I don't like it. Much of the paid DLC is superfluous fluff that shouldn't even cost anything. But that isn't the worst part. I hate it when games take optional content that was previously included in past games and turn it into DLC for the new titles. Let's take the Final Fantasy series as an example. Previous games were chock full of optional characters, bosses, dungeons, side quests, and ultimate equipment. If these games were released now, most of that you'd have to pay extra for. Just look at how much was locked away in FF XIII-2 as proof. Some games like the Mass Effect series include optional characters and content as DLC and then integrate those characters and events into the plotline of the next game, proving that they are not really optional.
Even if the content was solely optional, it is just not very enjoyable to pay real money and then instantly have access to it. I want to explore the game world and find it. While some DLC just unlocks it in the game, that is basically spoiling the existence of the content, which again takes away from the joy of discovery.
So what does everyone else think? It's pretty obvious that paid DLC is here to stay, so is it a good thing?
Depends. If DLC is optional, doesn't feel like it was cut out from the main game, and is charged at a reasonable price? That's fine. So, like... The map packs in FE:A were decent DLC, IMO. The Phoenix Wright case seems like it will be good DLC. Otherwise, bad.
kwando is 100% right
Like the above poster said. As long as it's not stuff that feels cut from the game.
If Platinum was HAND drawn, she'd be on paper, fool. This is a video game. They just made her on screen, no "drawing" involved -Delano7 on BlazBlue
Paid DLC is almost always content that would not have been produced for the game if it didn't have DLC. Or it helps to keep the retail cost of a game down and helps pay for those mega expensive CGI cutscenes.
Games still have superfluous fluff and optional secrets/extras to find.
A $30 game at retail with $10 optional DLC would be $40 at retail if the DLC was included in the retail release.
Would you rather pay $30 for a game and ignore the $10 superfluous fluff you don't want or need, or pay $40 for the same game which includes the superfluous fluff you still don't want or need?
"History always favors the victor at the expense of the truth." ~ Rook
It depends, because I do actually purchase a good amount of add-on content but I have to think that it's worth it.
For example, I've greatly enjoyed a good number of different DLC missions for games like Mass Effect, because Shadow Broker, Omega, etc., were pretty awesome. Not a big fan of map packs anymore because they usually wind up either splintering the player base or just not getting played, ie: Halo 3 through Reach. Unless you played the low population playlists that only had the DLC maps, you'd never get to play them since regular Slayer, etc,. would have the new maps in it but you'd have to get matched up with 7-15 people who also had the maps. I played Longshore maybe 10 times, total, and I actually liked that map.
The additional maps for Fire Emblem were all right, and I'll be picking up that new case for the new Ace Attorney game as soon as its available.
There's a lot of shameless price gouging but that doesn't mean that all DLC is bad. Of course, I still dislike Capcom's practices with DLC as of lately, and I especially dislike what happened with FFXIII-2, Tales of Xillia 2 (in Japan, and I get that most of them are costumes but holy hell some of them cost way too much), and on-disc DLC has a special place in hell reserved for it (preorder bonus DLC that's created after a game goes gold is one thing, but blatantly cutting content and then hiding it behind a pay wall is irritating).
Sony bought Konami and will release a DDR game for the Nintendo 3DS. In this game, you set your 3DS on the floor and stomp on it till it no longer functions.
It depends entirely on what the DLC is.
When I think of good DLC, I think of the DLC of Fallout: New Vegas or New Super Mario U. In the case of the former, it adds new content to an already massive game, giving you new areas to explore and quests to do. In the case of the later, its a legitimate expansion pack. I completely support good DLC.
I don't mind unnecessary DLC either; stuff like Fire Emblem's DLC, many JRPGs "instant level ups", weapon/armor skins, etc. I don't buy it, but if someone wants to I don't really care if they do.
I despise stuff like true ending DLC, but thankfully, that's rare. And games aren't cut nearly as much as people think they are; they just see Day 1 DLC and freak and think just because a game took longer to 100% for their younger self it had more content - rather than they know what to do in games these days.
3DS Friend Code: 2680-9395-3914
Friend Safari (Dragon): Fraxure, Noibat, ????
If the content is already included in the game and the DLC is just an unlock key, I'm not really a fan of it, but I might still get the content if I'd like it. If it's new content (such as the thousands of downloadable songs for the Rock Band franchise), I'm all for it.
I don't care what it is. I hate paid DLC with passion. Unless it's something silly like the SMT IV DLC. A shortcut for lazy or unskilled people, that doesn't really cripples the game like most paid DLCs.
Learn to report topics and posts: http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/help/?cat=18
And stop flooding.
I like how its been done with New Super Mario Bros 2, SMT IV (even though I haven't bought any for the game), and Fire Emblem. Cheap prices and nothing absolutely essential to the game. Just extras that are available for a price.
-.-- --- ..- / -.-. --- ..- .-.. -.. / .... .- ...- . / ... .--. . -. - / - .... .. ... / - .. -- . / .--. .-.. .- -.-- .. -. --. / .- / --. .- -- .
if it it cut content no.
if it's content teh devloper makes after the game is finished i.e nsmb 2 then yes.
Censorship is like telling a man he can't have a steak simply because a baby can't chew it.-Mark Twain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gx1fTzeRP4
Add user to Ignore List after reporting