some were better than others.

Frankly, it's up to the consumer to determine what they like. If a company does DLC in a way that truly enhances the experience (Nintendo), then buy that DLC. If you're dealing with a company that either incorporates a pay-to-win scheme (EA) or who locks away otherwise normal stuff on the disc and sells an unlock code for it (Capcom), then don't buy the DLC; if it impacts the game, then don't buy the game. It's really that simple; vote with your wallet, because if you bitch about it after buying it, you stand no chance; they have your money, and that is literally all that matters

[Rehab]

Unless that causes you to decide to never spend money on that company's games again, or unless you manage to bitch loudly and convincingly enough to persuade some other people who otherwise would've bought in to not buy.

I haven't personally been shown to absolutely conclusive proof, like somebody actually in the industry going "yeah that's pretty much what happens," that any particular game had bits that were supposed to be in it to begin with ripped out and made DLC for the sole purpose of making more money, as opposed to the development schedule/budget etc making it impossible to release that content with the main game on time and tuned to the best of the developer's ability, though I wouldn't doubt they exist, and some games have definitely had setups that seemed fishy to me (Javik as day 1 DLC in Mass Effect 3 comes to mind, that dude was optional to the story like headshots are optional to gameplay).

I'm basically fine with DLC when it's the former latter or stuff like costumes or unbalanced weapons, which seem relatively harmless to me, and something that would basically never have seen the light of play if it couldn't be made DLC, but from time to time it does make me wonder if a little more cat-and-mouse between the makers and the customers is going on than is necessary.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Rehab

[Elieson]

There were always expansion packs.

Nintendo64 did it right

[peener weener]

there's a line with DLC really

there's good shit and then there's stupid-ass shit like day 1 dlc as has been mentioned

but dlc has been around foerever, just it wasn't called, uh, "dlc"

really, what you're saying is jaded by nostalgia and some sort of bullshit argument, and also possibly mad because you don't get to see tharja in a bikini in the vanilla game

you also don't need dlc to enjoy the game fully, usually the vanilla game is presented in a way that you don't need to add any shit to it to make it enjoyable and an experience on its own, save i guess shit like the elder scrolls games or s.t.a.l.k.e.r. where mods make it so much better

then there's stuff like the dark souls dlc, which is really good and sheds some light on some lore stuff that is still pretty much irrelevant to the plot of the game, but is very enjoyable still

basically: fuck off

why don't we discuss instead why dead space 3's implementation of microtransactions is fucking stupid as fuck

Edited February 8, 2013 by Stolypin Necktie

[Momo]

FE13 is like the worst example to use for this, because the game is apparently complete without getting any of the DLC. Are you really crying that you don't have a badly recolored mercenary named Roy?

There are definitely times things are taken out of games to sell later, but complaining about any DLC at all is just stupid.

There were always expansion packs.

Pretty much.

[Constable Reggie]

I'm sure that many of these additions are not necessary, but when you buy a game it's nice to have everything available to you from the start without having to pay more for extra things, even if they are not necessary. Take FE13. To enjoy this game fully, you must spend extra money to download extra maps and characters. You've payed for the game, but you can't use some units because you didn't pay extra. I think it's utter rubbish.

Calling bullshit on this. Not only can you simply get most of the characters via spotpass (oh no a different artwork big fucking deal), but most of the other rewards are completely extraneous (extra gold, extra exp, weapons, convos, etc) that it doesn't affect the main game in any way whatsoever and legitimately feel extra and not required. FE13 did dlc right by not making it seem like it felt cut out of the game. The game's already like 20+ hours long with like 40+ chapters, what are you complaining about?

Use a better example of this, like games that use online passes, or have day 1 dlc, or basically any other EA game.Take Mass Effect 3, where one of the most important characters in the entire trilogy, already part of the base game, is locked behind 10 bucks.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Raven]

One thing here: Why do people think i mad bro or "crying"? I'm just chucking my opinion out there for the sake of discussion; I'm not expecting anything to be done about it. Neither am I saying anyone's wrong or that I'm right (as proven by several good DLC examples which I personally have no experience with). I don't even own FE13 yet so what do I know. The levels of hostility are pretty impressive; it's almost like I've offended someone over this.

[Constable Reggie]

What are you talking about? You made a completely baseless claim that Fe13 isn't/doesn't feel complete without the dlc and complained about it, and we pointed out that it's not the case at all. Instead of adding absolutely nothing to the discussion and making something out of nothing, why don't you try talking about what dlc in Fe13 is absolutely necessary for the game to feel complete, or talk about other, actually legitimate games that don't feel complete without dlc.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Agro]

I haven't personally been shown to absolutely conclusive proof, like somebody actually in the industry going "yeah that's pretty much what happens," that any particular game had bits that were supposed to be in it to begin with ripped out and made DLC for the sole purpose of making more money, as opposed to the development schedule/budget etc making it impossible to release that content with the main game on time and tuned to the best of the developer's ability, though I wouldn't doubt they exist, and some games have definitely had setups that seemed fishy to me (Javik as day 1 DLC in Mass Effect 3 comes to mind, that dude was optional to the story like headshots are optional to gameplay).

Now that I think about it, L.A. Noire did have some cases that were only available as DLC, and they were meant to be part of the original game. Though to be fair, they didn't put them in because it wouldn't fit onto the game disc.

[Raven]

What are you talking about? You made a completely baseless claim that Fe13 isn't/doesn't feel complete without the dlc and complained about it, and we pointed out that it's not the case at all. Instead of adding absolutely nothing to the discussion and making something out of nothing, why don't you try talking about what dlc in Fe13 is absolutely necessary for the game to feel complete, or talk about other, actually legitimate games that don't feel complete without dlc.

I don't own FE13, so what do I know. What I do know is that if I did own FE13, I would like to have all the DLC content, but it will not happen. I believe that the extra content is overpriced considering what it is and how little it adds to the game itself. As Seph said, the game feels complete even without it. I trust his opinion, which has satisfied me in terms of my FE13 thoughts regarding its DLC (thanks for that by the way, Seph).

In terms of better examples, I have none. But I know they exist. I created this topic so that examples can rise from other members and discussed accordingly.

I still remember the days where you'd buy the game, and you'd get the whole game. Nice and simple. Feel free to disagree, by all means.