What's your thoughts on publishers announcing DLC long before a game is released?

Gemini73 · Last edited by Gemini73 on Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I just read that THQ Nordic have announced their post launch DLC for Darksiders 3 and will feature "new playable areas, challenges, puzzles, items and enemies".

Nothing new in this day and age, but why are we seemingly happy to accept this practice as the norm? Personally I can't help feel more than a little cynical toward this (now common) trend of announcing content that has purposely been held back, (or probably ripped out of the game prior to launch), with the sole purpose of selling it to gamers at a later date. If it were like the expansion packs of old I'd be less inclined to question it.

How do you guys feel about it?

Gemini73

Well that's as straight an answer as we're likely to see. :lol:

I’ll never buy any of it, the filthy swine! Acc pt the game as it is or don’t buy it. Or better still, wait for the obligatory deluxe version with all the dlc included.

They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this sort of thing!

My immediate thought is that the devs/publisher are being greedy banana splits, and secondly, unless it's a damn good game I won't be buying it.

Season passes can strawberry float right off too.

Bluesky

It's bad. Even if they don't announce it, really - if they're already preparing/making DLC content alongside the base game instead of just including it. The point in DLC should be that it adds to a finished game or that it offers content they didn't plan or couldn't deliver in the main development cycle for whatever reason (time/budget constraints).

Still not totally a fan of DLC but I guess it's a desirable evil. I got MK8's DLC tracks/characters because I wanted more of that game, felt sure they'd be of good quality and that the price was okay. Smash 4's DLC characters didn't represent as good value for money but like a dumbass I picked up most of them and bought some stages too.

And then there's the content Ultra Sun/Moon provides over Sun and Moon which I felt would have been better suited as just DLC for the latter-mentioned games.

Knoy has hit the nail on the head.

strawberry float the absolute strawberry float off.

Suppose it’s the same with red dead with their special and ultimate editions containing extra single player content pretty punch taking it out the game and charging you an extra £25 - £35 for it

Don't care at all.

To expand a little, when buying a game what I care about is if the game I'm getting is going to be worth the money I'm spending on it.

DLC might factor in to that and it might not.

dont buy games that do that, simple

HSH28 wrote:Don't care at all.

To expand a little, when buying a game what I care about is if the game I'm getting is going to be worth the money I'm spending on it.

DLC might factor in to that and it might not.

In this instance we are talking about DLC being announced a long time prior to the release of the base game. So it could quite easily just be part of the base game. Why would you buy the game and then pay extra for so called DLC when it could and perhaps should have been part of the base game? It makes no sense.

Drumstick wrote:In this instance we are talking about DLC being announced a long time prior to the release of the base game. So it could quite easily just be part of the base game. Why would you buy the game and then pay extra for so called DLC when it could and perhaps should have been part of the base game? It makes no sense.

I don't care. I care about what they are charging me for what I'm getting.

Again to expand, I can understand why budgets might force certain content to be paid for on the publisher/developer stage no matter when its actually made. It just doesn't bother me...if I'm getting what I consider to be value for money out of the content I'm actually buying.

NickSCFC

Not a problem as long as the game has enough content for the money.

It certainly put me off buying Soul Calibur 6.

7256930752

I couldn't give a gooseberry fool. There's enough examples of DLC created by small teams that either split off or were completely separate from the main development team that I don't instantly think "their carving up mah games". That and there has been some really good DLC.

I think marketing needs to get smarter as after The Battlefront shenanigans it's a bit tone deaf to have the 'ultra rare deluxe special edition' and announce the DLC roadmap even though there are very few of any games that are demonstrably worse because of it. It just rubs people the wrong way.

I don't like it. The developers should be focusing on making the game the best it can be, not thinking about what bits to hold back or what else can be made in parallel.

They should give the DLC away for free to boost sales of the main game when sales are flagging and create a loyal user base who will then eagerly await the next game.

I like to put armour on my horse.

Drumstick wrote:
HSH28 wrote:Don't care at all.

To expand a little, when buying a game what I care about is if the game I'm getting is going to be worth the money I'm spending on it.

DLC might factor in to that and it might not.

In this instance we are talking about DLC being announced a long time prior to the release of the base game. So it could quite easily just be part of the base game. Why would you buy the game and then pay extra for so called DLC when it could and perhaps should have been part of the base game? It makes no sense.

I don't understand this. If a project is planned to take x amount of time for the base game using available resources why would it be easy to bolt on additional work just because 'x time' happens to be three years or whatever?

You either have to change your release date or add more resources. That means having to hire/source more people and increase the budget of the game, make developers work harder, longer hours; or (if we're being honest) both.

If anything, having a 'roadmap' upfront for customers that explains what is being released when is exactly how publishers should be approaching their marketing and development of DLC. It's shitty to expect people to pay upfront for the promise of future DLC in the form of season passes, but it's genuinely a good thing to inform people of future DLC plans ahead of time. It also (hopefully) keeps development staff employed on a more longer term, stable project than they otherwise would have.

It's of course inexcusable where extra, paid stuff is released when it was originally part of the initial release, and that probably has happened and probably still does happen. Siphoning off sections of your game for the explicit intention of charging more for it on top of the base game is surely more prevalent in day one DLC though, right?

I kind of agree with HSH (yep, that crackling sound is hell freezing over). The fact is, games these days should probably cost more than they do. Look at what we used to pay £45 for in the 16-bit generation (before you even consider inflation). Then look at the content and value in Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey (as well as the number of people involved in its production). I’m happy to pay £80 for that much stuff. Announcing it all in advance is better than being sneaky about it.

Cuttooth wrote:It's of course inexcusable where extra, paid stuff is released when it was originally part of the initial release, and that probably has happened and probably still does happen. Siphoning off sections of your game for the explicit intention of charging more for it on top of the base game is surely more prevalent in day one DLC though, right?

My impression is that is exactly what most DLC amounts to. If they announce it before hand then it's very likely they've been working on it for some time.

What's your thoughts on publishers announcing DLC long before a game is released?

Who is online

Affiliates