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 ?

sabastian on 08 March 2014
CladInShadows said:
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."

This is a great point. I would love to see the numbers to day 1 DLC profits.



Around the Network
sabastian on 08 March 2014
pokoko said:
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.


If the DLC is released on the day the game is released, that means that the DLC was ready and could have been placed within the main game disk itself.

I remember a time when you played a game and was rewarded with new cars, colors, characters ect after you compleated the game. Now adays this is all sold as DLC. 



TornadoCreator on 08 March 2014
sabastian said:

Weve all seen it. 

New game is released and along with it DAY 1 DLC.

I was recently on the Playstation Network when Thief was released and again, there it was. A DLC pack all ready to be purchased along with the newly released game.

Now dont get me wrong. I do purchase DLC. I once purchased the add on DLC for Uncharted 3, 3 Player CO-OP gameplay. But in reality, I mostly pass on most DLC. 

The Prince Of Persia Reboot DLC priced at $15. PASS

The Street Fighter Character clothes pack priced at $5 each. PASS

Killzone Shadow Fall Owl Skins priced at $1.99. PASS

Need For Speed Rivals Car pack priced at $5.99 PASS.

My questions are, Who buys these packs ? Why do you support this ? If its happening more and more, does that mean that day 1 DLC is sell great ?

If a developer is releasing a add on pack at day 1, then that pack should have been included in the game, and quite frankly was cut out, so in reality, were getting less of the game and being given the option to pay more for the full experience.

Should we gamer's support this money grab tatic, I know that I will not. So how about you.

(1) Do you purchase day 1 DLC ?

(2) If so, why. If Not, also Why Not ?

I consider DLC to be the single worst thing to have happened to video games in the history of the media, baring absolutley-fucking-nothing. DLC has and will mark something that will fundamentally decide if I care enough to buy a game and it's made me institute my third rule on game collecting. Never buy a game on release, wait at least a year and buy the complete edition/"game of the year" edition for less money, that way you get all the DLC free and on the disc and you save money. Some prime examples of games like this have been Fallout 3, GTA 4, and Red Dead Redemption. By waiting for the Game Of The Year editions I've got the full game rather than a cut down, incomplete peice of shit; carved into peices so developers can make more money out of me.

Rule four then comes into effect. A game that requires a Day One Patch or features required Day One DLC (ie. not something incidental like character skins), to be playable is not worthy of purchase. If you can't play it from the disc, without an internet connection, it is worthless.

I am fed up of always online DRM, that's what the Day One Patch and Day One DLC is. It's always online DRM that uses the psychology of the player to make them willingly take part. I say fuck that. I collect video games, have done for years. If I put Sonic The Hedgehog or Streets Of Rage into my Mega Drive they will work perfectly every time. I expect the same from my PS3/Xbox 360 games; if I put them on in 2037 and intend to play them, they better work first time... not give me the shitty buggy beta-build of the game that passed for a retail release because the game needs a patch from an online service that's long since been discontinued, all because developers are too bloody lazy to test and finish their games first time around. If it's not on the fucking disc, it doesn't exist. Neither my PS3 or my Xbox 360 are connected to the internet, and this is intentional. I will not be their unpaid beta-testers. Give me a finished game first time round or fuck off, I say.



Pibituh on 08 March 2014

No. I'm against DLC.
Even if they're releasing the DLC 4 months later, that DLC is already made upon release. It just adds some maps or some guns. Anyone can actually do it. With simple mod tools.

Far Cry 3 DLC is DLC done right, so I have no problems buying that.



kupomogli on 08 March 2014

I'm against all DLC. Makes my retail copy incomplete and damn if I'm going to pay extra to complete it.

I think that if they plan for this stuff to be in the game to begin with, a lot of story DLC is planned, then they should have it in the game.  If it's not in the game, then make it large enough to be a retail expansion like Rockstar games.



Around the Network
pokoko on 08 March 2014
sabastian said:
pokoko said:
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.


If the DLC is released on the day the game is released, that means that the DLC was ready and could have been placed within the main game disk itself.

I remember a time when you played a game and was rewarded with new cars, colors, characters ect after you compleated the game. Now adays this is all sold as DLC. 

If they've done extra work then we are not entitled to it for free simply because of when that work was completed.  I don't even understand that.  If that was the case, they wouldn't do that extra work in the first place and we'd never get that DLC.

Your second statement might be true in some cases but as an absolute, it's false.  Plenty of games still have tons of cosmetic upgrades in-game.  Now they offer more than they ever would have before.  Borderlands 2 has a bunch of skins and heads for sale as DLC but already have a ton you can get through normal play.  The extras probably would have never been made.  The same with Saint's Row 4, which I'm playing now.  I see absolutely no reason to believe designing new weapons is so difficult that they can't think of more than was originally planned.

I really don't care if some people don't like the idea of DLC.  That's fine.  I just wish they'd stop trying to ruin things for those of us who like good DLC.  It's an economic positive for the industry and it's a hell of a lot better than micro-transactions.  Even things like extra costumes and weapons, which I care nothing about and will never buy, these things are bringing extra money do developers and I'm perfectly fine with that.  

I just wish people would change the focus from "no more DLC" to "no more BAD DLC".  I've played some really good DLC that extended my play-time with games I liked, which is awesome, but I've also played some DLC which was a waste of my time and money.  That's the distinction that should be made.



Barozi on 08 March 2014

I like DLC, but day 1 DLC are useless mostly.
Still I see no reason to hate them. Good thing for true fans of the game.



Barozi on 08 March 2014
Pibituh said:
No. I'm against DLC.
Even if they're releasing the DLC 4 months later, that DLC is already made upon release. It just adds some maps or some guns. Anyone can actually do it. With simple mod tools.

Far Cry 3 DLC is DLC done right, so I have no problems buying that.

that wasn't DLC though.



Barozi on 08 March 2014
sabastian said:


If the DLC is released on the day the game is released, that means that the DLC was ready and could have been placed within the main game disk itself.

I remember a time when you played a game and was rewarded with new cars, colors, characters ect after you compleated the game. Now adays this is all sold as DLC. 


Except the games need to be mass produced and distributed to retailers, which takes a few weeks.
You really think a new weapon, costume or car can't be created in that time ?



Areym on 08 March 2014

Day 1 DLC rubs me the wrong way. I have no problem with DLC in general but day 1 DLC is pretty despicable, unless its just artificial or clothes, skins, etc.



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian