By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Day 1 DLC. Are you for or against it. Why ?

ClassicGamingWizzz said:
ironmanDX said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
the only thing worse than day 1 DLC is paid demos.


MGS?


i am not buying it, if they dont include it in panthom pain i just watch online to know the story


Neither am I. Giving them money for a demo really sends a bad message. They'll keep doing it if they can get away with it. Same goes for day 1 DLC.



Around the Network

Strongly against it. Even if you have story DLC down the pipeline in a few months like say Bioshock Infinite and TLoU, don't advertise it from launch. The way devs advertise DLC makes it seem like i'm not getting a complete game. They should be advertising it as though the DLC was created due to strong demand from the community and the game's sales. Granted this is often outside of the dev's control as a result of publishers.



I'm completely against it. DLC should be used for extended content down the road, especially when the developer thinks up something new and wants it in the game. Day 1 DLC? More like money grab.



I've never bought DLC. I bought a couple of 'expansion packs' back in the day for Command & Conquer and Half Life, but never DLC. I am tempted by the last of us DLC though.



It's a disgusting grab at extra money from desperate customers, but that's capitalism.

I would have the DLC be free to everyone who buys it day 1 to add incentive. Then add $1 to the price for every day after that for 2 weeks.



Around the Network

I don't think Day 1 DLC is that bad, but it does seem like a way to get more money out of the customer. I suppose it would depend on the situation.



Mystro-Sama said:
CladInShadows said:
Ultimately, I don't have a huge problem with it. All DLC is optional. If I feel like I get ripped off, nobody's forcing me at gunpoint to buy it.

Also, I don't necessarily agree that all day 1 DLC should have been included on disc. There's a lot of time between the game being "finished" and being released. If the developer felt that this time could be spent working on extra content, I see no reason why it shouldn't be paid for.

That said, I miss the days of expansions. You only get them for MMOs these days, it seems.


That sort of mentality is why it keeps happening. If no one says anything about it then it's perfectly fine by them and they'll continue chopping off content from the main game and selling to you over again.


The mentality has absolutely nothing to do with it.  The fact is, people buy it.  The publishers/developers see the sales and determine that the practice is profitable.  If people didn't buy it, it would go away.  For the record, I've never purchased Day 1 DLC in my life (excluding GOTY editions that came bundled with it) so I am in no way contributing to the "problem."



For it.

What's the advantage of being forced to wait an extended period of time for DLC when you can have it available on day 1??

I don't get people who are against it.



Well I'm not against it. Day 1 DLC mostly consists of extra costumes, weapons and other stuff that doesn't really affect the game's experience, and games with those types of DLC usually offer their own unlockables. 

Also, game development isn't cheap nowadays, so this practice is very beneficial to them especially for small companies like NIS (which I always see day 1 DLC for their games). It's better to release the DLC while the game's interests is at it's highest. The good stuff doesn't come out until a few weeks after the game's release - when most people end up finishing the game & probably want more.

With that said, I rarely buy day 1 DLC. The ones I bought were from my favorite series, but I didn't feel ripped off since I knew what I was buying and nobody forced me to.



Day one DLC doesn't bother me at all as a concept. I don't really understand the problem, to be honest.

Is it cut content? Some of it, yes. So what? Most developers will tell you that TONS of content is cut out of a game in the early design phase. Sometimes it's because it's just too much for the development cycle, other times it's decided that the focus of the game needs to be narrowed. Ask any writer, no matter what the medium, and they will tell you that removing content is common-place. In the old days, this content was just dead, never to see the light of day. Now, developers will sometimes bring some of it back.

Before anyone asks, no, they aren't usually taking the completed game and chopping off parts. That doesn't even make sense, not unless they want the game to break. That would be a lot more work than developing the DLC on its own.

I also hear people say that developing DLC at the same time as the main game saps resources. From what I've heard, that isn't usually the case. Often times a different team is working on the DLC, and/or they have people work on the DLC who are no longer involved with the main title.

I just really don't understand the "uh, they should wait a month before they start on DLC" mentality. That makes zero sense to me. Why should they just sit on their hands when they could be working? Why should I have to wait to play good DLC simply because someone else thinks that somehow makes it more valid?

I don't care WHEN DLC comes out, I only care if it's GOOD.