George’s Soapbox – DLC: A Way to Keep a Game Interesting? Or the End of Games as We Know It?

A major push from the video game industry in recent years is to get you to pay for downloadable content (DLC for those people who haven’t played a game since consoles started connecting to the Internet). At first, this was embraced by the gaming community, as it was a way to make a game that were once stale brand new again by adding maps and other goodies. We shrugged off that we were paying 5 dollars for one good map and a series of shitty ones because at least we could have new places where we could bitch about people camping and the server being laggy.

However now, we’re starting to see the signs of greed rear its ugly head. There have been grumblings for a long time about conspiracies that games are pushed out incomplete, or having things taken out of them, so that we can later pay $2.99 for them. I tried not listen, which was easy at the time because the guy yelling this at me had aluminum foil on his head and hadn’t showered in days. That won’t happen to games I said, I mean how could video games do that to us? I know they need to pay the rent but push a game out that’s incomplete just to make a buck? That’s preposterous. I’ve never heard of a developer (Bungie) pushing out a game (Halo 2) without it feeling complete. Yes I’m still bitter.

This is Bullshit.

It's time to finish this fight...in the next game. (Image Source: GameSpot)

Even though I saw it coming with FPS games and RPGs, I never thought the day would come when DLC would ruin sports games the way it has. You see, sports games are how I spend a good part of my gaming time. I play other games from time to time (such as Uncharted 2 soon and NFS: Shift) but for the most part I’d say I’ve spent my time playing the Madden, NBA 2k and NCAA Football series. When DLC came to Madden this year, I was disappointed. The DLC didn’t really affect the game that much. They were just there if you were incredibly lazy and didn’t feel like doing all the work of trading and making your players better. It annoyed me, but it didn’t really affect me that much. NCAA was worse. A heavy part of the game is recruiting, and to really becoming a big recruiting power in the game, they made you pay to add things like more pipeline states. You see, when I play sports games, I don’t actually play the game at all. I spend most of my time in Franchise mode, making my team better by making trades, working on recruiting or whatever and then play in the playoffs/championship games. So when they started screwing with my ability to recruit I made the same face Hillary Clinton had for the entire Bill presidency after the Lewinsky scandal. Again though, you were still able to recruit without having to buy the add-ons, so the game wasn’t entirely ruined. In this case it was that they were dangling this ability to make your life easier for a nominal fee, and I commend them for the genius of it.

You know what face I'm talking about.

I also have an oversized American Flag in my living room.

Now I expect this from EA Sports, but the makers of 2K have been my friends for years. I mean they put out a football game for 20 dollars at one point. 20 dollars!! I have played their NBA games for so long that I remember trading for Kobe Bryant because of his “upside”.  Surely they wouldn’t get into this DLC fad right? Well I obviously wouldn’t have wasted your time with how much I love 2K if it hadn’t. I was preparing to write a post for this blog and I decided to write it about how much better 2K was than the NBA Live series, which has always been like playing an arcade game. I decided to download both of the demos for the game and was intrigued when I saw that 2K’s demo was about rookie camp. I played NBA Live first, and although it was better, the game still sucks. Feeling vindicated I went on to play the 2K demo thinking that all it had to do was be a repeat of last year for me to shower it in praises. I started to play the Rookie Mode, which was kind of stupid, but I went through it thinking at least they were trying to give me a new gaming experience. Surely I’d be able to save my character and use him when I purchased 2k10. Nope. You had to pay 5 dollars to unlock the ability to save a player that you could just create the instant you bought the actual game. It might seem minor now, but ladies and gents, that’s a sign of what’s to come.

If people are ok with paying 5 dollars to save a friggin’ character, soon they’ll be fine with paying so that they can go beyond a certain number of years in franchise. And don’t think that this live roster thing is going to stay free. Heed my words, within 3 years we’re going to have to pay for all that. The gaming industry is no different from any other business, and if they can find a way to get you to pay just a little bit extra, they’ll bleed that money out of you. Well that’s all for now, I’ve got to find some aluminum foil and take over that guy’s shift for the night.

2 Responses to “George’s Soapbox – DLC: A Way to Keep a Game Interesting? Or the End of Games as We Know It?”

  1. Zach Says:

    What about the positive side of DLC? I think that if publishers followed the Guitar Hero/Rock Band model of DLC, this post might have never happened. Both companies put out great, complete games, and then offered great DLC at a cheap rate. 99 cents a song? That’s a great business model, because much like apps on an iPhone, people aren’t going to bat an eye at something that costs less than a dollar. While I’ll agree that removing functionality from release, only to add it back in at a “premium” price is complete horse shit, I don’t think DLC as a whole is a bad idea.

    Another great example is the DLC content that Bethesda produced for Fallout 3. For a grand total of what, $40, you essentially got a whole new game experience. Add to that a $60 game that most users already had put 20-30+ hours into, and you got a positive gaming experience for $100. If you were one of the lazy ones that were able to wait for the GoY edition, you essentially got 2 games for the price of one.

    On the downside, however, you do have companies that are making DLC download codes and approaching this business model completely wrong. That’s what I have the problem with. Content already on the disk? You can’t have it without the 800 MS Point unlock code. When a company takes away the core functionality of the game, only to produce it as DLC (i.e. Katamari Forever), they’re doing it wrong.

    I hadn’t yet encountered the DLC aspects of NCAA. Thanks for pointing that out. That’s garbage…

  2. George Says:

    You should never have to pay $100 for a game. I don’t care how tight it is. But that is a way that DLC can be used positively, by adding a completely different experience that people didn’t have. I haven’t played the Fallout 3 DLC stuff so I really can’t comment on whether it was worth the money or not.

    Rockband however is a total scam, but it’s a fantastic business model and for that I tip my hat to them. Those are songs that could have been included in the game, that instead you pay for by song. Let’s say it is .99 cents (even though I think it’s 1.99 for most songs) per song, you download 60 songs and you’ve paid the same price as a new game. Rockband 2 came with 84 songs, and it was it’s own game that came with new features. Instead of putting out new games they can put out one song at a time and get you to pay for them that way. It is a great business model, but they’re screwing us over and that’s what I’m worried about. It’s easy to say yeah this song is only .99 cents, but I’ve never met anyone who owned that game who only bought one song, they usually buy 10 – 20. It’s a way to make more money off the consumer without having to improve the game at all or spend much time in development.

    And yeah that made me stop playing NCAA.

Leave a Reply