DLC. Obviously controversial for some. But why? Shouldn't the proposition of a piece of DLC for X amount of dollars be dealt with the same as the proposition of a game for X amount of dollars?

Having started out a DLC skeptic years ago, I now look at the debate on the practice with a good deal of puzzlement. Why are some people – especially PC gamers – so provoked by it? And more importantly, when they criticize DLC, why aren’t they using better arguments? Because I do believe they have a point. It’s just that time and again, it seems to get lost in the shouting match. Here's my stab at analyzing the situation.

How it used to be
A game was released on the PC for X amount of dollars, usually with modding support. The community made mods which were available for free. The developer kept close ties with the (modding) community. Sometimes it even released additional content for the game for free. If released with a price tag attached, you could bet it was a substantial expansion put out quite some time after the game first came out.

Since supporting modding and releasing free content takes resources, the majority which didn’t download mods or free developer content (perhaps because they didn’t want to bother with it, perhaps because they weren’t tech savvy enough) were basically made into subsidizers of those who did.

To be fair, there was a symbiotic relationship in effect here. Those making/downloading mods and free content were the ones most likely to buy the game on release (as opposed to second hand or from a bargain bin where margins are lower). They were also more likely to spread word of mouth, buy merchandise and preorder the game – the latter two giving the developer additional resources between game releases. This would of course allow it to produce more and better games, also benefitting those who didn’t download mods or free content.

Still, was it enough to make the system pull its own weight? I don't know, to be honest. But for the sake of argument, let's say it did. If so, why not keep things the way they were? Thing is, it doesn’t matter even if it does work out. That’s not how the free market works. It always wants more.

How things are now
More people buy console games – on closed platforms where publishers retain full control over anything released. Finding, downloading and installing a mod is way too complicated for the average PC consumer, never mind the console audience (and then you have the technical limitations).

So is DLC replacing mods? If you think about it, the modding equivalent of a full-length game or expansion was the only thing modders rarely managed to pull off, at least in a timely manner and at the same level of quality as the development team proper – not that it didn’t happen, mind you. But for everyone that succeeded, ten failed.

Blockbuster game development teams have gotten increasingly bigger. Titles with AAA production values have become radically more expensive. And setting up modding tools for public release and supporting them hasn’t gotten easier. Still, for some companies, it does still make sense.

Modding makes sense for Valve, a company with a strong PC gaming background and behind the leading PC game digital distribution service. It makes sense for Bethesda, with a big hardcore RPG audience where the tools lend themselves well for modders to build their own adventures in the Fallout engine. It makes sense for Epic, with Unreal Engine 3 being so widely used.

But it doesn’t make sense for everybody. DLC, on the other hand, always lets the developer continue to build on existing technology, using established production pipelines. Of course margins will be higher! As for choosing what should be in the game and what to release as DLC… I’m not going to claim to know how every single developer thinks. Apparently though, some give DLC its own budget with a profit and loss analysis separate from the main product.

The pro-DLC argument then is, care at first only about what the main product has to offer. Is it worth it? If so, do buy. If not, don’t. The choice is yours. And when we release DLC, just rinse and repeat.

Seems logical enough, no? Looks like the deal with DLC is no different from the way games have always been sold. Surely gamers must since long have realized that games aren’t a charity, but rather a commercial product. So what is all the fuss about? What is it about DLC that’s different?

Lost transparency in the revenue model
The answer lies in how the revenue model has changed. Whereas a developer’s revenue model was brutally clear cut for a consumer to understand before, it has now become muddled.

Gamers used to getting a “complete” game now have to live with the fact that additional content, like weapons, can be released post-launch for a fee (as with Just Cause 2, for instance). This is new: the completionist might feel exploited. Is that feeling justified? It depends.

Introducing DLC isn’t a Pareto improvement. That is to say, the advent of DLC has without a doubt made things worse for some gamers, while it’s also made them better for others. The free market business guy looks at a game asking: “Is the contents of this product worth what we’re asking consumers to pay?” If the answer is deemed yes, it can be released without regrets.

And so some gamers feel forced to second-guess the free market business guy. For them, it was problem enough to try to figure out if a game was worth the price before DLC existed. Now, they feel somewhat peculiar decisions are being made, along the lines of “By our estimations this game will be worth enough as it is, so don’t add more to it.” But in what they might consider the good old days this practice surely must have existed too, it just meant that any superfluous manpower could be laid off (saving money), or put to work on another project, speeding up its progress.

Now, if the manpower’s kept on the project anyway, it might result in more sales because of a better product, but the question is if it would have been enough to justify that investment of additional manpower. Would it have sold better enough? That can’t always be an easy question to answer. Obviously, there’s a sweet spot where just the right amount of work is put into a game before it is released. Any developer will try to hit that sweet spot. Any developer which doesn’t risks being hurt in the long-term.

Today, a third option is added: the manpower can be put to work on making additional content for the game, content which can be released afterwards for a fee. The difference for the consumer is being able to choose to pay for more content as opposed to when that choice was never given. If you accept that games are a commercial product, then from a purely financial standpoint, nothing has become worse for anyone.

Still, you have that completionist, asking if content is being held back (whether this decision was made in planning or in post-production matters less) because someone figured the game’s already worth enough. For that person, knowing as much as possible about the game before purchase has suddenly become drastically more important!

There may be other factors in play and I’d love to hear your take on it in the comments, but the main one I believe is creeping fear: "Am I being ripped off? Is this game really worth it as it is? I love games – can I bring myself to love this game enough to buy it but not enough to buy the DLC? Or would that make me less of a gamer in the eyes of my peers?" This is new.

The best way to avoid the fear is to stay informed. Knowing is half the battle and all that. It’s not always easy. I firmly believe the developers have a responsibility to help us gamers out with this. So to conclude, I’ve made a list of Do’s and Don’ts to help all you DLC skeptics out there.

Do’s

• Do demand from developers that they be super responsible about being clear on what is included in the game and what is not. Do complain about developers not releasing enough information about their DLC plans.
• Do wait before buying the game if you think the developer hasn't been straightforward enough. Hold off on preordering. Send a signal. The hardcore crowd may not be as big as the rest, but it can be extremely important. It spreads word of mouth, it buys merchandise… it even spends money on DLC – if it thinks it’s worth it. Be sure to figure that out before you spend any money. Hold off entirely if you really believe the game isn’t worth what's asked. Straight-up boycotting is of little use, because you can always buy the game later on when it’s cheaper and worth it to you. The developer’s margins will be lower as a consequence, so they’ll feel it anyway.

Don’ts

• Don’t pirate games because of DLC. It’s a lousy excuse. You won’t make the developers more straightforward, and it’ll only give them more ammo to throw at you.
• Don’t attack the delivery method just because it happens to be a convenient one. Just because it’s on the disc and can be unlocked with a code from day one doesn’t mean it would have been there anyway if the developer couldn’t charge for it. Because it probably wouldn’t have been developed in the first place.
• Don’t whine about developers being greedy unless they are lying or hiding the truth (in which case you should, loudly). Oh, and unless you think the market for games isn’t functioning, or because what you’re really angry about is market economy itself (which is fine, I just want you to know what you’re dealing with).