Are Dlcs becoming necessary in Games?

[Hunter_M♤cer]

You play games right? Well most games you play have a 90% chance of having a dlc correct? As you see Dlcs are becoming popular and massive to the point that it's becoming a massive trend that every game does. Telling people to stop with Dlcs is like telling a Earthquake to stop

Not all Dlcs are entirely bad there are some good ones

Examples of a good Dlc:
Gta 4 Eflc which is Tbogt and Tlad

Examples of a bad Dlc:
Paradox Games dlcs

So in your opinion are Dlcs becoming a necessary staple to gaming?

[Hunter_M♤cer]

As long as the dlcs aren't trash it's fine

[Mathius]

I don't have a problem with expansion type DLC's that add more playable content to the game. I think this is great.

I can remember playing games like the original Metal Gear Solid and God of War and I always thought that if they just made new levels for them and put a cheaper price tag on the games, they would sell, without actually having to change the game, add a new story, etc. like you do for a sequel.

DLC's can be that idea.

But there are also DLC's that are just cosmetic crap and it annoys me, that A.. Developers want to charge for that, and B. Players keep paying for it.

Yeah, I know. "Why can't you just let people enjoy things." Because that means a company is spending time, money, and other resources on something that I don't like. It means they're making less of the thing I enjoy.

I find Bethesda to be an interesting case because they took a ton of flack for Horse Armor in the early 2000's, for Oblivion. I remember thinking it wasn't a big deal because the price seemed low to me. Maybe at the time, it wasn't though. I didn't start playing Bethesda games until Skyrim.

Now here we are years later, people still bring up Horse Armor. It's become infamous.

But nobody made a peep when Bethesda charged for the Contraptions DLC, for Fallout 4, or the Gun Runners Arsenal for New Vegas.

[Ice Robertson]

I like how some places bundle them up, like season pass 1 and 2 etc.

So instead of buying each DLC just buy whichever season you want at a cheaper price.

[Goldias]

Probably. It's a good way to sell half game at full price.

[Fake]

Day 1 DLC? NO!!

DLC that adds content to the game after 1-3yrs? Yes please.

[Hunter_M♤cer]

I guess Dlcs arent that bad, it just depends on who makes it

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

If it makes game better, adds additional content and is reasonably priced then it`s fine. Something like Euro Truck Simulator 2 or American Truck Simulator would never get done without map DLC, it`s simply too big job.

[☎need4naiim☎]

That's how i buy AAA games nowadays:

¶It gets released >>> Add to wishlist if it IS good enough. (like the last Tomb Raider)

¶It gets myriad of DLCs, expansion packs, season content >>> just see what they added.

¶All of the content gets combined into a "GOTY Edition" or "Definitive Edition" or "Gold Edition"... etc. >>> Develop a "Bruce Willis" smile in your face.

¶During a Winter/Summer sale, these editions get in a 67%-90% Sale >>> Open up Cookiemonster mode and grab them and "consume" them ALL at once.



Wait!!! what to do in the meantime until that happens? >>> Play the games you bought earlier but never touched.

[Tonepoet]

Why would downloadable content ever be necessary? You can hypothetically just incorporate anything that would be downloadable content into the base game,

Also, a good base game is ideally going to be good regardless of whether or not you purchase the downloadable content.

[Γαῖα]

Obviously i wouldn't say its all games developed but it appears these days that the base game is just a mere hook to push DLCs.

[Vakers]

I had to do a double take because I wasn't sure this thread was created in 2023. A little late to notice, aren't you? Games have been heavy on the microtransactions and DLC for years and years now. Doing things like selling "Season Passes" upfront for planned DLC.

Back in the day they were just called expansion packs and there didn't seem to be any guarantee if a game would even get one.

[White Knight]

It's called marketing.

People will only pay so much for a video game. When all their friends are talking about a dlc that is only ten or fifteen bucks, a lot of people will lay down a little more money because FOMO.

I wait for games to go on sale. Then I pick up the dlcs (after several playthroughs) in some game of the year edition or whatever when they are dirt cheap.

Now if they made dlcs that you needed to finish the base game, that would be something worth getting upset about. Since that doesn't happen, dlcs are not "necessary". They are an option, like sprinkles on your ice-cream, except you have to pay for it.

[Γαῖα]

引用自 White Knight：

It's called marketing.

People will only pay so much for a video game. When all their friends are talking about a dlc that is only ten or fifteen bucks, a lot of people will lay down a little more money because FOMO.

I wait for games to go on sale. Then I pick up the dlcs (after several playthroughs) in some game of the year edition or whatever when they are dirt cheap.

Now if they made dlcs that you needed to finish the base game, that would be something worth getting upset about. Since that doesn't happen, dlcs are not "necessary". They are an option, like sprinkles on your ice-cream, except you have to pay for it.

Me to. I haven't bar certain indie to middle market games bought a AAA game on release since the days of PS2.
The one luxury is i don't have to care about whether or not i find the DLC/s necessary or not.

[FallenStar]

Elden Ring is solid proof that you don't need DLC to improve on a game but if it's good, additions of such nature aren't bad at all.
However, DLC like the one introduced in Mass Effect 2 and 3 are no-nos to me. Just delay the game if you can and add it then as a part of the whole experience.

[Mathius]

引用自 White Knight：

It's called marketing.

People will only pay so much for a video game.

There seems to be some push back right now against the new price point for AAA games being $70.

I haven't seen enough evidence to know whether or not it's affecting sales or not.

Like most things nowadays, someone complains, several people defend it, but then someone else complains, etc. etc.

For me, personally, I understand there's been little inflation over the years in the video game market.... BUT...

I can't see how publishers have higher costs when there's little to no manufacturing with the move to everything being digital.

Also, a lot of games have a lot of features I don't necessarily want, or need.

I also find that studios spend money on things that don't matter.

As an example: I want my video games to have voiced NPC's. I certainly want good, quality, voiced NPC's. I don't need celebrity voiced NPC's.

Also, if we again take Bethesda as an example. They're putting Starfield up at the new $69.99 price tag. Someone said the first DLC will be free though at that price. Maybe.

If that's the case, it's not really free, is it? You're paying for it up front for something you know nothing about?

Also, are they going to cram it full of MTX like they did with FO76 so they can make more money? If that's the case, I can't help but double down on the idea that $70 isn't necessary, vs. the old $50-$60 price points.