I want to focus on a few key games of the past two years, some with DLC and some without, to highlight the effect on the industry, revenue, and the gamers.
Case #1: Resident Evil 5
As some of you may know, Resident Evil 5 had quite a bit of controversy with regards to DLC. Let's start with a brief explanation of Resident Evil. RE5 is a survival horror game about a present day bioweapon threat in Africa. It released several bonus playable missions via DLC and a multiplayer "Versus Mode". "Versus Mode" was released only a mere month after the initial release of the game which raised supisicion with the gaming community. To help feed the fires, the actual DLC download size was only 1.8 MB. Gamers were downloading essentially a key to unlock content. This meant that the "Versus Mode" DLC was already on the disc when it was launched. Why wasn't this "DLC" included in the original game and price if it was already on the disc? Capcom defended itself stating that the DLC wasn't completed at the time of the release, but because it used many pre-existing things in the original game, they could sell a smaller DLC file.Versus Mode is not a crucial aspect to the Resident Evil experience. In fact, I'd argue that games like Resident Evil shouldn't even have a multiplayer mode (we'll talk about that another day). But when is it enough? This DLC controversy has opened the doors to releasing incomplete games, milking franchises, and taking advantage of fans.
Case #2: Red Dead Redemption
Red Dead Redemption is an open world game in the Wild West. You play as John Marsden, a mysterious man set on taking down a criminal ring leader. It was released on May 18, 2010. This game has released a ton of DLC, but with a much different approach than Resident Evil. Let's go over the various DLC:- Legends and Killers Pack: 9 new areas to explore, new characters and missions.
- Myths and Mavericks: 11 multiplayer maps for free!
- Liars and Cheats: New hunting areas and gang hideouts
- Undead Nightmare: Totally new single player story with it's own multiplayer mode.
Now that is a ton of gameplay. Rockstar is still releasing DLC for Red Dead Redemption now, a year and a half after the original game release. Some would argue that they are milking the franchise for all that it's worth, but I would say otherwise. I think that the Red Dead DLC is a positive thing for the game. First of all, the DLC is released over time. Rockstar didn't release all the DLC a month after the game like other companies. This shows that they are still working on improving the gameplay and adding new things to do. The DLC also doesn't affect story gameplay. Gamer A can play the single person story to the fullest and enjoy it, while Gamer B can download everything, maybe getting a longer and more immersive experience, enjoy it just the same. Lastly, the DLC is actually good. Now this may sound biased, but it's just fact that fresh, original, and content rich DLC is better than re-used, reduced, and recycled DLC. It might not be for everyone, but you have the respect the work and creativity that Rockstar put into the DLC for this game. I personally don't believe that Rockstar was conscious of it's DLC from the get go.
Case #3: Season Passes
In the past few months, many blockbuster titles have opted to use a "Season Pass" for DLC. Basically, gamers pay for the Season Pass and are able to simply download the DLC once it's available. It's cheaper than paying for each individual DLC, but gamers have to unknowningly pay for something they might not even want. I'm skeptical of this system because of a little game known as LA Noire.I bought LA Noire on launch day and played it religiously when it came out. It reminded me of an adult Ace Attorney (one of my favorite games), so I instantly loved it. Once I saw that there was a Season Pass available, with new cases coming out in the upcoming months, I dropped the $15 on it without even thinking. Looking back, I can't believe I just spent 1/4 of the cost of a new game, on something I knew nothing about. As I continued to play through LA Noire, I noticed the cases seemed very repeitive and even boring. I was trapped by Rockstar. I had given them $85 for a game that I will never play again. I haven't played any of the DLC, I didn't even beat the game. Now I realize that it's my own fault for blindly believing that the DLC would be good, but it's so easy to hand over money with regards to DLC.
In conclusion, I want to reach out to all you gamers. Be critical of what you buy, download, and play. If it isn't up to par, then don't buy it. If we continue to purchase and support mediocre downloadable content, nothing will change. Be a picky gamer!
As Always,
LadySnip3r
PS. Have you played some atrocious DLC? Maybe you can think of some games that have done DLC right? What are your thoughts on the matter?
2 comments:
Oblivion and dragon age are the two biggest titles that come to mind for me in regards to DLC, and on extreme opposite ends of the spectrum. Oblivion's DLC all came out well after the game, and each individual piece of it added a lot to the game, to story line, extra quests, new items, new entire areas of the map to explore, and in some cases even a brand new world map. they did a very good job of it and i don't regret purchasing any of it. It was well worth the 20+ extra hours of game play. Not to mention they eventually released packs of DLC at a great discount so you could get all of it, which made it feel more like buying expansions than actual DLC. dragon age on the other hand had a total of about 4 hours max of extra content if you purchased every single DLC (not counting awakening which was technically an expansion, though also available as DLC) and it ended up costing about the same as brand new game to get it all. It was very obvious especially with the release of DA2 that they intended there to be DLC, and wanted to milk the market for it. I personally think that there is no reason, and no excuse, for any company to do DLC as an extra cost thing. If you want to create more content for a game after it's released then either A: don't charge for it, or B: go into the MMO business where content patches belong and you get the monthly subscription fee that you are trying to charge us while disguising it as "optional" DLC. ~end rant
@soulofwolf: Speaking of Dragon Age, one of the more egregious offenses was the NPC in the party's camp that was essentially a goddamn salesman.
"Help, M'lord! My family is being kept in yonder castle and is in danger of being devoured by horrible, nightmarish fiends from another plane of existence! Now if you just give me your credit card number and come with me to the Xbox LIVE Marketplace we can be on our way to rescue them."
Seriously? Go die. You *and* the event trigger you rode in on.
I think part of the problem here is that, thanks to whatever success programs like EA's Project Ten-Dollar, launch DLC that's added as an incentive to buy new instead of used is starting to become the norm.
Then on top of that there's the practice of letting some players bribe their way to victory by offering things like the weapon and armor packs in Mass Effect 2, the Weapons and Dresses pack available on launch for Alice: Madness Returns, and so on. I can't really comment on *that* without being a hypocrite because, in total, I have 5 GBs worth of DLC for ME2 on my 360's harddrive, but it's probably not helping.
~V
Post a Comment