The DLC debate: should most DLC be included in the original package?

Downloadable content is a very early and unsure part of the gaming medium.

Unsteady price tags, ranging amounts of content, and a good deal of controversy shroud this topic. There's quite a lot of areas to talk about, but the most intriguing aspect is that of it's release dates.

Some games wait half a year to release DLC, while others wait only two weeks. Upon hearing that Mafia II's first DLC pack was to be released two weeks after the base game's release, I was surprised. Many fans were upset that they would have to pay money for content of a game they hadn't even finished in the first place. My original thought on why we had DLC, was to keep our interest in a game we would have otherwise grown tired of.

Joe Barbaro steels the spotlight in the Joe's Adventures pack for Mafia II.

Taking a break from a game is healthy, especially when you know you have more of the game to look forward to in the future. But when DLC is released so swiftly, it seems to lose that interest.

So from here it's very easy to agree with people that DLC should either be fit into the package, or given some time before release. But what some people don't take into account, is the fact that some DLC may not fit into the original storyline. For instance, the Minerva's Den DLC puts you into the metal shell of a different big daddy, Sigma. His story follows a different path, although it is the same game. So if this were to be released within the first game, it may have felt rushed or rather cheap in order to fit into the original story arch.

Fun Fact: Minerva is the Greek goddess of wisdom and is often associated with owls.

I know Minerva's Den wasn't released within two weeks of BioShock 2, but it brings up another argument. The player by no means is forced to purchase DLC. But when a game offers a shorter play time than other games, buyers may feel scammed. If someone payed the average sixty dollars for a brand new game which turns out to be short, why should they have to pay more money for additional content?

I enjoy DLC a lot. Whenever I like a game, I always look forward to the additional content. It certainly keeps my interest in games up, even if I do have to wait five months. DLC is still a very new concept that needs more time to develop and become a more appreciated addition to any video game. Although it may not always be as good as the original game, it's still a great way for developers to experiment with new and innovative game styles.

This article is my response after pondering the ups and downs of DLC whilst enjoying the Joe's Adventures pack for Mafia II. Thank you, Dan Hsu, for the awesome gift.

(7)

Sandy Morley

December 19, 2010

I refuse to buy DLC.

Doug Otto

@Sandy That's interesting. Why is that?

Matthew Polen

DLC is, as you expressed, a touchy subject. I paid for the notoriously infamous Horse Armor DLC (I loved Oblivion that much). There are multiple perspectives to consider. When DLC is put out too early , it can be seen as an extra way to milk money out of gamers. Why not just include it in the game in the first place? Yet, as you point out, if it's something akin to Minerva's Den, it might not make sense within the context of the story.

The Force Unleashed 2, a criminally short game, received DLC about two months after the games release, but the complaints about the game's brevity actually influenced the devs to cut the price to $1. I still don't know where I stand. I guess it depends upon multiple factors: How much I like the game, how many hours I'll get out of it (as in the case of map packs), if there's achievements (why no love, Assassin's Creed 2?), etc.

December 20, 2010

Not everyone has a suitable internet connection. One year I was capped at 3 GB of downloads a month, and the next - I had only wireless internet, and couldn't afford the £50 for a 360 wireless adapter. It's more than a little annoying to spend what little disposable income you have on a game, only to find it's not the full package. If you've spent a long time finishing a game and getting all of the achievements, for example, but it refuses to acknowledge you've completed it because of something that's not available to you? That's annoying.

It's the same reason I hate multiplayer achievements, the ship-broke-and-patch mentality, no offline split-screen and these ridiculous codes that you have to use online to unlock the full game you just paid for.

Outside of actually playing online, you shouldn't have to suffer a lesser game just because your internet isn't up to speed.

Anthony Logsdon

December 28, 2010

The worse part about it all is on games like Halo 3 and Gears of War 2, if you don't buy the DLC, you can't play hardly ANY of the online game modes that you were able to play before the dlc came out. So your game is basically crippled because you refuse to pay $30 for all the new maps.

Daye Williams

I believe DLC is a great medium & has a solid potential in pushing the fan base of IP's the problem is the publisher's intentions. I was astounded to learn that "Ghostbusters" got it's 1st DLC after a year...me and my friends use toguzzle beers & play GhostBusters all the time, but by the time the DLC came out, I already consider the title "play in 5 years when you're browsing through your games".

DLC needs more guidelines & set rules. When you buy an expansion pack for a PC game there is so much you're getting while there is DLC on the website or mods in the community. Console gaming hasn't got a hold of the potential of the mass popularity they can generate with titles already ganering fans. At the end of the day it comes down to technicalities, where questions like "should the original game strip content for space & pack it in a wholesome DLC expansion?" or "Is the $15 of 4hours of gameplay really just lost levels designed as a marketing ploy?"...Intentions x Morals.