How DLC Is A Thorn In The Side Of Gamers
The recent discovery of a bug on Destiny that revealed future downloadable was already present on the disc but hidden away (and has since been confirmed by Bungie to be absolutely real) has reignited the debate among gamers about whether or not DLC is starting to get out of hand. On the surface, DLC clearly seems like it is a good thing for gaming. It lengthens the life span of games by providing periodically dropped new content as well as keeping things fresh and interesting when otherwise a game would have long become stale and boring. Who could not like that?
If downloadable content wasn't being abused, then nobody would be complaining but the fact of the matter is that too many game developers have been using downloadable content simply as a way to milk additional money out of their customers for the same content they otherwise would have had included with their game purchase. This Destiny leak is a shining example of that. If the Destiny DLC has already been created and is actually included on the disc when it was shipped out… why was it not part of the game to begin with?
One of the biggest criticisms of Destiny by critics is that the game quickly becomes repetitive. Many of the user reviews on Metacritic rated the game especially low not because it was bad or glitchy, but because it felt like half a game. These reviewers said prospective Destiny customers would be wise to wait awhile until some of the expansions are released and there's actually some variety of things to do rather than the same raid over and over and over again. The hidden DLC on the Destiny disc has led some gamers to speculate that Bungie intentionally chopped off parts of the game to make paid DLC and surreptitiously cheat people out of game content that should have already been accessible with your $60 purchase.
There can be no arguing that DLC has become ubiquitous in the gaming industry. Almost every game released these days seems to have some sort of subsequently released paid DLC down the line whether it be maps, missions, costumes, or skins. This wasn't always the case. The first downloadable content I personally remember ever purchasing were the map packs for Halo 2 on the original Xbox (ironically also released by Bungie).DLC was way different back then, however. The first Halo 2 map pack, called the Bonus Map Pack, was released for free on April 25th, 2005. The map pack was free because it was sponsored by Mountain Dew and added two new maps to the game: Warlock and Containment. On the same day, the Killtacular Pack was also released. This was paid DLC, it cost gamers $4.99, and included two additional maps in Turf and the ever-popular Sanctuary. Slightly over two months later on June 28th, the Killtacular Pack became permanently free. The third map pack for Halo 2, the Maptacular Pack, was released on July 5th, 2005 for $11.99 and included a whopping five new maps: Backwash, Elongation, Gemini, Relic, and Terminal. Like the previous map pack, it was also made permanently free to download about two months later on August 30th. Also worth noting is that Halo 2 came with twelve standard multiplayer maps, more than any other Halo game since.
Let's compare that with the more recent Halo 4. Halo 4 came with ten maps and had four DLC map packs: the Crimson, Majestic, Castle, and Bullseye packs. The first three map packs each included three new maps and cost $10. The Bullseye pack had two additional maps for $6. These prices are still current today – the packs never became free like the old Halo 2 ones.
So Halo 2 came with twelve maps and had nine downloadable maps. If you waited a few months after each map pack was released you could download them for free so you had a total of 21 maps to play on without having to spend another cent. Games back then retailed for $50 so you got 21 maps for $50.
Halo 4 meanwhile came with ten maps and had eleven downloadable maps. The downloadable maps had to be purchased for $36. Considering games nowadays cost $60 at retail, this means you get 21 maps for $96.
In other words, you aren't actually getting any benefit here. You are still getting the same exact number of multiplayer maps to be play on. The only difference being that now gamers have to spend almost twice as much money for the same amount of content as they used to get. How does that help gamers? It doesn't.
Even if the more diehard, impatient Halo 2 gamers decided to purchase those map packs when they were released, they still got a better deal. Gamers were spending about $2.50 per new map on Halo 2 compared to $4.57 per new map for Halo 4. Ouch.
Unfortunately, this is just one example. There are countless other examples such as gamers having to pay for missions in games like Assassin's Creed (sometimes having to dish out an extra $30 just to get the rest of the game), day one DLC being released for big name titles like Mass Effect 3, and numerous releases of map packs and “expansions” for shooters online. Call of Duty is one of the worst offenders of the DLC creep. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare came with seventeen maps included on the disc and had just one map pack released, the Variety Map Pack that included four additional maps for $10 ($2.50 per new map). That's 24 maps for a total of $70 or about $2.92 per map.
Compare that to Call of Duty: Ghosts which came with fourteen maps included on the disc and has already had FOUR map pack releases. Each map pack has four new maps and costs $15 (about $3.75 per map). There was also a bonus map available to download for free if you were a Season Pass subscriber or if you had pre-ordered the game. That's 31 maps for a total of $120 or about $3.87 per map. So to get the full online multiplayer experience of Call of Duty 4, that cost you $70 while to get the full online multiplayer experience for Call of Duty: Ghosts, it would cost you $120. Sure you're actually getting more total maps, but many of them are game-type specific and don't even come up very often in matchmaking. You're also paying a higher rate per map which doesn't really make sense. Isn't buying things in bulk usually supposed to save you money?
You might argue that this stuff is all optional and you don't need it to enjoy the game. Maybe that's true in some cases but in too many, the DLC missions are very important to the storyline of the game. In some games (such as Asura's Wrath) you literally have to buy DLC to get the “real” ending! How ridiculous is that! Even when it comes to map packs for online shooters these aren't really optional. If you chose not to buy a map pack, you get placed into a separate matchmaking queue with other players who only have the core maps. As you could imagine, this queue gets smaller and smaller as time goes on and you might find yourself waiting for games a lot longer and playing against the same people more and more. It also can be problematic if you want to play with a friend who does have the map pack because partying up with you disables his, thus his money is going to waste.
As we have already seen in this article, DLC isn't giving gamers any additional content they wouldn't otherwise have had. Therefore, gamers should be against it! Developers are charging them for parts of the game that would have and should have been included as part of your original purchase. Instead of paying $60 for a complete game you now have to drop up to $120 in some cases.
A big reason that developers do this is because it helps them get around the used game market. Developers and publishers absolutely hate when people buy used games from somewhere like GameStop because they don't see a cut of that sale. When Microsoft announced it was going to have DRM-restrictions for used games on Xbox One, former Epic Games designer Cliff Bleszinski supported the decision saying, “You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high while also having used and rental games existing. The numbers do NOT work people.” (source: https://twitter.com/therealcliffyb ) Fortunately the massive amount of backlash from gamers forced Microsoft to reverse their decision. Downloadable content makes it so used games aren't a complete loss for developers and publishers. Even if they don't get a share of the initial game sale, at least they can cash in on the ensuing DLC sales. No wonder then that DLC is becoming more and more prevalent and content on the actual game is becoming more and more scant.
Downloadable content is a thorn in the side of gamers that needs to be pulled. This is content you've already paid for and should have a right to access without an additional premium, especially if that content was already finished and came completed on the disc as with Mass Effect 3 and secretly with Destiny.
Imagine if the movie industry pulled a stunt like this. Imagine if you had to pay extra to see all the scenes for a specific character or you had to pay extra to see the end of the freaking movie! That would never fly in movies and it shouldn't fly in games either.
Like this article? Be sure to check out Why Games Were Better Without Multiplayer .
Tags: DLC, multiplayer, destiny, halo, call of duty, bungie
DLC... The three letters that can make and break a game.
DLC's can swing in both directions, for example in dark souls (1) the artorias of the abyss DLC was awesome and was really well thought out and I enjoyed it alot. However DLC on forza games pisses me off ! Half of the cars end up as DLC why ? whats so special about them ? most aren't really worth it. Take the lambo aventador J in forza horizon, it practically is the same car as the original aventador. The performance increase is null since the highest speed in the game without mods is 273 MPH give or take a few MPH and thats with the buggatti EB110. In forza 4 I had enough, the porsches were all DLC. Whatever the reason I wasn't to bothered because I hate them all because they are like COD always the same and nothing new.why put them in the game when they are all DLC ?
With respect to some games DLC's are just cheap ways for the developers to cash in on a successful game and that is a bitter way to repay us for buying the game
So unfair and greedy the dlc culture
What have we all learned from this? DO NOT BUY GAMES ON RELEASE DATE!!! Let the gaming sites, angryjoes and others review the game first. Remember the bugs that keep haunting some AAA games like Rome2 in the total war series or the patching job needed to get AC unity to work. Concerning Bungie it does seem that they cut out about 90% of the story. "the warmind rasputin is still defending certain key areas and technology.. we need to find him" and then you get missions on the moon, Venus, mars and some other places. So there is no "real search for Rasputin" (maybe something thy purposefully cut out to make players go over and over and over again to the same maps) don't get me wrong artwork is great but still story is weak, unfinished. That a "hidden" DLC was actually present on the disk is a huge slap/punch in the face of gamers everywhere. So I suggest to "hit em where it hurts" and that can be done by postponing your game purchases with 3-5 weeks after new game releases.
I think this is a valid measure to go against the used game market, but only for new content (not 'already included' content).
But with a tweak.
Add an activation code that can be used 1 time FOR DLC'S! , just like registration codes, and it will allow you to purchase them (or download them free). When you sell the game to money leechers such as Gamestop, you still will be able to play without the code, but not be able to get DLC's, if someone want DLC's, well, buy the game?
Is this that difficult? No it isn't.
This is not DLC, this is cash grabbing and cut content from rushed out games. The days of cheat codes, unlockables, and expansion packs are long dead and you guys killed it. Good going, idiots.
The systemic problem is precisely you "free market" parrots who drank the koolaid from the teats of your economics teachers.
No, it won't do to just silently decide not to buy it, unless there is outrage it's not going to stop. I don't give "kudos" to people who get away with ripping people off just because they can. Making money is not a virtue that justifies unscrupulous behaviour.
Everyone knows that there are always people who will get sucked in if you put something out there. People need to be educated.
Some of you seem to think that nobody should have the right to criticize someone making money.
Some DLC is unnecessary and we (consumers) only feed into the machine when we purchase things like 2 maps for ten dollars. However DLC that adds depth to the game is very much worth the price. I'd point to Borderlands and Gearbox as great examples of well made DLC that is absolutely worth purchasing. Like someone has already said we vote with our dollar, so if we stop spending money on the "bad" DLC then it will once again become something worthwhile.
DLC sucks. it used to be called unlockable content. leave it to game developers to get greedy and ruin there own games. DUH!
It's a free market. Don't like it, then don't buy it. You stop buying DLC, companies will stop making it. Kudos to them for trying to make more money. Silly of consumers to buy something they know they are getting, then complain.
A company charges what people are willing to pay. Basic marketing. Saying all this, I don't like the abuse of this trend. To release a game, sell it, then work some more after the release, and add additional content is a great thing. To have content already completed and hold it back on purpose to make a buck is shooting yourself in the foot. Stop buying DLC that is not worth it. The problem will go away.
I would concur that Destiny's initial launch does leave a lot to be desired in terms of content. I have casually played through +26 and have a couple low end toons... and am starting to feel a bit of repetitive grind. I am now up to starting the raid content, but I can probably assume that a month of casual gaming of that content will leave me out of interest.
As a casual player, It has been okay for me to do a few of the different missions to mini-grind gear and faction and log off for the night. I could imagine that hardcore players of this game are probably going out of their minds with this.
Given my speculation, I think this game release should have had about 30-40% more content than it did and I would concur with this particular article in regards to the DLC, It isn't going to be hard to put this one on the "collect dust" shelf and pick something up that actually has more content and playability instead of re-investing in DLC 2-4 times a year to keep it fresh. Economics.
I agree with a couple of the above comments. Stating that we're paying for additional content "that would've already been on the disc" while technically true isn't necessary eoncomically true. The developers/publishers put that on disc specically to charge later--while that on the surface seems shady, it's important to note how expensive and risky game-making is.
I submit that if Activision or whoever didn't plan on charging for DLC, they wouldn't have paid for the hours/manpowers to develop that additional content to put on the disc in the first place.
Having the additional content on the disc only shortens the time the player need to purchase/download it; it doesn't suddenly deem that content by full rights to the purchaser of the disc.
And plus, DLC is only as manipulative and unfair as we let it be. We don't HAVE to buy all the additional map packs, weapons, costumes, and missions.
There is a big factor not being accounted for. Game development is risky, hard, and involves large teams--especially for all those mentioned. For game companies not to lay off those people post game ship they need to be producing something. They may not have the staff, time, money, publisher, or greenlight by a publisher to make a full game. DLC provides a way to keep those people employed making more content for the game and more game.
Yes, sometimes games feel incomplete because eventually the money will run out and you either ship or fold up shop. A lot of games (and companies) never see the light of day. May not be true in all cases for all games or game companies. But for games to be a sustainable industry there has to be a long term vision on how to support the company and its staff.
I know there are instances where DLC can be problematic and transparently created to expand profits but on the other hand I don't think it's right to make such a blanket statement that all DLC is bad. Not all DLC is stripped from the game for example, Bethesda is well regarded for their efforts to expand the base game with extra content (like with the huge pack Dawnguard for Skyrim) after release and given the already time consuming work schedule they need to make their game, I'd say that they more than earned the right to make some money after their game released. Yes the Mass Effect 3 day 1 DLC was bologna but as I've stated before DLC can be worthwhile if it adds onto the experience in a meaningful way that the base game couldn't. And what about studious like CD Project Red Key who give their DLC for free? Are they wrong for not including it before? It's not wrong to make statements on corrupt practices but in cases like this there's a lot more grey than it may seem.
Don't blame Bunjie for this. This is an Activision move through and through. It's the publisher that makes these decisions, not the developer. Greed is Activision's motto. I'm sure the folks at Bunjie were just as upset, or even more so than the customers over having to hide half the content they created and inevitably deal with the backlash.
The big issue overlooked here is, what did Bungie spend to develop Halo 2 versus what did they spend to develop Destiny? I wouldn't be shocked if it was more than double. Probably a lot more. So you are actually getting more value.