Why I feel downloadable content could turn into a bad thing.

[TheSwex]

This is going to be an odd rant, but bear with me. Hopefully by the end it will all make sense.

I'm a fan of the wrestling games. I bought Smackdown vs Raw 2009 for the 360. However, they added a strange restriction to the create a wrestler feature. You have to take all of your created fighters through Career Mode to add attributes to them. You're not allowed to do it as you please. THQ announced a patch to fix this, and it'll allow you to have more freedom. However, as of now only PS3 has it, and THQ is refusing to say when Wii or 360 will get it. PS3 is getting more wrestlers too, but not Wii or 360. They won't say when. I'm almost sure THQ signed an exclusive contract with Sony, but they don't wanna tell the fans. I could be wrong, but something doesn't feel right.

Then on the other end, I'm sure the PS3 fans are even more pissed they don't get to have Fallout 3 content. I know I would be, and they are justified in being pissed off. When does it end?

Downloadable content is turning into a fancy way to have exclusivity wars. It's turned into a "We support PS3 so no content for anyone else" or "We love the 360. Screw the others. No content." It's even turned into "Wii can't do the graphics. No content for them." Frankly yes, downloadable content can be a very good thing as well. It adds replay value to good games, even if more often than not the content is extremely overpriced.

My point with all this is that in the long run all this does is fuck over the loyal gamers that pay money for these games and expect to be treated as equally as the others. I own Fallout 3 on 360, and even I'm pretty pissed that the PS3 got snubbed. I'm not sure if I'm just overly paranoid about all of this and PS3 will see Fallout content soon, but it doesn't look good. Nor does it look good for any of my created wrestlers.

Fallout 3 Broken Steel isn't happening for PS3 currently. I'm not sure if they got Operation Anchorage, but I know when asked one of the developers said "We're not interested in developing content for PS3 at this time." Sony has fucked up in a lot of areas, but that doesn't mean fans shouldn't have access to the same content 360 owners have, or vice versa.

Like I said, it's just turning into an excuse to fuck over the loyal gamers.

[dz06lt]

PS3 gets no fallout 3 DLC and yes DLC is a bad thing all around horse armor anyone? Some have done it right though like burnout paradise

[boffo]

Like with the GTA4 DLC you pretty much have to assume money changed hands one way or the other for this stuff to be exclusive to one console. Personally I think that is nothing but a huge waste of money, that as you said leaves some gamers lacking in content. Exclusive DLC will never be a system seller for any console so the only people it affects is those that have both a 360 and PS3 and actually intend to purchase the DLC. And even in that case all it affects is which console they buy the game for. That's hardly worth the big payout that some of these companies must be getting.

[PirateThom]

It's known Microsoft paid $50m for 2 GTAIV DLC episodes.

$50m is $20m more than it cost to make Halo 3 and the same as it cost to make Metal Gear Solid 4. The fact the games sales more or less matched the install bases and neither party saw a hardware boost of any significance, makes me think it was a somewhat foolish investment.

Anyway, I have problems with DLC in general. Occasionally it will be a substantial piece of content worth buying, but often developers will just fire out crap like costume/car packs on day 1. You don't "unlock" things by playing games anymore, you "unlock" them literally by paying for them since, half the time, the content is already on the disc (check the file sizes for some of these things, often a few kb). There's absolutely no reason why costumes should not be free, since they add nothing significant and I just outright refuse to buy them.

I also refuse to download exclusive DLC, even if it's free, because the whole concept is bullshit. If I pay x for a game on one platform and someone else pays x for the game on another, we should both have access to anything released for it. Rockstar and Bethesda cut out two substantial portions of their userbase but both are probably laughing their asses off the bank, while Microsoft are forced to close studios. Was it a good idea? Who knows. I'm sure Ensemble and ACES don't think so. There's also that Tomb Raider: Underworld DLC. It was supposed to be on the disc, but when the devs realised there was nothing they could do to make the DLC substantial they cut levels from BOTH versions of the game and will only be offering them on XBox 360 as DLC. Yep, because the devs didn't want to make anything different, they opted to cut levels out of the game and use it instead. So, yeah, exclusive DLC can GTFO.

In rare cases, you'll get developers like Criterion who give away a lot of free content and then start premium packs. This, I'm fine with, they've supported the game, they deserve something in return. Or, on the flip side to Capcom, you've Konami who have been updating MGS4 with free camo and music essentially since launch. There's really no reason why developers can't offer free support to their games. Even if it's for a limited time. Or, if they are going to offer something later on down the line that we know work has gone into and couldn't possibly have been on the disc at release, go for it, but don't make us pay for a lot of shit.

[E6600]

I disagree. I think downloadable contents adds extra downloadable contents to games, which is always a good thing, and for those who don't want it they are not forced to have it.

[downphoenix]

Im not a fan of the exclusivity. And MS was dumb for paying 50$ million for DLC exclusivity, they got ripped off. They shouldnt have paid that kind of money unless it was for something like GAME exclusivity. They should have paid 50$ for DLC exclusivity, if anything.

[codenamelenny]

DLC content is great when it's free and on all platforms.

[boffo]

Originally Posted by E6600

I disagree. I think downloadable contents adds extra downloadable contents to games, which is always a good thing, and for those who don't want it they are not forced to have it.

It's good when it actually adds extra content to the game. But as already said, charging money to unlock content already on the disc, or having DLC available for a game on launch day are undermining the $60 you just spent on a game. And then you get a few cases where EA offers users the chance to pay money to unlock all the content they would unlock in the game if they actually chose to play it instead. Anyone who buys that is just an idiot.

[downphoenix]

Originally Posted by boffo

And then you get a few cases where EA offers users the chance to pay money to unlock all the content they would unlock in the game if they actually chose to play it instead. Anyone who buys that is just an idiot.

That is true, but some people suck at games, but want content, why not charge them?

[Juno]

Originally Posted by E6600

I disagree. I think downloadable contents adds extra downloadable contents to games, which is always a good thing, and for those who don't want it they are not forced to have it.

Or to look at at the other side of the coin, downloadable content allows developers to hold back features on release only to release them later for an extra charge.