Does endless DLC bother you?

[ZedClampet]

(We've talked about this before in some capacity, but I don't think we've had a thread specifically on this. At least I couldn't find one.)

This will drive @Brian Boru mad, but Playway, the gift that keeps on giving, has hired a developer to do nothing but make DLC for Car Mechanic Simulator 18, which isn't even the latest game in the series. So if you thought you were safe from additional DLC when CMS21 launched, you were mistaken.

It doesn't bother me (and BB doesn't play these games anyway), but some people want to feel like they have all the content when they buy a game, and it doesn't look like that's going to be possible for the foreseeable future with CMS18.

It would bother me more if this DLC should have obviously been included in the base game, but the base game had plenty of content, and this is just extra stuff.

What is your opinion? Does an endless stream of DLC bother you?

 

[Ryzengang]

I don't particularly like it as a business strategy, but I don't know that I would say it bothers me. This is mainly because it isn't all that common for me to buy DLC for a game. Once I've beaten a game I generally don't come back to it unless I really love it. There are certain games that are more ongoing (e.g., don't have a defined "end") that I will buy DLC for (e.g., Civilization VI), but for the most part I'm simply not going back to games. I do prefer to simply have the full experience when I buy a game, but it doesn't really bother me if DLC comes out after I've moved on. If I like the game enough I'll buy it and if I don't, I probably won't even be aware of its existence in the first place.

 

[Colif]

its too late for Brian, I wouldn't be concerned

He has to catch up to the train games that have the DLC game down to an art form.
Train Simulator had 632 as of last year. Most of the add ons are routes it seems. I didn't look very hard.

3078.34 USD to get them all.
Someone bought them all to find total.

Endless wouldn't bother me as I don't feel need to buy them all. Horse Armour should have been the last attempt. Stupid fools opened up the can for the rest of US.

 

[mainer]

This will drive @Brian Boru mad,

Short drive.

It would bother me more if this DLC should have obviously been included in the base game, but the base game had plenty of content, and this is just extra stuff.

What is your opinion? Does an endless stream of DLC bother you?

An endless stream of DLC? Yeah, that would bother me, because that would normally mean that those DLCs were just filler with no depth or purpose. I'm speaking from an RPG standpoint as I have little experience in other genres.

Of course, a lot of that depends upon whether the DLCs were free or cost the player money. I think the DLCs for the Witcher 3 were great; a bunch of free little ones and 2 big meaty, story-based ones (Hearts of Stone and Blood & Wine). Big, story-based ones I have no problem buying if I like the base game). Back in the day, they used to call those expansions rather than DLCs.

Bloodmood for Morrowind, Shivering Iles for Oblivion, Awakening for Dragon Age, Dragonbord for Skyrim, Far Harbor for Fallout 4 are a few that come to mind; there's a bunch that are really great.

What I have no interest in (unless they're free), are the cosmetic ones, armor/weapon packs, and similar type "DLCs", or content that felt like it should have been included to begin with.

 

[Colif]

Apart from expansion packs, only DLC I think I ever bought were mounts in MMO. Never bought any weapons or armor or anything like that.. paying for a mount beats grinding gold for it. May have bought more character slots, but not sure about that one. Its not common that I buy any DLC.
On console it was different.

 

[ZedClampet]

its too late for Brian, I wouldn't be concerned

He has to catch up to the train games that have the DLC game down to an art form.
Train Simulator had 632 as of last year. Most of the add ons are routes it seems. I didn't look very hard.

3078.34 USD to get them all.
Someone bought them all to find total.

Endless wouldn't bother me as I don't feel need to buy them all. Horse Armour should have been the last attempt. Stupid fools opened up the can for the rest of US.

DCS World, a military flight simulator, is right up there at $2935 in DLC. For some reason the one that bothers me is The Sims 4 at about $900 just because that's an extremely popular, mainstream game.

 

[Johnway]

it very much depends on the game honestly. But the default desire is always to get everything in one neat package. That way i can get the complete experience. As i get older and my to play list grows ever larger i need to have a more selective approach to things. it boils down to:

1. Cost
2. how significant is the content? does it enrich the main game (eg expansion packs) or a spinoff isolated experience?
3. What are the chances of me using it?
4. How much i love the game.


Anything with a paid annual yearly/monthly season pass or a live service game is promptly added to the do not buy pile. it feels like a con. it feels so low effort sometimes that its not worth it. i have other options, so i won't play your game.

But what about games with an ever growing DLC/expansion packs like EU or city skylines or Total war? yes it pisses me off i have to buy heroes etc but i've had another epiphany: What are the chances that i will actually play them/use them at all? Sure its nice to have them and it adds some extra complexity, but otherwise its just a wasted investment. in these situations i'll play the base game and if it has what i want, by the time i've finished i've had my fill and don't want DLC.

It only becomes annoying when there is a faction you REALLY wanted to play as and its not available as DLC. This i see more in fighting games and i don't really play fighting games so...

 

[ZedClampet]

Anything with a paid annual yearly/monthly season pass or a live service game is promptly added to the do not buy pile.

This reminded me of Farming Simulator 19's annual pass. It lasted for 3 years (until the new game came out), and they just gave you all the DLC. I don't think they were doing it right It was a great deal. It had about $100 worth of DLC, tons of equipment and new maps.

By the way, the DLC for CMS18 that started this thread was a bunch of new vehicles to work on, vans and campers. I'd like to have it, but they'll eventually port it to the new game, so I'll wait for that.

 

[Colif]

For some reason the one that bothers me is The Sims 4 at about $900 just because that's an extremely popular, mainstream game.

if EA can't sell themselves to someone else, I have been saying Sims 5 will just be a token that says you own The Sims 5. The game and everything else will be DLC. See how far they can stretch the definition of "purchasing a game"
Every release they have removed more and more from core game just to turn around and sell it to people later.
I guess Sims 5 could be just a character creator, you buy the rest. If people were stupid enough to buy that, every other company would follow and the idea of buying a full game will be lost forever.
Easy to sell if you open all DLC to reviewers and only change it all in a post release patch like GT 7 did with their shop. Get good reviews, change it after.

 

[Frindis]

I'm okay with endless DLCs as long those are not in any way, shape, or form deliberately cut from the original content. If they are already thinking of that kind of greedy strategy and not being able to polish the game properly, they can sod off in my eyes.

 

[Colif]

or you know, have the End of the game as DLC

 

[ZedClampet]

or you know, have the End of the game as DLC

I remember when a DLC for Fallout 3 completely changed the ending (which a lot of people had previously complained about).

 

[Colif]

I remember when a DLC for Fallout 3 completely changed the ending (which a lot of people had previously complained about).

That is first game on video. Not surprised it was Bethesda. Pushing the boundaries even then.

 

[Zloth]

The real ending for Fallout 3 was the ending we got. It was a STUPID ending, but it was an ending.

Dragon Age: Origin and Arkham Knight both had good endings. I would even say DA:O's was one of the best endings I've seen! Those DLCs just continued more of the story for a side character. You can't call those the "real" endings!

Endless wouldn't bother me as I don't feel need to buy them all. Horse Armour should have been the last attempt. Stupid fools opened up the can for the rest of US.

They released a whole batch of them, including a good sized dungeon. If I remember right, they were all the same price, too. They had no clue how much people were willing to pay, so they made a whole range of DLC, charged the same for everything from the horse armor to the Razor dungeon, then watched to see what people would buy.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

I'm okay with endless DLCs as long those are not in any way, shape, or form deliberately cut from the original content. If they are already thinking of that kind of greedy strategy and not being able to polish the game properly, they can sod off in my eyes.

This right here! And I'll add to it, as long as the price is right, and they don't end up charging full game price for it.

But other than that, I don't have a problem with it, and even think it can be better in some situations. Like take this example for instance: Madden or FIFA. Games like that where they used to release a full game every year, and a lot of times, the only big change was rosters and stats. That definitely should have just been cheap DLC with a new game every few years that actually upgrade enough to call it a new game. But they're greedy, so instead, they sell a whole new game for full price every year.

 

[Brian Boru]

Oy, yiz ir all at me
"Infamy, infamy… they've all got it in fo' me!"

expansions rather than DLCs

I still make that distinction, it's unfair to call a significant advance a DLC—eg Civ6 has had 2 expansions and loadsa DLCs.

the default desire is always to get everything in one neat package

Definitely my desire too, provided the DLC is adding to the experience I want. The main reason is I don't want my time wasted—learning a game's systems etc is not something I enjoy, so I certainly don't want to have to do it more than once.

If the DLC is like say Civ6, where it's adding civilizations and maps, then I'm fine with it—doesn't change the experience. Or cosmetic stuff like skins—that's fine too, if people want to buy it, more power to 'em.

I did get irritated when I bought Civ6 'Complete' around 6 years after release—I'm a Patient Gamer—and there was still some DLC released afterwards. But I'm over it now

The DLC business practice is no worse than Apple or the fashion industry or the frequent packaging changes on our store shelves. I don't like it, but I can mostly avoid it.

 

[mainer]

I would even say DA:O's was one of the best endings I've seen!

Still the best and most complete of all the Dragon Age games in my opinion.

 

[ZedClampet]

Still the best and most complete of all the Dragon Age games in my opinion.

I was late to these games, and tried to play them one after another. DA:O was so good that I struggled to finish the 2nd and 3rd games.

 

[Johnway]

I did get irritated when I bought Civ6 'Complete' around 6 years after release—I'm a Patient Gamer—and there was still some DLC released afterwards. But I'm over it now

Ah the good old Definitive edition turns out its not the definitive edition of the game. Some of it is forgivable much of it is not. AOE2 i bought expecting the complete definitive edition and then it releases more DLC / campaigns. On the grand scheme of things i'm not too upset, there is plenty of campaigns and i'll probably be sick of it once i finish all that. i don't play multiplayer so i'm ok with missing it out.

But on the flip side ubisoft's multiple editions of a game is pretty obnoxious and a fine example of trying to milk the market/fanbase for all its worth segmenting the fanbase with various versions.

 

[Zloth]

DLCs can also lead to a completely different development philosophy: continuous development. A game gets released, then the developer adds more to it in a DLC, and even more in the next DLC, going on and on for quite some time. MMO's were doing this based on people's subscription fees. 4X games did it a lot, too.

Not only does this give developers a way to keep food on the table while they develop a really complex game - it also provides a way to ease players into a much more complex game sometimes, too. If my first XCOM game was XCOM 2 complete with all the DLC active at once, it would have been overwhelming. Actually, I just recently played Phoenix Point with all its DLC, and that was pretty overwhelming!

 

[Brian Boru]

give developers a way to keep food on the table

Right, DLC makes complete sense when compared to other software, much of which is going thru a fairly continuous dev cycle.

a way to ease players into a much more complex game

My guess is players of complex games will know to start with the most basic version and only add in the extras when they've found their feet—assuming the game allows that, of course.

 

[Pifanjr]

It depends on the DLC. I obviously don't care if they keep making DLC I'm not interested in, like cosmetic stuff. I also rarely get DLC that just adds an area or a separate campaign, as I usually get bored with a game before I even finish the main campaign.

With DLC that significantly improves upon the experience of the main game, it's not that I mind it as much as I'm just not willing to fork over that much cash. Though it did kind of suck that I bought the base game of Civ 6 but hardly played it because it seems it needs the expansions to feel as complete as Civ V with the expansions, but I haven't been able to justify buying the expansions (twice, both for me and my wife).
With Total War: Warhammer 2, I've just been buying the DLC for the factions I want to play with. Though I think that does mean that the AI is missing units it would have access to if I bought all DLC at once, so I'm still not actually getting the full experience.
Paradox' grand strategy games also get a ton of DLC that change the games in major ways, which make the base game feel very bare bones. Which is why I've almost exclusively played them in multiplayer, as only the host needs to have bought the expansions and my friends were willing to pay.

 

[Brian Boru]

I bought the base game of Civ 6 but hardly played it because it seems it needs the expansions to feel as complete as Civ V with the expansions

Civs 4-5-6 have had the same dev cycle, each expansion has improved the vanilla game, and the ideal is the final patch after the 2nd expansion has been out for 6+ months. Firaxis have been very good about issuing patches to address issues found after the release of each game & each expansion.

 

[ZedClampet]

My guess is players of complex games will know to start with the most basic version and only add in the extras when they've found their feet—assuming the game allows that, of course.

Definitely not talking about me here. I just launch the game, complete with it's 30 expansions, and take my chances. Oh, you just left out a word. It should be, "My guess is INTELLIGENT players of complex games..."

only the host needs to have bought the expansions

Every game should be like this. I refuse to buy the Farming Sim DLC for my son because he never plays the game solo, but that means I have to wander around the mod menu and unselect all the DLC whenever we play.

 

[Brian Boru]

I just launch the game, complete with it's 30 expansions, and take my chances

Yeah, but that's how you enjoy gaming—diving in, playing 6 different games in a day, just like a holidaymaker trying out the local food. Sometimes you get bellyache, but you figure out the cuisine a lot quicker than most

Whatever's fun for you is the intelligent choice.

I have to wander around the mod menu and unselect all the DLC whenever we play

Just a random thought: is it possible to install it twice? Maybe on 2 diff drives, or 2 diff Windows logins—so you could have a loaded and a clean version ready to go.

I've never had the need to do this with a game, but you could install say Office 2007 and 2010 on the same drive for the same user—same for plenty of other software. If not possible for games, I wonder why…