Handsome Phantom asks if DLC is helpful or if it's gone too far.
PC Aficionado: "Obsidian published a survey in early October, asking for responses from players concerning DLC. Now, 55,000 responses have been noted, and the final results are out."
Nobody wants to pay for DLC... Tell that to the idiots who are killing gaming by buying into the current microtransactiin trend without a fight.
I'm willing to pay for expansions. Those things we used to get that were of proportionate price to the base game's content and was worth the money.
Exactly, I'll happily pay for DLC that actually adds to the base game, new areas, enemies, etc.. Actual chunks of gameplay. I'll support developers that actually put in work to enhance the base game.
This bullshit MT crap that takes no effort from the devs and paying real money for things that are left up to RNGesus just needs to stop.
They'll use this to plan future DLC. Yep, lots of small games with loads of DLC is incoming. Just MT's to get them used to now. Nearly, there guys. Way to kill the industry.
Fvck DLC. Either put the content in the base game or piss off.
Yeah I'm talking to you EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc.
i think you are mistaken, DLc in the forms of expansions are welcome, its the stupid MT that needs to crawl into the corner
Been wondering where that Champions Ballad DLC is for Breath of the Wild? Well, Nintendo confirmed it's coming December...on the European eShop only.
Good timing - other than Xenoblade 2, nothing's really coming out during that time.
awesome.. I would expect it to release around the same time in NA too. Can't wait!
December, eh?
Guess I'll likely be taking a brief break from Xeno mid-to-late December, then.
No way am I missing out on the very first ever post-game content that the Zelda series has ever had.
Looking at the industry trend of charging for DLC after a game is released and if it is justified for companies to do so
This is tricky. In my opinion, I feel like DLC should be free because we purchased a game, a finished product, for 60+ dollars, so things like Day One DLC shouldn't exist. On the other hand, I understand this is a business and that development is expensive, and expanding a product instead of making another one is good capital.
What I think would help is if the community was met halfway with a reinvention of the downloadable content system. Give the content we purchase certain standards, kind of like Day One DLC isn't permitted. If Season Passes are purchased, then the customer must have an outline of what they are purchasing, and if the individual didn't want everything in the outline then he/she could drop what they didn't like for a cheaper fee. Also, while I'm in the land of never ending possibilities, a rewards incentive is made for a certain amount purchased from all the developer's games released (which can also be carried over from system to system or gen to gen), like buying 10 DLC packs gives you one free. This way we both get what we want: they get some money and we don't feel taken advantage of.
Wish we got some dlc free, at least get some of it free by getting platinum. Wish some dlc was priced good cause costume prices high as hell. If we can get dlc on sale alot like the games then I would buy dlc at that cheap price. At the end of the day it's best just to wait for goty/complete edition or price drop of the ultimate edition to combat them.
Completely agree, blackblades. Waiting truly is the best option these days, and speaking with our wallet tends to work. Just wish it worked faster.
Given that companies used to release DLC back in the late 90s and early 2000s for free as "supporting their product" for extended appeal? No, it's not justified, and never was.
Full on expansions are entirely different, but this bite-sized DLC bulls**t became popular with the biggest caner of them all, Call of Duty and their bulls**t map packs.
Once these companies discovered just how stupid the average "gamer" (and I use that term loosely) was, it was straight to the bank. Now look at where that first step has gotten us to today.
Microsoft started the bite sized DLC trend. They had a marketing strategy that they pushed back when live was founded and they stated that they believed more money could be made selling things in pieces rather then a full on expansion. The first Xbox live title released had paid DLC and cut up in this exact fashion back in Nov 2002.
Of course, as consoles have inched closer and closer to PC, in recent years, it makes since when considering the existence of expansion packs. Why should they not, as it is always an option not a requirement.
Resident Evil VII DLC is MIA
I think it's gone too far. When we are stuck having to pay $2.99 or more just for costumes and things like that. DLC that we pay for should be new levels and new gameplay, not cosmetic BS that used to just be unlockable by playing the game.
The hatred for DLC, particularly the "loot box" stuff in games like shadows of war is irrational and ignorant. Pure seething hatred for no reason, like it's just an extension of their deep seeded hatred of capitalism in general.