DLC or not DLC, is that the question?
Over the last couple of years, downloadable content (DLC) has become an integral part of the gaming experience. Nowadays most big budget titles have got a DLC plan behind them and we as gamers have come to expect extra post-release content for our games as a given. But as our hunger for new content grows, publishers have been employing riskier methods to get additional content delivered to our games faster. Most recently, players of BioShock 2 became suspicious when the download size of the first piece of DLC for the game – which added new characters and costume options – was revealed to be far too small for the content itself to be included in the download. This meant only one thing: the content was, in fact already included on the disk and the download was just a method to unlock said content for players. Publisher 2 stated that this was so the new content would not “split the player base of the multiplayer component” – yet this statement doesn’t really address the issue.
When we buy a game, don’t we expect to have access to all the content on the disk from the off? Especially when we’re paying the best part of fifty pounds for a title (more if it’s a special edition), is it now too much to hope to get the complete game out of the box? Granted with BioShock 2 none of the components in the DLC pack are essential, but aside from the aesthetic tweaks the pack allows players three weapon upgrades as opposed to the two allowed by default once players reach the rank unlocked by the DLC. Surely this gives an advantage to those players who are richer and actually willing to pay for the content while other players have to settle with the defaults – already introducing a kind of split of the player base even if it’s a subtle one. Many free-to-play games have a similar model but few let those who spend money play with those who don’t introduce, especially when those paid for aspects give richer players an actual advantage during play. And BioShock 2 is not a free to play title.
2K are not alone in taking a new approach to DLC. EA’s “Ten Dollar Plan” offers up free DLC for people who purchase their games brand new. Those who’ve bought titles second-hand must pay an extra ten dollars, as the name of the scheme implies, in order to access this content themselves. It rewards early adopters and those willing to buy games brand new but punishes those on a lower income, or those only looking to rent a game. Notably, none of the games so far contain content that gives players in multiplayer a massive advantage – Bad Company 2 includes unlocks but these are eventually obtainable by all (unlike Bioshock 2’s), but they admittedly do risk dividing the community partially when the first two new DLC maps are released at the end of this month. They’re free to those who registered a VIP code (in other words, bought the game brand new) but those who’ve bought the game second hand will need to cough up the dough.
Recently, Sega released the first map pack DLC for Aliens Vs Predator. It was interesting to note that this particular content pack was composed entirely of maps for the collector’s edition of the game. In essence, people paid roughly the extra cost of the collector’s edition for an “upgrade” to their standard one. It’s a seemingly more sensible idea; essentially BioShock 2’s content was on every disk and in every edition – but not accessible without purchasing the DLC. Maybe it would have been better received if it was part of the collector’s package, and released to everyone else at a later time? Or does this run the risk of devaluing collector’s editions, especially at retail when specific editions can be a massive earner for a retailer over their rivals?
One final noteworthy move came from, of all people, Microsoft themselves. On the Games for Windows Live service they had a sale on BioShock 2, currently on their Games on Demand service. If you bought the game along with the DLC, you would be able to claim twice what the DLC was priced back in a rebate. Did even Microsoft have doubts about the worth of this pack? In my mind, 2K have really dropped the ball on early DLC. It almost feels like they’re punishing their customers by holding valuable megabytes of disk space hostage – but until publishers can come up with a general consensus, we may be seeing more questionable practices with DLC and publishers coming up with their own definitions of “downloadable content”. It’s up to us to let publishers know when they’ve taken our trust in them too far.
Ben Borthwick
To a certain extent I side with publishers giving “day one” DLC to customers who buy their games new. The publishing companies need to incentivise customers to buy games new rather than second hand.
On the other hand, why should someone pay extra for something they’ve already “bought”?
The problem is obviously that you do not actually buy a game, you only buy a license to play it. Publishers such as Capcom have taken advantage of this fact with the Resident Evil 5 DLC, since you were effectively paying to unlock something already on the disk. This is not uncommon either; a quick google search finds that games such as Viva Pinata, Chromehounds and Dead Rising have all used this system.
It is an interesting comparison to the “Hot Coffee” mod dilemma – the information is there, but you have to alter the game to unlock it.
I don’t have a problem with the Day-1 DLC to be honest, that seems fair. This new tactic of having the DLC on the disk is a bit of a joke though. Imagine the company isn’t even willing to pay for the friggin bandwidth for you to download the extra content.
I have a problem with DLC outright anyway. Considering companys like Valce and Epic have no problem giving free content packs to their communities, I find it hard to take when substandard games attempt to cram more cash from their comminities weeks, months and years later.
This is one of the worse aspects of the console resurgence. They need up to buy buy buy like we never have before. Eventually the arse will fall out of DLC. Its market importance needs to be scaled back big time.
Very good article on a topic that I often like to think about myself. Weren’t Capcom one of the first to be included in this ‘Unlocking’ of actual disc content with versus mode for Resi-5 or something similar? Personally I never really bother with shelling out my cash for DLC ( such as extra map packs/characters ) because I rarely play MP modes in games enough to warrant buying these items. Even with games I do regularly play online such as COD/halo I never bothered buying additional map packs as I always see it as a waste of time to be honest.
I don’t mind getting ‘meaty’ DLC shall we say, from previous expansion packs such as shivering isles for Oblivion or the various Fallout 3 expansions. I see these types of additional content as what they are meant to be; expansions of games I really enjoyed playing and not just a cheap gimmick thrown at the people who have more money than sense in my opinion.