Ever since FF13-2 and Mass Effect 3 there has been a big DLC debate. People hating on release date DLC and those hating on when it comes out months after the initial release of the game.
The release date DLC argument- this style of DLC usually is needed for the main core of the game, and most of the time comes with a Collectors Edition of the game, so the argument is "why didn't you get the CE of the game?". The other side is, I shouldn't have to buy it to enjoy the game, that is the point of DLC. Mass Effect 3 did this with From Ashes, which irked a lot of people.
The months later argument: Well now add onto the came that I love, make me play even more flesh out the story line, post game content is awesome!. The argument is well if there are no DLC for 4-6 months people have put the game down..or sold it..or forgotten what happened in the game. Arkham City is doing this with the new Harley Quinn DLC coming out at the end of May.
The joint argument- that DLC should not have to cover the ending of the game FF13-2 and Mass Effect 3 are both guilty of this fact..yah here is the ending but for 15$ you can see the true ending. Mass Effect 2 did this vaguely, I mean Arrival did this..but the end of ME2 wrapped up nicely without Arrival, it just made the link between 2 to 3 better.
I choose to side with release date DLC, mostly because I am getting the collectors edition anyway, give it to me up front so I can enjoy the fullness of the game, DLC release months later I have moved onto another game or forgotten the plot of it.
Now the balance is to keep releasing DLC once a month or every two weeks to keep people fresh and interested in the game, then release something huge like 4 months down the road, that I think is the perfect way to go.
What is your take on the DLC debate?
"When four or more beings step into a time warp, the Conservation of Time theorem states that they will turn up at the space-time coordinates of least resistance. Here." —Gaspar, Guru of Time
Just read your note as I am writing about having a GO at DLC business, I real disagree with it. When you have a game (i.e Batman Arkham city) and if you want to achieve Platinum level you need a DLC to do that and I think it's just purely a con and dishonest from game developers.
ReplyDeleteFor me a DLC is something which add something to the game, not something which should prevent you from completing the game. FF-13-2 and batman arkham city are the prime example of this.
As from ME3 I do believe it's more than player feedback than anything else.
I do agree that depend on the time to market DLC may come later i.e: 3-4 months and add challenge maps/clothes or even news character.
But when a DLC prevent you from completing an achievement, there is then an intention to force you buy it (depend if you are a perfectionist in your game).
All that to say that DLC is bad for gamer and I will never pay for a game which force you to buy a DLC. Hence why I cracked Batman Arkham Asylum/City on PC and bought them 2nd hand on PS3.