Paid DLC: Service or Scam? @ AtomicGamer

"DLC's" are nothing but a new term for console generation. Their version of "expansion". Which translated* into English pretty much means "SCAM WE ARE SCAMMING YOU BUY OUR SHITTY 1 HR ADDON INSTEAD OF A PROPER EXPANSION SCAM SCAM SCAM HORSE ARMOR SCAM".



*Not an actual translation. Government is still working on the real one.

It's the ultimate facilitator of greed.

I'll be damned if I'll ever understand what the hell BioWare is attempting to do with it's insane DLC services...

I'm fine with dlc as long as the game is complete without them, that is:

- the game is of average length or more
- no essential quest/items requires dlc's
- you're not constantly spammed in game by quests you can't complete without dlc

As long as these criteria are fulfilled I'm ok. I don't think it's especially greedy, and I don't think it makes much sense claiming that it's charging for content that should have been in the game for a larger than average game. You could say the same about addons.

Regarding the cost of dlcs versus the value, it's up to the customer to decide whether it's worth it or not. Admittedly they tend to be a bit costly. In Oblivion I bought most dlcs, but not the horse armour. In most cases I were happy with the purchase.

Come to think of it, addons aren't exactly cheap either. At around half the price of the original game and extending gameplay by 20%, it is a bit steep, I think.

pibbur said:

I'm fine with dlc as long as the game is complete without them

Click to expand...

Then you wouldn't be happy with what BioWare did with Dragon Age DLC. Shale character for example.

I don't know who is moronic enough to think that Shale was developed as a DLC and not ripped out from actual content.

ortucis said:

Then you wouldn't be happy with what BioWare did with Dragon Age DLC. Shale character for example.

Click to expand...

Er.. the game is perfectly complete and enjoyable without Shale DLC.

Yes, it's a good DLC as well, and well worth getting if you can, but it's nothing close to essential.

Unless you're of the opinion that the only version of a game that is complete is one where every single design idea is fully included regardless of cost to the rest of the project - content is dropped (and added) to games all the time throughout development, and has always been, well before DLC became a viable product.

ortucis said:

Then you wouldn't be happy with what BioWare did with Dragon Age DLC. Shale character for example.

I don't know who is moronic enough to think that Shale was developed as a DLC and not ripped out from actual content.

Click to expand...

I can't see that it is important whether he was previously in the game or not. I'm pretty sure that during game development there are a lot of stuff that is removed at a later stage. Some of it end up inexpansions and now in dlc's. You can't say the game is incomplete becuase things were removed. The important thing is the content of the released game, not what was or was not in there at some point.

EDIT: Now I see that this is more or less the same that kalniel wrote.

I WILL ALWAYS READ THE COMPLETE THREAD BEFORE RESPONDING
I WILL ALWAYS READ THE COMPLETE THREAD BEFORE RESPONDING
I WILL ALWAYS READ THE COMPLETE THREAD BEFORE RESPONDING
...

ortucis said:

Then you wouldn't be happy with what BioWare did with Dragon Age DLC. Shale character for example.

I don't know who is moronic enough to think that Shale was developed as a DLC and not ripped out from actual content.

Click to expand...

Are you sure that's not just your own existing paranoia talking?

Shale was in no way essential for the game. Don't get me wrong he was a good character but if he hadn't been there I wouldn't have felt like there was something missing.

I do wonder what additional content we'd have got for older games if DLC had been viable, certainly a lot of community mods seem to restore good quality content that just had to be abandoned to meet shipping dates.

I could imagine KOTOR parts as DLC.
What is tried to become "restored" nowadays.