Sequels VS DLC

Given the announcement of the next Spider-man game from Activision, people are complaining it should be DLC instead of a sequel. What are your thoughts on when to do sequels or DLC?

People are actually saying that?

...Why.

Depends on how much content they want, or expect, I guess.

I wouldn't want to pay full price for an Activision game either, so...

...did they give any reason why? Are they just that cheap or hate going out to buy a game?

Except it's not from Activision, it's from Beenox.

If that's a valid argument for Pokemon, it's a valid argument for Spider-Man. Beenox gets Spider-Man, so I'm not going to complain.

To answer the question: I'm opposed to DLC in general, so I'll try to be as unbiased as possible. If there is a story to tell that is connected to, but ultimately separate from, the original, then always sequel. If it is something like the same scene from a different character's perspective (a la Batman Arkham Asylum) or a couple interquel levels (a la Assassin's Creed) then DLC is probably fine.

People need to keep in mind that some of us don't have high-speed internet, so DSL is really inconvenient. Especially for something as big as a full fracking game.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

edited 6th Apr '11 9:12:02 PM by MoeDantes

Honestly I'd much rather get a new plotline added to a game than shell out 5-10 bucks for a new character or some extra costumes.

edited 6th Apr '11 9:59:16 PM by Neo_Crimson

DLC for the most part; sequels have more potential to be cash-grabs. This is the overarching opinion in the Rock Band community, as far as I can tell (since we all know Guitar Hero kind of ruined that venture).

Well, Beenox is owned by Activision.

Anyways, comments are saying because it looks too much like the previous game, it may as well be DLC. And there's probably the timing as well in regards to Shattered Dimensions.

Depends on how long it is really. Anything less then 5/6 hours is normally DLC. If you're just doing a quick story using the same engine I see no reason to release it as a full game at full price.

I miss proper expansion packs.

Me too!

I loved expansion packs, they had a lot of content(usually) and they were easy to get. I hate the fact that I may not be getting everything out of a game but it's almost impossible for me to buy dlcs where I'm from. I'm starting to give up on buying games unless they release "ultimate editions" like they did with dragon age just because of that.

edited 8th Apr '11 2:12:58 PM by KillerBunny666

Yeah, I also miss full expansion packs - they used to add so much to a game. But instead it's all "downloadable content" now. Cheaper, quicker way of milking games than developing an expansion. Oh yeah, add a few new weapons, include a few new missions, and sell it to those who haven't had quite enough of the original game. Ok, I don't mind some DLC, sometimes it's fun. But if it's some bling that can easily be added by a third-party mod, I won't be so impressed.

Additions to a story in DLC are probably not taken so seriously, being some side-quest which adds minor details and minor characters. That's not to say it isn't helpful in filling in plot holes and answering questions.

Similarly, expansion packs don't tend to add so much to a story, unless they are planned out from the start, as an original campaign. Expansions always sell less or equal to the original game. Every expansion of a franchise will sell less than the previous expansion, unless there's some compelling reason to buy it.

Sequels, on the other hand, can sell more than their predecessors, whilst adding a whole new story and gameplay system with a fair bit of independence from the previous flagship title.

edited 8th Apr '11 5:47:30 PM by Shichibukai

I've stopped buying both expansions and DLC, since they tend to feel rather awkwardly integrated. I evaluate sequels on an individual basis.

Expansion packs,

But I think that DLC killed that for most of the games

So what about pricing?

Full-fledged game = Typically $50-60.

DLC = Varies. At most, I think, $10. Maybe even more, but still considerably less than a full game.

Can someone explain to me how brand new Playstation and PS2 games(and even going back as far as the SNES) were 50 dollars (tops), and now we're lucky go get new games for $60?...

Anyway, what said. Though I'm never on paying $10 for any DLC that doesn't involve the story. And even then, it's sketchy...

edited 8th Apr '11 11:37:45 PM by Swish

There are lots of reasons. Inflation, greedy corporate executives, the funky pricing principles Sony uses to price their consoles. This was mentioned in the PS 3 thread already - the PS 3 is generally sold at a loss to its total manufacturing costs and those losses are supposed to be compensated for via sales of games. Mostly greedy execs, though.

Depends.
New fighters via DLC in fighting games are pretty rad.
The Fallout 3 DLC things were pretty good.
Other than that, though, its rather case by case. Except equipment. Equipment is never worth it.

Only dlc I've felt that justified the price with both content and writing was Dead Money , admittedly I didn't get the Fallout 3 DLC so maybe fallout is just better about it compared to most games.

I think dlc has potential as a series of short stories (maybe with an overarching arc like what Dead Money appears to be setting up), but with a lot of dlc that I got the writing and content is rarely as good as even the sidequests in the vanilla game (only other dlc I found that had decent writing was Lair of the Shadow Broker).

Overall, I'd take sequels over dlc cause more money and effort (generally) is put into them and they tend to be a lot more worth it but I don't think dlc is a completely useless feature that should just die off.

edited 9th Apr '11 12:28:07 AM by ShadowScythe

Can't we have both?

edited 9th Apr '11 12:36:24 AM by Customer

Oh course not, that would be too easy.