My unpopular opinion is that DLC is not, in and of itself, bad. If you don’t want it, don’t buy it! If you do want it - great, no problem! In a world without DLC, you either have to buy the whole game, or not. If you tried it and didn’t like it, you have wasted the whole price of the game. Whereas in a DLC system, you’ve spent the price of the base game, but that’s effectively just a fraction of the total game price. You risked less.
What is a problem - and what I think most people who think they’re mad about DLC are actually mad about - is charging a price that isn’t commensurate with the amount of content you get. If a full game is “worth” $60, and it’s split up into a $20 base game and 4 $10 DLCs - great, everyone is (or, should be!) happy. But if the publisher charges $60 for $20-worth of base game and then charges for DLC on top, you should be pissed - but you should still be pissed about that mispricing even if the DLC didn’t exist. Yes, DLC is the reason why that pricing strategy is adopted - but that doesn’t mean that DLC itself is inherently bad. There are possible implementations that are not flawed.
DLC isn’t modular like that, you aren’t buying a fraction of the product and then completing the full thing with DLC. You’re still buying the base full priced game, and then DLC is typically additional content expanded upon that.
Your generalization doesn’t hold. Take Cities: Skylines (a city building game; compare it to Sim City) as an example. The base game cost €30 at launch [1]. It’s a (kinda [2]) functional base game, however, it’s somewhat flat.
If you’re interested in more challenge building industries (instead of just zoning industrial zones and that’s it), you buy the industries DLC (currently €15) where you need to juggle supply chains.
If you’re bored by just plopping down some parks to make people happy, you buy the Parklife DLC (also €15), which allows you to be more creative in providing recreation opportunities.
If you’re an old Transport Tycoon player and want to create the perfect public transport network, buy the Mass Transit DLC (€13).
The base game is fully functional without all these DLCs, and each one focuses on an aspect of the game into which some players might want to dig deeper, but not others.
[1] According to https://steampricehistory.com/app/255710
[2] I say “kinda” because it does have flaws. However, these aren’t fixed in DLCs, so my point still stands.
I think it makes no sense for a publisher to split up a game and get less money upfront, unless they want you to pay more for all the pieces than one complete game would have cost you. Therefore DLCs are almost always bad for consumers. The only exception are full scale expansions, because they are basically full games themselves. If they want to let people get a taste before buying then they should offer a free demo, or full refund within a certain time window.
Cosmetics are good examples as well, as a way to express thanks if you feel you’ve gotten your money’s worth. It’s just that it’s not even about that anymore. For the rest I agree 100%
This also means that you can’t get them without spending an absurd amount of money for what you’re getting, so it’s just as bad imo. If you wanna say thanks to the devs then send them some money directly, or spread the word about how great their game is.
Most AAA base games cost ~60 dollars for the base game and the DLCs add on top of that.
I’m not gonna be mad about the price, a game is cheap in terms of hours entertained compared to a good movie which costs about 10 dollars for about 2 hours of entertainment.
The issue is not the price. The DLCs is also not inherently bad, like you said. For instance, Borderlands 2 is known for having an excellent base game and an exceptional bunch of DLCs, one which became so loved and popular that it became its own spin off game (Tiny Tina’s Wonderlands).
The issue is that companies use DLCs as an excuse to charge money for small amounts of content. They make smaller games, still charge full price, then make DLCs that are relatively small and charge a lot for them.
Using the above example, Tiny Tina’s Wonderlands have DLCs that cost 10 dollars and feature a single dungeon (that takes ~20 minutes to complete) with a boss that was an enemy in the base game which got enlarged slightly and given more damage and HP. The community understandably was pissed - but they kept buying every single DLC they pumped out, which reinforced the behavior.
My unpopular opinion is that DLC is not, in and of itself, bad. If you don’t want it, don’t buy it! If you do want it - great, no problem! In a world without DLC, you either have to buy the whole game, or not. If you tried it and didn’t like it, you have wasted the whole price of the game. Whereas in a DLC system, you’ve spent the price of the base game, but that’s effectively just a fraction of the total game price. You risked less.
What is a problem - and what I think most people who think they’re mad about DLC are actually mad about - is charging a price that isn’t commensurate with the amount of content you get. If a full game is “worth” $60, and it’s split up into a $20 base game and 4 $10 DLCs - great, everyone is (or, should be!) happy. But if the publisher charges $60 for $20-worth of base game and then charges for DLC on top, you should be pissed - but you should still be pissed about that mispricing even if the DLC didn’t exist. Yes, DLC is the reason why that pricing strategy is adopted - but that doesn’t mean that DLC itself is inherently bad. There are possible implementations that are not flawed.
DLC isn’t modular like that, you aren’t buying a fraction of the product and then completing the full thing with DLC. You’re still buying the base full priced game, and then DLC is typically additional content expanded upon that.
Your generalization doesn’t hold. Take Cities: Skylines (a city building game; compare it to Sim City) as an example. The base game cost €30 at launch [1]. It’s a (kinda [2]) functional base game, however, it’s somewhat flat.
If you’re interested in more challenge building industries (instead of just zoning industrial zones and that’s it), you buy the industries DLC (currently €15) where you need to juggle supply chains. If you’re bored by just plopping down some parks to make people happy, you buy the Parklife DLC (also €15), which allows you to be more creative in providing recreation opportunities. If you’re an old Transport Tycoon player and want to create the perfect public transport network, buy the Mass Transit DLC (€13).
The base game is fully functional without all these DLCs, and each one focuses on an aspect of the game into which some players might want to dig deeper, but not others.
[1] According to https://steampricehistory.com/app/255710 [2] I say “kinda” because it does have flaws. However, these aren’t fixed in DLCs, so my point still stands.
OK - still, though, if every component (base game or DLC) that you buy is worth the money you pay for it, then what’s the problem?
there isn’t one
I think it makes no sense for a publisher to split up a game and get less money upfront, unless they want you to pay more for all the pieces than one complete game would have cost you. Therefore DLCs are almost always bad for consumers. The only exception are full scale expansions, because they are basically full games themselves. If they want to let people get a taste before buying then they should offer a free demo, or full refund within a certain time window.
Cosmetics are good examples as well, as a way to express thanks if you feel you’ve gotten your money’s worth. It’s just that it’s not even about that anymore. For the rest I agree 100%
This also means that you can’t get them without spending an absurd amount of money for what you’re getting, so it’s just as bad imo. If you wanna say thanks to the devs then send them some money directly, or spread the word about how great their game is.
Most AAA base games cost ~60 dollars for the base game and the DLCs add on top of that.
I’m not gonna be mad about the price, a game is cheap in terms of hours entertained compared to a good movie which costs about 10 dollars for about 2 hours of entertainment.
The issue is not the price. The DLCs is also not inherently bad, like you said. For instance, Borderlands 2 is known for having an excellent base game and an exceptional bunch of DLCs, one which became so loved and popular that it became its own spin off game (Tiny Tina’s Wonderlands).
The issue is that companies use DLCs as an excuse to charge money for small amounts of content. They make smaller games, still charge full price, then make DLCs that are relatively small and charge a lot for them.
Using the above example, Tiny Tina’s Wonderlands have DLCs that cost 10 dollars and feature a single dungeon (that takes ~20 minutes to complete) with a boss that was an enemy in the base game which got enlarged slightly and given more damage and HP. The community understandably was pissed - but they kept buying every single DLC they pumped out, which reinforced the behavior.
So you agree with me, then, that the problem is publishers charging a disproportionate price for the amount of content being purchased?
Absolutely.
I also agreed that DLCs are not the problem, it’s how they’re used to pump more money from people who are passionate about their games.