Im doing an MBa in Cardiff. About the subscriptiopn based DLC, before this to enjoy new songs on Guitar Hero, u can buy each song or buy them in a pack. With the subscription thing, u pay 10$ per month and get all access ot the DLCs.

I'm thinking of, for example, DLC that gives you ridiculous amounts of XP or of the game's currency with very little effort. For example, I hear the most recent Etrian Odyssey has DLC that gives a repeatable quest that yields large amounts of money with very little effort, as well as one that provides a way to triple experience point gains. Those are the sort of things that should, if made available, be presented as cheat codes rather than paid DLC.

You're welcome.

Glad my feedback was useful - since you are clearly in an academic setting I was relatively sure you'd react positively to such mild critique. Survey language is a very subtle yet sometimes surprisingly strong influence. Also, even if my data on DLC is mostly non existent (I think), I'm at least happy that you managed to extract something from my perceptions and opinions on value.

A comment on replayable narratives - things like rogue-likes and sandboxes (both GTA and CK style) are kind of close to being replayable narrative generators already. It's kind of all the fashion now, just consider the prevalence of procedural generation.

I did intend to answer this sooner, I hope this will still be of use.

1- I am not against DLC, but am no fan. It must give me a sense of value for money.
I will buy a season pass to extend the story, add new areas, characters or a mix of each.

2- No I do not feel the DLC must transfer. If the DLC was not originally in the game it makes little sense to me that the DLC should be forced to be passed on because the original owner bought it.

3- If I bought a game and it ends on a cliffhanger I expect a full episode ending.
I would only accept this in something story driven. In something like GTA, Hitman or COD it can just take a hike. On the other hand a DLC that continues the story after a complete and full filling game would be considered, even if it were listed as only being about 2 hours long.

4- It depends on the game, and the DLC on offer. Saints Row the Third DLC came as both short story missions and extra weapons. I am happy with both types as the game was substantial and held it all together well.

4-1- Replayability is based more on the core game features and appeal of the world delivered. Do I wish to continue playing, and try out these new game additions. Do I want to play the game again and up the anti against me or in my favour.
Story is more about the feeling to continue to play the story to the end, do I become invested in the game, the characters and the world.

5- No. Retail and platform only DLC are nothing more then a depraved marketing gimmick that actually makes the companies developing, publishing and selling look more like jerk monkeys then audience friendly entertainers.

6- No. If I do not want to buy the maps I will not. I can always just play on their game anyway.

7- No. Buy a game once and be done. Subscription based DLC is nothing more then empty hype to take money without any tangible return. It is not yours and will never be, pay up to look at OUR shinies.

8- Play the base games, only buy the DLC that looks interesting. Never amounts to you buying the whole thing, plus buy on sales.
The DLC's are for the publishers to mitigate the cost of repainting and small adjustments. It is more for getting that one train you want then owning every train ever built, and even then it would still be cheaper.

Thanx for the reply.
Actually, what u have listed i already explain them in the paper.
For example, i stated that patch is not DLC. Patch is to make sure the game is stabilize and runs well on that platform. if a patch is a DLC, then what about the arkham knight patch fot the PC. Only on the PC arkham knight reportedly runs bad. So if you are a console player, you are not entitle to it.
Besides that, i did not consider mods as dlc.
Some of the mods does not not have the developers permission to make. That is why most of it are free.
Whereas DLC, unless it is stated its free, players must pay in order to enjoy.
I get it if your argument could be centered upon for example in The Witcher 3 where a free modkit was given as part of their free DLC.
I also put in a point where DLC is part of the marketing gimmick, especially in the pre-order stage.

Yeah, true that.
It was my supervisor's idea to characterise them in release timing order.
The reason i agree to it was becasue if i were to list the type of DLCs i would ahve doen it with just a google search.
I thought with this it would get a different perspective on it (probably) lol
Since what im doing is qualitative in nature, that is why the questions are quite random.
I already wrote 8000 words and the questions i gave was suppose to be filling any holes i encounter.
and mate, this is video games we are talking about,
it would be stupid of me if im not expecting any flak, critique and feedback. =p

Thanx for the reply.
But what about those who stream Netflix and Spotify. They dont own the songs and movies.
They merely owns the rights to VIEW it.
With subscripton based DLC it would have value to those people who plays the game regularly.

I think viewing subscription DLC as being like Netflixs and Spotify is wrong,
When you buy your subscription to those places you are getting a right to view what they have available, you can watch any film on Netflix and listen to any song on Spotify. Games companies would not just let you have any DLC.

I would not buy it either way, but could you see Steam saying we give you access to any ANY game you want from the store and all you need do is pay $20 a month. Now for an extra $10 you can have all the DLC for which ever game you are playing.
I cannot see that working, and that is the more customer focused version of it.
What I see happening is say Guitar Hero releases 30 DLC tracks. You will pay them $5 a month to have access to them (great deal). You pay $5 a month for the full 3 yeas until the next game comes out and when they get bored of supporting this game as they want you to move on. You will have paid out $180 for 30 tracks of music, and in the end you loose them at the point they no longer support the game.
At the same time you are also paying Rockstar, EA, Sony, Microsoft and Ubisoft $5 each to play their games and respective DLC. $30 a month to play games you should by month 5 have paid off in full if only you had bought them outright. No wonder the games companies thing this is a good idea.

Also Netflix and Spotify both suck. I can check out a song on Youtube to decide if I want to buy it or the album, and films are £3 in supermarkets after about 1-2 years.

You arrrrrre welcome ;)

Mods by (kind of definition ;) ) do not need the permission, if they don't break the law they are legit (IMHO)
But if you do not consider mod as DLC, it is a tiny bit of a problem, DLC does not really distinguish between those two, hence I would really make this clear ;)

And DLC free or not.....hmmm..... a lot of games did provide the possibility to mod for free.....IIRC that was kind of the origin of mods and DLC.

Again based on my (maybe faulty ;) ) memory mods and kind of DLC were first, the paying model was later. quite a few games did offer editors for free (which do fit the DLC definition quite well) but they did not charge for it.

NOW it depends on your dissertation were you want to go ;)

The part of pre-order I couldn't agree more ;)

Most of the time it sounds to be more off a sale-tool, but rather as a support idea. (Here IMHO Witcher 3 being rather the exception....)

Too dwell into the difference of mods and dlc a bit: (or better to say the non difference ;) )

Arkham knight I only know from the press.....But the idea I get from your replies (please correct me if I am wrong ;) )....

How to phrase it.....it seems to be that you consider a DLC only as a DLC if it extends the game, BUT that is kind of a problem as DLC by definition does not distinguish between them.....This could be a dissertation on it's own ;) One problem which is being brought upon us as a customer is that the industry is not making a clear definition or trying to set standards, hence it is rather confusing and misleading....

Most of the times (best counter example here TW3) it is not really DLC but rather trying to make a milking cow ....If you think of FIFA (i.e) here, they supply patches as a full price version....There were times were the developer supplied an editor so that modders were able to supply the data without the company violating the law. But it doesn't happen anymore......

The problem really is that DLC is such a broad term and it would really depend on your intention ;)

An interesting topic for a thesis. Have you written it yet? Can I read?

Hello. It's nice to meet someone who actually does research and isn't above asking actual gamers about the topic. :)

My answers to the questions:

1) I'm not against DLC in the past and present, especially when it comes to sizable portions of new content. But with more companies "pushing the limits" of acceptable manipulations with gaming community, I'm not sure I wouldn't change my mind.

2) I'm not sure what are you talking about. Reselling (and thus buying a "pre-owned") game is a thing of the past.

3) I would consider to demand a refund for the base game. XD

4) Since I value any game mostly for the story, I would say that I prefer the story DLC too. But I play some games for gameplay reasons - in that case I would buy "gameplay DLC". It really depends on a game.

4.1) For example BioShock Infinite has a great sotry, but mediocre gameplay. So I would rather buy Burial at Sea (a story that connects it to original BioShock), but not Clash in the Clouds (just some skirmish battles). In case some MP shooter or racing game, I would rather buy DLC with additional tracks/vehicles, than some "story DLC".

5) No.

6) I don't know. I don't play MP much. And I don't have friends I play with at all.

7) I don't know, what are you talking about, but I don't like subscirptions period.

8) I don't play Train Simulator.

P.S. I've looked at your DLC chart. Why Free2Play, Freemium DLCs (I think you mean microtransactions in Free2Play games) are in "Release" category? Most of microtransaction options are added post-release.

Those were called add-ons and/or expansions in the past. Now, with digital distribution, it's also called DLC, same as the infamous Horse-Amour... Expansions are fine though. What use has the previous owner of the DLC, when they don't own the game any more? Strange question. I would consider a game that requires you to spend more money to see the proper ending shit in the first place. I would only buy some Complete Edition or GOTY in this situation. See my answer to 3) for "to experience the ending". In principle both can be well done, so I don't have a preference. I could write an essay here... there is no simple answer. No. I don't play MP. But I'm kind of a completionist, so I'm always tempted to buy all DLC (and artbooks, soundtracks) for a given game. That's why I prefer Uber Complete Deluxe Editions in the first place. Since this can only be done by using DRM - not interested. Not applicable to me, but I know someone who spent 10,000 hours in MSFS with tons of (paid) third-party add-ons. So I guess the playtime/price ratio is not worse than "conventional" games.

You chose an interesting topic. So...

1) I am not against it per se, it depends on the amount of content and price. Actual expansions, like The Witcher 3 you mentioned, are more than welcome.

2) I suppose this applies to console games more, I have only bought about 3 physical copies in the last 5 years and I only buy second hand for collecting purposes, but I suppose DLC are separate purchases, so they don't have to transfer (unless the game included season passes etc.)

3) This is a tricky one, it seems sort of nefarious :-). I wonder why there would be a need for such a DLC unless planned beforehand. Maybe in the event of a cancellation of the sequel, but in that case what can a 2-hour story DLC really do? So it would heavily depend on the price, in principle I would lean towards no (certainly at full price), maybe when it's discounted.

4) This depends on what makes sense for a game, so more story based or character focused DLC for likewise story based games and vice versa. Also, good stories don't necessarily mean low replayability (if it's choice based), so it's possible to have the best of both worlds.

4.1) Very broadly I tend to look at it as hours of play vs euros spent, but that tends to change as you have less and less time available. I also don't have as much time for replays, so a good story is more valuable to me.

5) No, usually it's gimmicks like different skins, an armor, weapon, etc. I don't really support the practice. Kickstarter exclusive content would be borderline, perhaps, since the game wouldn't have been made without the backers.

6) I don't know, I don't play multiplayer or co-op games.

7) Hopefully this isn't what we're heading to, but who knows. A subscription would probably necessitate more frequent delivery of new content, which could in turn mean lower quality, when does this subscription even end, etc.? So a no for me. Though, now that I think about it, aren't season passes a sort of subscription already? I mean you even have games that have season 1, 2, 3, etc.?

8) If you truly believes you got your money's worth, maybe if it's the only game you play, but I would really question the "value" of such add ons, mobile games are even worse in this regard. Or look at something like the Sims, with its myriad of €40 "expansions". I suppose the only way I could justify it is if was the only game (or one of the few) I played, spent thousands of hours in it and buying DLC is like buying new games for others.

I really wonder how you are going to develop your thesis, I feel like it would be an interesting read.

Hopefully this was of help and good luck!

Ehem....

Posted August 13, 2015 !!!

I really do hope that the work is done and the writer was successful...