On disk DLC: what's with the controversy?

No, that's not right.

Day 1 DLC is (the vast majority of the time), developed after a game "goes gold," yes. However, that means that the disc content is locked in and cannot be altered after that point. That is why there is now almost always a patch on day one. Because work still needs to be done, but the information on the disc cannot be changed.

If the DLC is on-disc, then it was there before the game went gold, and was therefore made during the regular development process.

On one hand, it feels like the handtruck that comes in a U Haul. It's there. To use it, you have to pay more, but it's already there so if you get home and find that the other guy who was going to help carry the wardrobe never showed up, you don't have to drive back to pick one up. On the flipside, any time that the content is already on the disc, I can't help but feel that something had to be left out to leave room to store the DLC. I know... with the size of DVDs, there's enough space even if they still did shovelware, but I grew up installing games off of multiple floppy disks.

That's not really accurate though. There have been a number of games that have started using DLC to add very important plot points and stories into their games. Mass Effect 3 is a good example; Javik's DLC (or most of it) was put on disk and clearly was intended to be there during the game because he's just simply that important to what is going on during the game. Yet, he's a 'Day One DLC' for some reason???

Now, here's the strange part of Bioware DLC Companions. For the most part, they have to be on disk to some extent; their dialogue for cutscenes can't be inserted by the DLC itself because its too much. And I think that's fine I guess since its not like its in any form of a playable state if the dialogue is just coded in and nothing else.

But Javik had large portions of his recruitment quest, dialogue, cutscenes, and companion AI in the base game. To the point that many people on PC didn't even download the DLC, they just broke open their game and basically gave themselves the DLC.

I think DLC is fine when its created after the game is done. Its arguably better done at that point because then you can see the fan's reactions to the base content and figure out what they want more of and what will over all please the customers.

But DLC that was clearly intended to exist in the initial playthrough of the game (i.e. Javik who was a pivotal character even in the earliest drafts of the game) is where things start crossing the line.

Want to see Dorian and the Inquisitor consumate their love storyline? $20 please! What? You don't want to? Guess you can't complete his romance then.

Want to see the complete ending to this video game franchise? $10 please.

Want to get this one level that was cut early on but clears up a lot of plot holes when added back in? $15 please.

I don't think DLC is a bad thing, but its awful when developers or publishers use it in these ways.

edited 10th Dec '15 11:40:57 AM by InkDagger

@The Dev team needing shit to do before the game launches.

Please watch this:

I don't have time to watch that, but I feel like it's probably just reiterating what I've already said.

The tl;dw version is that it's not necessary because they do it out of wanting more money.

Also calling it DLC is a flat-out lie.

edited 10th Dec '15 12:03:10 PM by Karxrida

So yes, exactly what I said at the top of the page.

I'm trying to think of examples of on-disc paid content that people are fine with, outside of things like compatibility patches.

The example in my mind is anything that's free-to-play or has a business model revolving around microtransactions. League of Legends being the example I thought of- there's lots of characters, but the game is free... so I'd say the game is buffet-style, right? Choose what you want in particular then go sit down and eat play video games.
I'm sure someone's said it before, but as far as I've seen nobody's ever said "Man, I just wish I could get everything in the game at retail price."

But... the only real difference is the price for entry, right? That's the important bit for this paywall stuff?

It's reiterating what everyone said.

From the justification ("Eh, developers had time after they finished development, so they made DLC") to the point of it (what you said, they claim that they have to do it for some reason).

There really isn't much of a point to this topic. You either think developers are justified in walling off part of their game and charging for it, or they're not. There's not much room for discussion. I don't think anyone is against actual DLC expansion.

Oh DLC one of the more controversal topics in video games. Now for my two cents. On disc DLC is a massive No-No for me. Same with DLC made before the game is released or day one DLC. That feels a hell of a lot like a paywall "Congrats on buying this game for $50! You see though... While we were making the full product we also had time to make this as well! Fork over $20 and you can have it." that to me is despicable. DLC should be something that helps to keep a game alive and the fan base active by adding new content. Not something you have to spend more money on alongside the "full game".

I don't mind skins and trinkets so much because it's mostly chintzy rubbish. Like MGSV, I bought it day one and got a fancy-looking gun with awful stats, a shield and some camouflage. I barely ever change my camo in the first place, I don't use shields (and there are regular shields to develop in the game itself) and the Adamska Sp. was actual rubbish except for the skin. I could live without any of that.

Like trinkets are one thing. Fighting game characters, storylines, missions - things of substance that are on your disc but need to be paid for - that's crap.

Treyarch does DLC right. I bought their Vengeance Map Pack for Black Ops 2 and it's like a completely new game. The maps were new, the weapons were new, the Zombies map was one of the best maps I had ever seen.

Borderlands 2 had amazing DLC and if I didn't have the GOTY Edition I'd pay for everything because that's how good it is. Nothing was locked on disc and if it was I never noticed.

Bioshock Infinite's DLC was also pretty good. Granted, I nabbed the Complete Edition with everything on a disk but still. It never felt like it was hidden in my game and I couldn't access it ever.

My point is, all of this DLC stuff is worth it for the most part and thinking that you're being cheated out of your money to get past a paywall is pure perception on the viewer's part.

Call me whatever you want, if I like it I'm paying for more of it. On disc or not.

This is honestly more or less my attitude on it. I don't really care if it's "anti-consumer" or whatever. If I like the game as is, and it's content I want, I'll pay for it.

Exactly. Javik was on disc but I have to pay $15? Oh well. I'll give you my money and you give me Javik. I don't care if he was on the disk because me complaining and starting a petition won't do anything. That's just how the industry works nowadays.

He was totally worth it by the way.

I mean, it's kind of annoying when a lot of content is released at a fairly expensive price point (like Mass Effect 3 and it's what, four expansions?). It makes me less likely to buy it quickly, even though I'll still get it in the long run.

The DLC of Arkham Knight and Mortal Kombat X is like that for me. I greatly enjoyed both games (MKX might actually be my favourite thing I've played this year), but the DLC is expensive and I would rather buy new games and wait for a time where there's nothing else I want.

edited 10th Dec '15 1:42:34 PM by BadWolf21

Totally worth it because he was intended to be a part of the story in the first place.

edited 10th Dec '15 1:50:46 PM by InkDagger

MKX is awesome. Do you play on Xbox?

I do agree with you on some parts. COD DLC packs are still 15 bucks a pop. But I love COD and I know if I ever want a pack it's there.

PS 4.

Maybe somebody give me a detailed example of DLC (whether on-disc or actual) done right.

Just for my personal preference I'd call on disc dlc an Unlockable Content. (Seriously, on-disc examples of Downloadable Content should fall into UC instead, but again that's just personal preference)

So from the responses I get here, I think the issue is twofold: whether A) the DLC must be actually downloadable or on-disc and B) you should pay for it or not. And maybe C) if the content justify it being a DLC or not. Probably that's why it's hard to pin down how DLC can be handled well.

Maybe I'm right that, in case of competitive games where you can't avoid on-disc DLC (aka being an unlockable content all along), you shouldn't be charged to unlock it? Maybe another factor is about what kind of game it is.

I think consumers should have control over their software. On disk DLC is simply charging money to remove DRM.

I remember way back in the early digital age people had these ridiculous ideas about how they could charge people for everything with digital content. It did mostly die after people saw clearly consumers would not accept that.

But nowadays it's gotten to the point where consumers will pretty much accept anything. It does lead to a greatly degraded consumer experience and higher prices.

Dark Souls.

The PC/Prepare to Die additions to game were made entirely of assets and ideas the dev team wanted to implement but simply did not have time to finish before the game saw release. It was very high quality and easily better than some parts of the vanilla game. There was nothing scummy or dishonest about it at all. Of course this was included with the PC version for free, but PS 3 and 360 players could buy it as DLC.

ideally this is what DLC should be, imo, unless it's just cosmetics and stuff.

it's important to understand that A LOT OF STUFF gets cut in game development because that's just how things work. in cases like this, "this should have been in the game proper" just shows a lack of understanding of how games are made.

edited 10th Dec '15 2:49:46 PM by wehrmacht

DLC done right, to me, is content clearly made after the original game was finished.

Gears of War 3 did DLC extremely well. There was some Day One DLC, but they limited it to mostly cosmetic things.

The actual DLC itself had more than just new maps, but included additional cosmetic bonuses and I believe was one of the first non RPG games to include a new story mission.

Halo 5 is right now operating under the premise that microtransactions will fuel at least some of the DLC and will offer free, original maps to the entire community, specifically to ensure that you aren't locked out of playing maps you paid for.

edited 10th Dec '15 9:01:29 PM by KJMackley

People may hate on Call of Duty for no good reason but DLC is handled pretty well.

Black Ops had the fantastic Rezurrection map pack, which gave you all of the World at War zombie maps plus a free Perk-a-Cola in all the other maps. It was a fantastic add-on I still haven't bought for some reason.

TLDR: If you don't think a piece of software with a clear list of available features was worth it at retail price without the downloadable or disc-locked content, don't turn around and buy the game anyway then complain that the DLC is being walled off.