So, what makes GOOD DLC?

LeGrange · 3 months

If you are going to release just cosmetic stuff for DLC, throw it in with another piece of relevant content. Don't make me pay for purely cosmetic shit. Good DLC for me extends a good single player experience and adds more to the lore/main story.

There's also multiplayer maps. Make them free. You won't segment your audience and you'll gain loyalty for your eventual future release. If you're going to charge for them, make them cheap enough so EVERYONE buys them... again so you don't segment your audience.

culturalelitist · 3 months

DLC should be for changes in games that are too small for a brand new release, but too big for a patch. EA could only release a new Madden game every three or four years and sell DLC roster updates in the interim years, and Capcom could sell DLC updates to SF4 and MvC3 instead of releasing a brand new "Super" or "Ultimate" version. But of course they won't because money.

kahoona · 3 months

If it adds something significant to the game (IE: Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare, Bad Company 2's Vietnam expansion, Battlefield 3's Back 2 Karkand pack) I have no problem with paying for it.

Ptylerdactyl · 3 months

I think this is a question that has almost as many answers as respondents. There are some who will say with absolute certainty that there is no good DLC, and that all material after the initial purchase should be free. There are others (I assume) who love to customize their characters with new skins and new singleplayer weapons.

I fall somewhere in between. I have a tough time making a sweeping assessment of DLC as a whole - saying, "Do this, not that" - simply because I recognize that my willingness to buy DLC depends entirely on my subjective view of its contents set against its monetary cost.

For instance. The Mass Effect 2 story-based DLC packs like Overlord and Lair of the Shadow Broker? Bought all that shit, and enjoyed it. I greatly enjoy the Mass Effect series and wanted to spend more time in the universe, seeing what could be seen. The customization stuff like costume packs and weapons? Bleh. Don't need it, don't care. Same shit in Assassin's Creed 2 - story-based extra missions? Never got it, didn't care to get it - because I find the ME universe to be much more compelling than the AC one.

That's not to say that I'm against it, though. I don't like weapon packs, or pre-order items, or horse armor. It's not important enough to me to drop the money (even .99c or whatever) to get it.

But that doesn't mean I don't think other people should have that option. Some people want to dress up Garrus in new gear. Others even make a metagame out of collecting various fluffy DLC stuff for their games from all their various sources. A pair of boots from the official website, a shield from reading a related webcomic, the pre-order belt of plus three whatever, a hat from the Facebook game tie-in. They have that thing in their brain that tells them, "Go, collect that shit." They don't see it as being nickle-and-dimed, as being taken advantage of by a greedy publisher. They know, up front, the terms of the deal and they are more than willing to plop down those two dollars and say, "Yeah, a fancy blaster. Sign me up for that."

I don't know. There are plenty of DLC packs that I think are honestly content-light for their pricetag. But the thing is, I never have to buy it. If it looks good, and seems worth it when I do the cost-benefit thing in my head, then sure - if I've got some money laying around, I might take the bait. But in games where I don't buy the DLC - the Arkham games, Assassin's Creed 2, and Red Dead to name a few - I never feel like I'm missing anything.

I feel like there tends to be this attitude of, "Well, since the DLC exists, I have to get it. They're making me pay for this thing." Really, they're not. I have yet to play a game that doesn't feel like a complete, cohesive package on its own, DLC sight unseen.

I dunno. I feel like half the DLC "controversy" is people forgetting that you don't have to have everything. You don't have to buy everything you see.

arrjayjee · 3 months

Depends. Single-player DLC should add actual content, like new weapons, items, locations, and not simply be skins; skins should be unlockable bonuses, not purchaseable ones. Oblivion had this both right and wrong. Horse armour was a fucking joke, and rightly so, but the new locations and quests were the example of good content. Of course, I prefer the good old days of Bloodmoon or Tribunal where you'd get a whole bunch of themed content at once for a decent price instead of buying it all piece-meal and ending up paying slightly more, but them's the brakes.

Of course, the complete opposite is true in multi-player. Cosmetic items only, unless the developer is very, very good at balancing and has a system in place so that anybody can get an item with different stats that they want easily. TF2 is an example of this. Both cosmetic items are for sale, but also the new weapons have good balancing with very few weapons considered above and beyond better than the vanilla, and a trading system in place so that after a day or so's play you have enough junk to trade for a (regular, non-vintage/special) item that's caught your fancy.

Nukleon · 3 months

This one is hard to make clear for games, but stuff initially cut for time/expenses is nice... provided it doesn't cost all that much

kap216 · 3 months

It needs to add something significant to the game. The reason people love Red Dead Undead Nightmare was it took a pretty serious wild west game and threw in zombies and made the game completely wacky. This is a pretty good way to go at dlc, creating a whole entire new experience.

People mention the Mass Effect dlc a lot too. The reason why people like this is it adds to the story of Mass Effect without affecting the story line of the game that much. With it you get a lot of content, but without it you still have a complete experience.

Basically I would sum up any good dlc as if you are happy with it after buying. Was it worth your money, do you mind giving money it to the developer, and do you feel like it is worth it. For that reason, even $15 map packs for FPS's which I am against can be worth it for other people, making it good.

DannyInternets · 3 months

Bundles with both new content (genuine content, not reskins or maps) and new game features and/or mechanics. Anything less is just nickle-and-diming customers.

The expansion model is looked upon fondly by virtually everyone who experienced it because it was good for gamers. It took longer to put out because it wasn't loaded with garbage that takes a few days/weeks to make, like re-skinned outfits and maps made with an internal editor. Because it took longer to make this meant that only games with staying power (ie, games that didn't suck) would maintain a large enough player base to profit from releasing new content, indirectly resulting in higher quality products.

In its place we now have a system where DLC content is worked on concurrently with game development so it can be released immediately after the game, before players get bored of the same unimaginative, re-hashed crap that is churned out month after month.

ghostrider176 · 3 months

Back in the day not enough people had broadband connections so content was delivered in brick and mortar stores via CD's. These were called "expansion packs". This type of content is generally good DLC.

$17.99 for 5 uninspired multiplayer maps is bad DLC.

$3.99 to play with a shotgun is bad DLC.

IceBlue · 3 months

I think DLC that is created from what the developers learn since completing the game is generally pretty good.

ME2 had amazing DLC and some meh DLC. Lair of the Shadow Broker was pretty amazing for example.

[deleted] · 3 months

Adds new content. It can't just be another rifle in your favourite shooter unless it's unbelievably cheap.
It should be cheap! I've already paid for the game, I don't like then having to pay more unless it's not that big a deal. Plus, cheap is always good.
It should come out a reasonable amount of time post-release of the game itself. If you're selling DLC upon release then I'm not going to be happy with you. If it can be added to the game itself then it should be. DLC should only be stuff that wasn't thought of until after the game is release, so like a patch, kind of.

shiam · 3 months

My opinion is that 90% of good DLC vs bad DLC is pricing. Basically even if it is stupid (to me) dress up parts if it's at a reasonable price point its not bad DLC, it's just not something I'd buy. basically if content/price > some threshold it's good. Now a number of things go into the content part of that. things like: does it fit the original games thematic and aesthetic style, does it make an meaningful addition, does the purchaser like that sort of content, does it fit into whatever narrative of the original game.

For some examples. Almost all of the recent Fallout DLC is reasonably good. Why? Because it adds significant content, that ties in well with the rest of the game, and is at a price reflecting that. The recent Sonic DLC appears to be bad, because while its well priced it has little to no connection to the game it's being added into.

10tothe24th · 3 months

I would also add continuations of the story or world. For example: the DLC for GTA4. They weren't necessary to the original, but if you cared enough about the game then they gave you a much deeper appreciation of the characters and story.

There's a lot of abuse with this type of DLC, though. A lot of "half-games" being published, I mean. But I'd argue that, when implemented fairly, it's a rewarding and valuable experience for players.

Skafsgaard · 3 months

I know I'm going to get flak for this, but I fucking loved me that horse armor!

RR-- · 3 months

Rockstar seem to do DLC properly especially since they sell it on a disc too.

Antholex · 3 months

The DLC I hate is ones that 'unlock' a part of the game, or is something that was cut during development and then released afterwards as DLC. An example of this would be Assassin's Creed II's 'lost sequences', which I believe were originally meant to be part of the game, but were removed and later released as DLC.

JebusF · 3 months

Good DLC to me is DLC that when I finish it, I'm glad I played it. If I'm gagging for more after a game has finished, I like the developer to react to what the player is wanting and deliver it.

Strap on more of the same, and I'm out. Make it interesting and make it feel as though it wasn't ripped from the game at some point, and I'm in.

brian5476 · 3 months

I think Fallout: New Vegas has the right idea. All 4 of its DLC packs added new areas to explore, new characters, weapons etc. Also, each one ties into the story of the main game and explains a lot of the threads and elements that are present in the main game. Your character gets new perks as well. Finally, you can tell Bethesda put effort into the DLC. Honest Hearts has amazing scenery since it takes place in Zion National Park. Old World Blues is hilariously written and just completely silly. For me that is what good DLC should be.

atikabubu · 3 months

A good DLC isn't:

PAID!
Content cut out in the last minute
A crapy item for preordering
A bullshit 15 minute quest
A broad daylight rehash of content from the previous games

PerfectLibra · 3 months

When they are expansion packs, and not DLC.

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login