Bad, I think it promotes unfinished games and extensive profiteering. In short it is a con, but there are enough fanboys and zealots out there to protect thier fave games. I can't think of a single good DLC. I brought the GSB ones and they were all rubbish. Just look at the madball: babo invasion ones on steam they are laughable. I haven't really considered the free ones..
Only problem is i doubt they'll be released for $5/$10 when Activision is charging $10 for a map pack a small section of the Game is going to be $20 or more just because they know that people will pay for it. One of the main reasons i haven't bought Mafia 2 yet despite being impressed with the demo is the news of DLC being released for it and i know that in a year i'll probably get the game and all the DLC for £15 just like I did with Fallout 3.
Looks like a consensus to me, the apparent split vote is a result of inadequate poll options; I imagine if you'd put a Good if it actually adds substantial amounts of content choice it would've received an overwhelming majority vote. I voted yes for lack of this option, but it was basically an internal coin-flip.
Ah yes, that is the major problem! The publishers who we'd like to be able to sample pieces of first to make sure we don't waste $50 are the ones who'd never sell them fairly, and the ones who would sell them fairly we already trust enough to buy full games from up front!
Extra game content can be added in a patch - the term "DLC" implies two differences: usually not free; requires some form of online check. The first can be bad for consumers if bug-fixes or original game content are made DLCs - on the other hand it can be of benefit if it provides developers with greater incentive to expand and improve a game. The second is a universal bad for consumers - every system of verification/activation causes problems which in the worst case can force a repurchase. However unless faced with a significant boycott, software publishers are likely to continue (and even expand) this approach due to the greater levels of control and information it provides them on customer activities.
Fallout 3 DLC was awsome, I loved the game, and completed it several times. The DLC added many new things, New enemies, new weapons, new areas, each adding more to the game. Once you had the DLC it changed the way the game played, opening various options. DLC map packs for multiplayers I'm not so sure about, would I like to be "forced" into buying a new map to play on my favourite server if they liked a new map? Would the Updates for TF2 have worked as DLC, I doubt it, yet other companies would have charged for the updates valve did. IMO if they had they would have done more damage than good, as not everyone would have had them and therby unbalancing the game. IMO DLC needs to do three things: 1) Be cost effective, £5 DLC is OK £20 is a piss take 2) Not ruin the game for others, ie not give a new weapon that no dlc players cant have online 3) Actually add something to the game, DLC skins is a daft idea. But overall, I'm for DLC. If I don't like it I won't buy it. BUT. If DLC ruined a game I'd be furious.
I'd say its a bit of both although predominantly Good. Reasons it's bad: - Sometimes a DLC should not even be a considered a DLC i.e. it could have just been put in-game from the start. - Similarly, some DLCs are pretty expensive and don't add much value. Reason it's good: - Sometimes is free! - Can add value and longetivity to the game.
The main thing about that is that probably cost you what? £2 in total? DLC that doesn't add much, like the KF skin packs (which i own one of) i have no problem with, as long as they are priced reasonably. Especially for something like KF, which has had a lot of free fixes and updates. (<3 demo perk)
Is DLC a good thing? That depends greatly on what company utilizes that tech. And how. If it adds to the story and gives you extra weapon/armour options and therefore more tactical options..then cool. Mass Effect 2 has done alright with the DLC so far in my opinion. But if company's purposely hold back content and release unfinished games only to sting us later with DLC that actually completes the game..then no. I'm quite happy to pay a few measly pounds for some extra fun if it fleshes out the story and options between expansion packs. But I don't think many games are worthy of DLC at all. So I will use my discretion, same as I do when purchasing games. Ultimately DLC only really impacts your experience if you want it too. No game has made DLC vital to being able to continue playing. And no game will if they want to keep their player base.
