DLC

[Cooper]

What is everyone's stance on DLC?

Mine is if you did not think of this idea before the vanilla game was released, or too late in production to do so, then DLC is fair game. I do not support when it's thought up off long before you finish your game or already include it in the game then have to pay to unlock it.

I say this because it feels like a deliberate lack of content deliverance for for the sole purpose of making more money. My message is if you're going to do DLC, at least make your vanilla game playable and with reason to dwell on it for longer than one play session.

I approve as long as it's utilized properly.

[TomGuycott]

I have a neutral stance on it. The fact is that some games are getting more and more expensive to produce, so rather than charge people 90 dollars for what they intended they are having you pay 60 for its base, which even then I feel like is kind of lame.

Example of awful DLC:
Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 originally came with no costumes, but characters already had costumes on disc that were available through being paid rather than being an unlockable fun thing.

Example of excellent DLC:
Bloodborne's Old Hunters DLC was an amazing addition to an already great game. It added creative new weapons, scary new enemies, incredible new bosses (two out of five were essentially reskins/remodels of two other bosses, but they were done right, with new animations and creative quirks). The main game would have already been enough to make the game feel complete, but the DLC is a wonderful bonus.

[Usyra]

It depends.

I like when they offer fun extras, like special costumes or bonus levels/chapters (Assassins Creed Syndicate)

It's annoying when the game isn't complete without them (Assassins Creed 2)

[Davy Jones]

Since there are very good and very crappy kinds of DLC, all you can do is stay on a neutral ground and rate them from case to case.

Some of them are even both, good & crappy at the same time like Hyrule Warriors. The game needed a whole lot more variety in stages and enemies, but all they brought were more characters, weapons & maps. So the DLC itself was of good quality, but not what the game needed.

[Random Talking Bush]

If you had asked me what I thought about this like ten years ago, I'd say I would be fine with it.

...but nowadays? Absolutely not. Lots of developers are using it as an excuse to cut content from the games to sell back as pre-order DLC (forcing people who have just gotta have every bit of content for a game to invest in a title before it's even out), and Capcom was certainly the worst offender with the way they handled Street Fighter X Tekken (12 additional characters on the disc that you needed to pay extra for!). Whatever happened to being able to unlock extra content for games by playing through them and doing all the extra content designed for that purpose (e.g. exchanging Gold Bolts in Ratchet & Clank games for alternate costumes), modern games have that sorta thing as something you need to shell out extra money for.

Never mind the fact I never liked the idea of "Season Pass" content and how practically every "AAA" game is required to have it (even Nintendo's not exempt from it now due to Breath of the Wild). And don't even get me started on the idea of microtransactions...

[NICKtendo DS]

I've been loving Inti Creates for their games on Switch and loving them even more for their DLC. Blaster Master Zero just went from "only really worth one playthrough per character" to "something I'd boot up when a friend comes over" thanks to a free update that added a boss battles mode and, more importantly, co-op boss battles mode. Both player 1 and 2 can pick any of the available characters, including DLC characters. Now I get more value out of every character I downloaded.

I got most content for BM0 and Mighty Gunvolt Burst for free, but when I had to pay, I was more than happy to. I want more DLC for their games. I also bought the Azure Striker Gunvolt Striker Pack because of this and Gunvolt's appearance in both games. I'm sure as hell going to get Dragon: Marked for Death (stupid name, but it'll grow on me one day) day one.

Also shout-out to Shin'en for the surprise 6 extra remix tracks (they use the lay-out of existing tracks and add elements from another, like Scorpio Circuit's sandworm and obstacles in Willard Mine.)

But this is 10-20 euro games we're talking about. I paid 14 euros total for Mighty Gunvolt Burst, 10 for the game, 4 for the DLC. The DLC for Breath of the Wild is 20. 20 after paying 60. Still, I was happy to pay the price for what value I got out of it. Doesn't make Nintendo's Season Passes as of late less stupid. Here's what it looks like:
Day 1: Fluff (A t-shirt, 10 Quick Balls, all that jazz)
Half way: Bigger fluff (Challenges, items, features? Really?)
Final day: The actual content
To me that sounds more like pre-ordering the DLC with bonuses to hold you over and make the price seem better rather than a Season Pass that could offer multiple waves of content. Of course, I'd rather have that content have its own development cycle, it being something extra, than something that should've been part of the game in the first place.

All in all, DLC made me happy the last couple of weeks thanks to companies like Inti Creates and Shin'en adding new stuff for free along with content for a fair price. As long as I feel the game and content is worth buying, I'm okay with that. More of the game I love is always welcome. Fuck on-disc, priced DLC and especially fuck microtransactions. Just seeing that 150 euro Hyper Golden Whale edition NBA 2K18 shit on the eShop made my skin crawl.

[Kriven]

Honestly, DLC is a great idea that hasn't been used to consumer-friendly effect in the ways that it could. Right now it's being predictably used by men in suits to chop games into tiny little pieces and sell them to you chunks at a time. Then a sequel comes out, and the process begins all over again.

What DLC could be good for would be to turn the majority of games--particularly multiplayer and competitive type games, like fighters and racing games and sport games--into MMOs of sorts with frequent content updates. For instance, imagine if Mario Kart 8 never left development. Mario Kart 8 comes out exactly the way it did before on the Wii U, only every month Nintendo adds a new character you could buy, or a new track, or both, or a new mode. DLC changes the way developers could be thinking about monetizing their games going forward and extending the shelflife of each individual title instead of looking at creating sequel after sequel. It could give us the best version of so many games simply because over time there would just be more characters than could be created in a single development cycle, more modes, more levels.

But DLC isn't being used this way. It's being used to remove characters from the finished product (sometimes despite the story clearly being written for those characters to have a role...) and sell them off to gamers later on.

[Kendotlibero]

my favorite dlcs are the age of empires one, where allows you to play a game with a different flavour. Then we have the paied costume dlcs or op characters like hyperdimension neptunia and story dlcs like mass effect 3 locked behind a paywall that i hate them.
Like a knife, it depends on how you use them.

[Vlad Ⅲ]

At first glance, I thought DLC was Dracula Loving Community. Felt fuzzy inside until I knew true meaning. Now there is no fuzzy feeling inside, is as if stake is through heart. Especially when DLC is thing that is not liked by people!

When you pay money on good you expect good to be full! DLC is supposed to be extra, not missing part. Is logic! When I ascended to throne I had to rule entire Wallachia. One does not become famous doing half things!

I accept DLC when is additional and optional, and not already in computer video game contraption. Scummy tactic is no-no!

[FinestHour]

I love DLC. Meaning I can have new characters to play as in beat 'em ups.