Over-priced DLC (Specifically Call of Duty 1st Strike)

[Mr Puggsly]

Michael-5 said:

Mr Puggsly said:

If a game has pay DLC that adds hours of entertainment I don't mind paying for it.

It should also be noted that games today have more value than past gens regardless if you choose to purchase DLC.

I just hate when games don't feel complete unless you get the DLC. For example Fallout 3 continued the story with DLC, but I feel the story should end with actual game. Dragon Age did the same and whored DLC within the game which was annoying.

Modern games adding hours of entertainment these days is only contributable to Online play. I played as much Goldeneye as I did any FPS this gen, and I definatly played more Mario Kart 64 then Forza, GT, and current Mario Kart combined.

Without online, outside the RPG kingdom, games are getting shorter. FPS's used to last 15 hours, now they last 4-5, and to make up for that they add insane difficulty setting to make up for it.

I'm only complaining about the cost of this DLC. $18 for a few maps? This is not something that really adds to the game, I just want 1 more zombie map, and space monkeys, for an affordable price.

There are quite a few games that have DLC that add to the single player experience. But some of the more popular DLC is maps for shooters.

Goldeneye and Mario Kart have no more value than a lot of games we see today. You probably played them so much because you were young, you didn't have many games to move on to, and you had time to waste. I remember when I was a kid I used to play the shit out of games I had and ofcourse I didn't have a lot of money to get new games. Now in my adult life, I just finish a game and move on to the next.

In the grand scheme $15 for DLC is not a lot of money, espeically if it can provide hours of entertainment. If its not worth that much to you than don't buy it. If you can spend countless hours on a mediocre shooter like Goldeneye, than you should have endless entertainment on Black Ops without DLC.