Topic: Should people be satisified with the content a developer puts into the retail game that doesn't have DLC? Is it wrong to want even more content?

Spinning off from the discussion about Platinum Games not putting any DLC into their game.

I say that games should continually be added to in the form of DLC as long as it remains popular enough to do so. More stages, more characters, rebalancing, more costumes and more abilities. It doesn't matter how much content goes into the retail game, most gamers will want to see even more content once they've seen all the game has to offer.

Take the original Street Fighter II. If gamers were satisfied it and did not demand for more characters and other content, Capcom wouldn't have made so many versions of it. We'd be stuck playing World Warriors and never have reached the vastly superior Super Street Fighter II Turbo. Back in the 90s, DLC didn't exist outside of PC games, so they had to create upgrades which is pretty much the same thing as DLC, just a different method of distribution.

You could name five games considered "THE BEST EVER" that do not have any DLC and I would still be able to give a list of content I would like to see added to the game. More dungeons in A Link to the Past, more levels in Super Mario World. If Nintendo were to release such content, I would download it for sure. Being "THE BEST EVER" doesn't mean it shouldn't have more content than is originally given. And games continually being given more content, including seperate upgrades, doesn't mean the game cannot be great, even in its original untouched form.

Day One DLC is one of the worst things that has come out of this console generation, and is just plain greedy.

However, I approve of DLC which enchances the game some time after the original release, such as additional characters in fighting games, and additional levels, since it gives the game a longer lifespan.

But I would rather have new games to have the time and resources put into new games than older games generally.

I don't think it's wrong for people to be greedy and want more content if and only if the game can still be fully enjoyed without the DLC. It's really a case-by-case examination; if it feels necessary for you to buy DLC to have a good experience (i.e. pay for otherwise unobtainable weapons, get the "good" ending, etc.), that's not okay, but if the DLC simply supplements an otherwise fine experience, that's fine in my book.

However, I do agree with @Bulby; I'd rather have developers working on new games/experiences than supplementing existing hardware.

Day one DLC is just bad :/ but it depends if it's for Pre-order or not.

But overall I enjoy DLC like a few extra People In a fighting game or new places to go to.

But if it is for new armor or items I might not get it depending on what I have to do to get it.

I'll be honest, while DLC is often fine, only the best DLC in some of the better games in my collection (as an example) would be DLC I'd buy. You're already paying 60 bucks for a game, either you already got your money worth or you shouldn't have to pay more to do so. Instead of buying DLC I just buy another game usually, and I tend to get my money's worth (partially because I've made a lot of good/lucky game decisions in the past few years) so instead of playing more of the exact same game, I play a new game instead. And it's fine. Honestly, while I haven't bought it, I'd love to see more Blood Dragon type of DLC where it's just a new game pretty much.

DLC is a cool thing to have but shouldn't be considered essential. I guess.

I think the thing is, why buy more of the game I just played when you could get a full new indie game for usually the same price or cheaper? You're just missing out on another game to play more of literally the same game you played. Which is fine but I consider it honestly not ideal for any gamer who has any interest in variety tbh.

also speaking of favorite games, while I'd love to see Metroid Prime 1 DLC as it would mean more Metroid Prime 1, which would make the world a better place potentially but I already got Prime 2 and Prime 3 and even as someone who loved the series, I wouldn't be upset if we never had more Prime content. Same with Mother 3 and even that's getting a fangame sequel apparently. And Orange Box at least got a Portal sequel, Paper Mario 2 was quite similar, and Smash Bros. Brawl and 4 exist so...yeah I'm fine.

Paid day one DLC is pretty much unethical. Anything finished by the game's launch should be included with the purchase. Free day one DLC is different in that it allows developers to add a little more content while the discs are being produced, a good couple months of extra work to make the final product all the better. As for later DLC... As long as the game is complete without the DLC and none of it was created during initial development, I see nothing wrong with it. DLC doesn't take nearly as many resources as another game, so it doesn't stop the company from making new games, it just gives fans a chance to get even more of their favorite game. DLC is only unethical in my opinion if it was content created before the game's release yet held back from consumers to squeeze more money out of them. Otherwise, it's up to the consumer whether they want to pay for extra content.

Day One DLC is awful. The only time its acceptable if its something like Language tracks or IF the game isn't in the same regions at the same time.

DLC is one of the worst things that happened to videogames in a long time. Especially the fact that a lot of developers are deliberately releasing incomplete titles while they could have been complete. It's plain greed. Plus the fact that gamers get screwed over by "ultimate editions" later on. In other words: Do not spend money on it, and wait till the "final cut" gets released.

DLC is like the Internet: it can be the greatest way to extend the life of a game, or the worst way to drive you away and lose interest; it can be absurdently amazing, or hellishly terrible. I'm fine with DLC if it actually DOES aim to extend the life of the game, and not just be a cheap cash grab. It's things like day one, or ridiculously slapped-together DLC (freaking hour-long adventure packs) when it just crosses past the almost-nonexistent line into the "terrible" category. Things like the StreetPass games are great, I think. I never bought the NSMB2 coin packs, because they didn't feel significant enough to warrant DLC when I could put the money to something much more interesting. I think that successful DLC can give buyers something new and exciting enough make them want to purchase it, and should come out at the right time. Also, games shouldn't have too much DLC to buy for newcomers, either. All-in-all, however, I feel like developers abuse it too much, and while it can pave way for fantastic things, it just shouldn't have happened.

Free DLC is also welcome as far as I'm concerned, though. I really appreciate when any developer takes the time to send that around.

One of the problems with DLC is determining whether a game is "complete" or "incomplete". These are only relative terms. The game itself may have been finished, but more was created as it was published/manufactured.

I personally like Fire Emblem's DLC. It's not necessary to the game at all, but it adds enough for your money's worth

I have absolutely no problem with DLC as long as it is done correctly and adds something of value to the experience. The only thing I really have no tolerance for is DLC that is already included on the disc. Although not terribly common anymore (as far as I've noticed, anyway) that always ticks me off when I see it.

I have no problem with DLC as long as the developers don't do something stupid like day one DLC or locking it on a disc or making it so you can't complete the game 100 percent unless you buy the DLC (looking at you Arkham City). Other than that I have no problem with DLC. Well just one, the fact that I have a videogame shopping addiction (and slight OCD) so I am never satisfied until I buy all the DLC for a game, I realized I had this problem with DLC when I figured I had payed more than $40 on FE: Awakening DLC so I've now spent over double the money on a 3DS game XD

It's not wrong at all to want more content from a game. back in the day we used to dream of sequels if we wanted more from a game series, and people (and reviewers) did and still do complain when a game feels like it's too short or ends prematurely. That said (since i see you guys in here bringing it up), day-one DLC is a load of horsecrap. Release the full game at launch, and then start adding content later on in the form of DLC if you so choose to give people more game to play or extend the game's life cycle. i've got no problem with DLC provided it's not just unlocking content I've already been sold in the form of data existing on my cartridge or disc.

and if a dev decides not to do DLC, that's their decision and it should be respected. maybe we'll get a sequel out of them someday, maybe not, but i see a game like a movie, TV show, or book series in that respect. If the creators decide a story is over, it's over, and efforts to prolong the experience usually turn out craptastic (i'd rather see a story end than to have it jump the shark, y'know). if they decide a story should play out one way, they'll write it that way, and that'll be that (except where the fan community is concerned, and that's why we have fanfiction, fancomics, fanart, and other fan-based works, folks). i don't have a problem skipping over DLC i don't want, and I don't have a problem skipping games that do the 'unlock' bullcrap instead of new downloadable content.