how long before you stop caring about DLC?

[MVPete]

I only do map packs for shooting games, I don't even really consider that DLC though, just a huge scam that I fall for everytime.

[Herm]

The only DLC i have ever bought was on Rock Band. i refuse to pay for it for some reason. Ive gotten plenty of map packs on FPS via gamesharing on PSN over the years though

One of the main reasons i would buy RockBand DLC was i had 3 guys that we bought stuff and shared between the 3 accounts.

[dope]

shit how could i forget rock band....ya i dropped a bit of money on that shit for sure!!

[Twigg4075]

It all depends on the game. Multiplayer-centic games like Battlefield can easily get away with releasing maps and modes for a game well over a year after release. It takes a special single player (or co-op) game to get away with that policy. But if you're going to do it and be successful you need an approach like Borderlands where you release the first content with a month or two after release and keep the content evenly spaced out.

Games like Bioshock Infinite and Last Of Us have really dropped the ball. Nine months to a year after the initial release of the game? Give me a break. A very small percentage of people are going to give a shit. While I was thoroughly unimpressed with Infinite and wouldn't have cared either way but I absolutely loved LOU and at this point I still don't care about the DLC that finally released today. I'm sure I'll get it when it goes on sale but had it released within three months of the game's release I would've been salivating over it. I understand why because a development team like Naughty Dog is sacrificing all of their resources on two games, LOU and Uncharted, so it probably isn't even possible to start work on DLC until after the main game is complete. Although, from what I hear, the LOU DLC is a pretty significant chunk of gameplay, more in line with "expansions" like the PC world has had for ages. Releasing a major expansion for a game in nine months seems pretty acceptable. Whereas you have the Burial At Sea expansion for Infinite, which appears it should've been ONE piece of content that they separated into TWO and is still only about three hours of gameplay, is not acceptable in my opinion.

There may be no real solution for teams like ND, which is unfortunate.

[dave]

I buy extra courses for Tiger Woods golf, I bought those retro stadiums in MLB The Show, I intend to get the GTA5 DLC when it comes out.
Don't regret any of those purchases, but I'm not a big DLC guy and have never purchased an Ultimate Team stuff for sports games.

[EmpireWF]

Have never given a single damn about DLC.

[Aso]

They make the game and then take out a part of it and sell it for additional money. I won't stop.

[SethMode]

They make the game and then take out a part of it and sell it for additional money. I won't stop.

This is untrue in almost all cases.

[SethMode]

It all depends on the game. Multiplayer-centic games like Battlefield can easily get away with releasing maps and modes for a game well over a year after release. It takes a special single player (or co-op) game to get away with that policy. But if you're going to do it and be successful you need an approach like Borderlands where you release the first content with a month or two after release and keep the content evenly spaced out.

Games like Bioshock Infinite and Last Of Us have really dropped the ball. Nine months to a year after the initial release of the game? Give me a break. A very small percentage of people are going to give a shit. While I was thoroughly unimpressed with Infinite and wouldn't have cared either way but I absolutely loved LOU and at this point I still don't care about the DLC that finally released today. I'm sure I'll get it when it goes on sale but had it released within three months of the game's release I would've been salivating over it. I understand why because a development team like Naughty Dog is sacrificing all of their resources on two games, LOU and Uncharted, so it probably isn't even possible to start work on DLC until after the main game is complete. Although, from what I hear, the LOU DLC is a pretty significant chunk of gameplay, more in line with "expansions" like the PC world has had for ages. Releasing a major expansion for a game in nine months seems pretty acceptable. Whereas you have the Burial At Sea expansion for Infinite, which appears it should've been ONE piece of content that they separated into TWO and is still only about three hours of gameplay, is not acceptable in my opinion.

There may be no real solution for teams like ND, which is unfortunate.

Unacceptable? It's additional content. You didn't even like the game...just don't buy the content...

[jms493]

This is untrue in almost all cases.

DUDE! Long time man...we miss you here.

[Twigg4075]

Unacceptable? It's additional content. You didn't even like the game...just don't buy the content...

LOL. Do you have a Google alert set up for any time I voice my dismay over that extremely overrated game? Yes, I think it is unacceptable that a company charges $30 for three hours of content. But the best part is that they try to disguise it by saying that Burial At Sea is actually two parts. Pathetic.

[SethMode]

LOL. Do you have a Google alert set up for any time I voice my dismay over that extremely overrated game? Yes, I think it is unacceptable that a company charges $30 for three hours of content. But the best part is that they try to disguise it by saying that Burial At Sea is actually two parts. Pathetic.

I was just in the thread. The point is, the game was complete, this DLC is purely additional. I can at least understand usage of the word unacceptable when it's arguably adding to or changing the overall game. This is not that. No one is forcing anyone to buy this DLC to get the most out of Infinite, so I don't understand your argument.

Just don't buy it.

[Twigg4075]

I was just in the thread. The point is, the game was complete, this DLC is purely additional. I can at least understand usage of the word unacceptable when it's arguably adding to or changing the overall game. This is not that. No one is forcing anyone to buy this DLC to get the most out of Infinite, so I don't understand your argument.

Just don't buy it.

I'm not going to. But it's preying on the hardcore fans of the series. I hate when companies try to fuck over their biggest fans. The dlc bridges the gap between the first two much better games and this one. So then the biggest fans think they NEED to get it to get the full story. Then they plunk down way too much money to get three hours of gameplay in two installments. Had it been $10 or $15 and one piece of content then I wouldn't have an issue with it. All they were doing was trying to make their pathetic Season Pass look better.

[RyanLeaf16]

Depends on the game, but, I never get too worked up over DLC. The only game where I get excited for DLC is UFC. The additional fighters are important to me. Hopefully we also get a fighter share this year where fighters that are uploaded don't have their attributes reset to zero.

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

I bought the Season pass for GOW3. There extra levels and map packs are I guess technically worth it but I had lost so much interest in GOW3 once I saw how awful the online setup was. I officially said FU when that half game prequel Judgement came out and maps and levels were so obviously limited just to sell DLC.
Pretty sure I stopped playing midnight club when I realized I had to use actual money not in game money to unlock all the cars.
All I can do is laugh at EA when they want me to pay for there players / teams / courses etc.
DLC was supposed to extend the life of games...but as predicted its simply a means to shortchange a launch title and nickel and dime for things that should already be or previously were included.