Hey guys,
Currently I am doing a dissertation on the issues of DLC.

I have manage to characterize some of it base on the pic attached.

There are a few things that i felt the need to clarify:

1) Pre-release stage is mainly base on PRE-ORDERS. Episodic gaming like Telltale series game was put to discuss the value of one who buys the whole season before all episodes is release. Same goes with season pass.

2) Game of the Year Edition was put because it includes all DLCs that were released. I am aware that it is not a DLC and it was listed just to give a clear picture of the whole situation for discussion and will be explain in the paper. The same goes for standalone expansion and definitive edition.

3)Tie-in advertisement is for example the Red Bull x Destiny and Mountain Dew x COD.

Here are a few questions that i like to raise:

1) If you are against DLC in the past, would you change your mind in the future if DLC actually gives hours of content for example the Witcher 3 season pass which allegedly would give another 30 hours of gameplay?

2) If you bought a pre-owned game and the former owner bought all the DLCs, for you to enjoy its DLC, it is required of you to purchase it again, would you buy it or do you consider the former owner should transfer all the DLCs to you?

3) Would you consider buying a short (less than 2 hours) story DLC to finish the story, especially if it ends on a cliffhanger?

4) Which do you prefer, short story and high replayability DLC (example: Burnout Paradise DLC includes new area to explore) or low replayability with a good story (probably just to finish and experience the ending).

4.1) If your answer to 4 is "It depends", then how do you determine the value of such content? How do you value the worthiness of story and replayability?

5) Does having platform or retail exclusive DLC actually felt rewarding?

6) If your best friend(s) own a DLC (or season pass) and you don't, for example in Battlefield 4, would you felt "peer-pressured" to buy it since you cant play on the DLC maps with him/her?

7)What is your take on Subscription Based DLC which is reportedly in the works for games like Guitar Hero. What if subscription based DLC in the future made their way to be in games like Battlefield and Assassins Creed.

8) To those who play Train Simulator, how do you justify buying those DLCs which amounted to £3000+

Anyways, any input would be much appreciated and feel free to point out any flaws.

Cheers and thank you.

-meyrsTer-

1. I consider expansion-pack style DLC to be the one type I would actually consider DLC. That is, DLC should add new content to the game. Ideally, such DLC should be playable without the base game, but that isn't a hard requirement.
2. I would consider that situation to be a violation of my "no DRM" policy. In the case of a physical disk, the "DLC" should be available on disk as well.
3. I don't play games for story.
4. I prefer high replayability over story, and whether it's DLC doesn't matter here.
5. Exclusive DLC I disagree with.
6. I wouldn't be playing online, and the issue does not affect local multiplayer. (I probably wouldn't be playing local multiplayer either.)
7. Perhaps acceptable, provided the DLC and everything required to use it (including the base game, if it is required to use the DLC) is DRM-free.
8. I don't play that game.

1) I have no real issue with DLCs that function as a sequel or, more precisely, as old "expansion disks". So, double the content would not be discarded just because it requires the main game to be run.

2) I wouldn't buy the game twice just to access the DLC, unless it's for a symbolic sum (discount, etc). Rule of thumb, I wouldn't let the total price of second-hand acquisition plus second buy to go beyond the price of the original game.

3) It depends on the intention behind it. If the game was designed into coercing us to buy additional DLCs to conclude its plot, I'd consider it unethical (a game is supposed to be self-sufficient in my eyes, additional content being merely additional), and I wouldn't buy/support it. If, however, the DLC is some sort of patching solution for an accidentally interrupted plot (for instance to conclude a cliffhanger game which sequel is cancelled, such as "XIII" or "Undying"), then I might consider it depending on how its quality is reviewed. This, of course, doesn't concern episodic games, which honestly announce from the very start the lack of proper ending.

4) It depends.
4b) I don't care too much for "replayability" as in "restarting the game for a different take", but I like the open-ness of "an area to explore" even if it is not plot-driven. I would favor quantity of game content accessible through the same playthrough, but whether it is linear (long story) or open (short story content but vast side-exploration possibilities).

5) No. It feels awkward.

6) Doesn't apply, as gaming is not really a think I share with friends (very few of them play computer games, and even with those who do, it is not really a subject of discussion between us). Gaming is mostly antisocial, in my world.

7) Against subscriptions in games. Games are a buy-once thing, for me

8) The same way I justify the investment of model trains afficionados. If the price matches the time spent on it, and the pleasure derived from it, it's okay, whether the new addition is digital or metallic. I asssume that Train Simulator fans who spent £3000 on it have played as much with it (and enjoyed it as much) as people who play £3000-worth of various games. If not, there is a psychological scam at stake, and I justify it by being manipulated.

1. I rather have all Dlc from a certain game released at same time in a single package. An expansion plain and simple.
2. I wont buy 2 same games because 1 of them adds a shinning new weapon or mission.
In that case put the pre-order stuff being time exclusive. Meaning after a 1 or 2 month all people would have it. Even if people didn't pre-ordered and bought the game later, the company would have positive attitude for doing such a move.
3. Depends the game and if the company can delivers.
4. Same as 3 depends the game and the company.
5. No because later on those content probably either you have to pay or you wont see again.
6. No, would play another game where both of us would have the full game.
7.Cash grab money, plain and simple.
8.Don't have that game.

If you are writing a serious dissertation, you may be better off asking these questions on Steam or somewhere - the answers here are inevitably going to be skewed by peoples' opinions on DRM and the like.

First, I want to clarify, by DLC I mean a file I can download, off GOG for instance, which then adds to the game, not, for instance Victor Vran where you have to log into an online account to unlock or install something.

1)
I have no problem with DLC, which I can download and install offline and which adds content to the game, i.e. more misions, quests etc. and has a good value to content. A new sword for any amount of money is not good value to content ratio, however what W3 has does seem to be relatively good.

2)
This comes to my clarification. Online only DLC is merely another form of DRM, and as you have stated, means any new person has to re-buy it. This is unacceptable and I would never partake in this.

3)
Depends. If the story isn't finished in the main game, purely as a means to make more money off DLC then no, as that is an incomplete product. I understand that sometimes a story arc is too long for one game, Baldur's Gate illustrates this perfectly, and I have no problem buying them, or the additional content in their expansion packs.

4)
I don't mind, it depends on the game.

4.1)
This is a difficult one. User reviews, these forums, and such like help a lot. If its a game I really like then that obviously also influences the decision. Issues negatively impact. For instance, recently they announced the soundtrack and artbook for Trine 2 was separate DLC, even though I had brought the Complete version of the game. This has adversely affected my decision to buy Trine 3, even though I enjoyed the first.

5)
No, I am a collector, I want the full complete package on my HDD forever (its my precious). Platform specific, pre-order items and such like are just another mechanism for dragging more money out of a product without really adding anything.

6)
I don't have friends. If I did it would not impact my decision at all.

7)
Then my money stays with me. As an older person I have no need to keep up with the crowd, play the latest thing, join in the social group. The whole notion is nonsense to me, i.e. your example - Guitar Hero, why pay for a game, then pay more for different music, just learn to play a guitar.

8)
I would imagine anyone who plays something like Train Simulator doesn't have that much of a life outside, hence has plenty of cash to throw at it. Same as miniture train collectors of my era, they spend thousands on it. Of course I don't fall into that at all as my vast game collection is not like that at all :o)

Good luck on your course.

1) I'm not against DLC per se, I'm against half-assed DLC with poor price/content ratio.

2) I don't play on consoles, but if I did and I really wanted the DLC, then I would avoid used copies and I'd probably buy the whole package myself.

3) Absolutely not. I want and expect closure to the story in the main game. DLCs should be extra/optional/bonus content, not slices of the main game butchered and sold separately.

4.1) Depends. See #1.

5) No.

6) Hypotetically, yes, I probably would.

7) No subscriptions in gaming for me.

I'm a curious what degree this is for.


1. Not against DLC.
2. I do not expect the original owner to give me anything more than what I payed for.
3. No
4. High Replayability
5. I wouldn't feel rewarded.
6. Yes
7. I don’t like periodic costs associated with content I’m consuming. I prefer a single standalone price.

Thanks for the reply.

So would you agree if i say that you and your friend would rather find a "substitute" game that both of you can enjoy instead of one being locked out of content.
Interesting.

Hi,
I did put it on the other forums.
Im doing a qualitative type research.
One thing i have observed based on the reply here on GOG, they dont play multiplayer much.
So the multiplayer question i have put forward to other game community.

OK first off, you are making a tiny little mistake there, brought forward by your lovely gaming industry ;)

A lot of the so called DLC are actually add-on's, but they were relabeled as well into DLC. Why? to make the same mistake as you are doing now. Too mix up anything in this area and also justify DRM backwards.

The difference is rather clear, an add-on may require the original, but is not necessarily depended on. Further it adds new gameplay and content, quite often with the same length (or even more) as the main program. (Look at Settlers/C&C and so on)

DLC were introduced to mix up this market and bring stuff in, which in before were considered patches.

A counter example here (despite using the IMHO the wrong names) TW3:

You have the game itself:
You have the free DLC (correct as you can play the game without them)
and you have the expansion pass (formerly known as add-on and not a DLC)

And then you have other games, were right from the start you find points saying, you need DLC to continue further. So the program was castrated and this part taken off the game to sell it extra.

And on top of it the games have to check online if the everything is legit and/or updates available.

This dwells over into the XYZ-specific DLC. Only a marketing tool to further push an agenda. Too say it simple: You want to play the real XYZ, you have to play it on platform ABC.

The PC, which does not have this limitations (with proper HW), is being left alone.

Now for your picture:

Day one patch I think would be the more proper term. I can understand the industry to implement this as a safeguard as quite often games had been leaked prior to release, so long there is no extra hurdle to download it, otherwise it would be DRM.

Post release: All those were prior called add-ons.

The term DLC would also refer to mods, which you (as intended by the industry) left out of this picture ;)

So if you really want to write a dissertation you have to start from scratch again, as your questions do fail to take i.e. mods into it ;)

Just my 2 cents ;)

Yes, I mean, look at these patches. And they were reviewed along with the main game, so obviously released months after the main game. *rollseyes*

Hi, thanx for the reply.

2) In my paper i did start the intro where i explain DRM and the lawsuit that involves the Dragon Age Origins DLC.

4.1) That's interesting. Care to give example of "stupid bullshit"?

6) Its weird because i just realise on GOG people mostly dont do multiplayer. lol
I have put this question forward to the guys playing Battlefield. Hi, Thanx for the reply
Ive heard of Victor Vran and saw some of the steam reviews there. Care to elaborate?

4.1) Thats interestesting to know.
So your past experience of DLC have an effect on your decision to buy the future entry of the franchise.

5)So as a collector, dont you think people who have any sort of exclusive DLC can call themselves a collector? or simply gamers who want the complete package or experience.

7) But games like guitar hero, they truly have to make certain DLC after the game have come out. For example new nad latest songs that came out after the game's release. This is truly in line with the concept of DLC where content that are not locked out initially. Whereas in other types of games allegedly there are developers who pre-planned DLC from the when the development has started.

Thanx for the wish.
Cheers

JMich, thanks for taking things out of context:

What you posted is add-on, which I stated clearly. *rollseyes*

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/batman-arkham-origins-has-no-plans-to-fix-several-game-breaking-bugs/1100-6417619/

there you see the priority as an example.......