Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

My thoughts on DLC
To me, DLC is a double edged sword. At one end it can be beneficial while on the other it can be harmful to both publishers and consumers.
But most people focus on the Nickel-and-Diming aspect. However attention should be drawn towards how content is delivered.
On disc vs off disc DLC.
I was reading comments on an article about DLC after the Street Fighter x Tekken outrage and most of them said that they will refuse to buy any game with On Disc DLC. However if you think of it, that won't do anything. It will just make publishers take the On Disc off and make it a download on XBLA and PSN which in turn takes up more precious hard drive space on Gamer's consoles.
Now I'm fine with On-Disc DLc for that purpose. I remember having to download massive patches when new characters came out for Mortal Kombat which took up quite a bit of my hard drive space (atleast they softened it with free Retro costumes) but I think what Developers like Capcom need to do is tell gamers ahead of time what their DLC plans are. While the whole Buy New vs Used is a whole 'nother argument, if developers announced their DLC plans ahead of time then gamers will be able to decide whether it'll be worth paying $60 for a new game or more for collector's editions and such. For example after I found out about the on disc dlc characters for Street Fighter x Tekken at first I was fine but then I remembered my current money situation and decided to just rent it and buy the Vita version. I still want to play the game but because I found out about the On-disc I was able to easily make a decision.

Now I can understand the rage at On-Disc DLC. With the tough economy right now and games costing $60 a pop, people want the full deal, the whole enchilada, etc. However the moment we hear 'On Disc DLC'. We immediately think the game is incomplete. While this can be the case sometimes I believe we need to think thoroughly on other aspects as to why there is on-disc DLC.
1: Developers may be holding onto the content for later on to breath new life into a game.
2: There may be times with a the DLC portion is unfinished but on the disc. There for after release, developers can finish up the work and then release it for a fee.

That's one point that gets people heated. The "Fee" point. Now I'm all for DLC as long as it's reasonably priced.

Now on the 'Unfinished Game' bit. Let's take a look at Street Fighter x Tekken. Now while there are some network issues, they are caused by the new netcode rather than developers mistakes. However the game is still, in my mind, a complete package. It's still a fun game and with a current roster of 40+ characters is pretty dope. I tend to joke a bit sometimes by saying that if Capcom released the on disc characters on Day one then people would complain about it being overwhelming.
However when it comes to fighting games, extra characters being held back does not make the game incomplete. Now on the flipside i'll agree that it is unacceptable on cases such as ME3 holding back DLC that contains an important part of the story. But I've never really played the Mass Effect games so I can't exactly comment on that.

Now I believe DLC is a good thing as it breathes new life into pretty awesome games. But currently most publishers are getting greedy with the model.
Here's how the model should work.

Day 1 DLC: Should only be available either free or for a small fee (About $0.99) as a way to say thanks for supporting the game.
Not alienate people: When Mortal Kombat was doing the DLC characters, people had an option to go to Gamestop and purchase the DLC via code/etc and put it in their system if they are somehow unable to purchase and download the DLC on a console's digital market place.
Inform ahead of time: Publishers and developers NEED to inform gamers ahead of time on what their future DLC plans are. This way consumers can decide if it'll be worth the $60 or not.
Take out Season Passes and Online Passes: I don't even need to explain this one.
What should be DLC and what should not.
Suitable DLC
New Maps
New Weapons
Costumes and/or costume peices­
Character packs for Fighting Games
Extra Quests that hold no importance to the main story of the game.
Side Stories (like the Deus Ex side story you could buy), once again that are un important to the main story.

Unsuitable DLC
Important peices of the Story
­Anything over the $20 mark
Season Passes
Online Passes

Also one needs to know how DLC usually works. After some research here's how it's usually done.

When a game is completed then it's Gold. This is an industry term for when a game is ready to ship.
Now of course there is a length of time between when a game goes Gold. This is usually when Developers start working on DLC. This is what happened when Borderlands was ready for release and the dev team worked on the DLC expansions.

Also... we need to talk about you. The consumer. If you buy a game and like it and you want to support it by buying DLC. Go ahead. If you buy a game and like it but don't want to buy DLC, Go ahead. What people seem to miss is that 90% of the time, DLC is optional. You don't have to buy it.
Now if something like the Mass Effect 3 shpiel happens again and you decide to boycott, more power to you. But don't turn around and torrent or pirate the DLC or the game itself. The point of a boycott is to show the companies that you don't NEED the product. Pirating just shows that you'll go to low lengths just to play it.

Now I'm going to rant a bit here
To try and argue that this is an ethically wrong practice is ridiculous. These are BUSINESSES not CHURCHES. They want money. Get over it. They've been like this since they came around. It's not their practice to be morally North. Furthermore, who are you to say what is the "full game" or not. They spent how many hours developing this? How many men and women went into making this game from scratch? If they say the game is done - that's it. And you can deal with it. You don't read a book, say it had a crappy ending and then petition the author to change it saying that the book "wasn't finished" or that it was a "less than complete" book.