DLC and Microtransactions in Videogames

Pikachu6319

Pikachu6319

Scooby
Member
On another thread we started discussing if/when the Pokemon TCG will go completely digital. http://www.pokebeach.com/forums/thread-when-do-you-think-pokemon-tcg-will-stop-being-printed-on-paper in case you're interested.

But one of my points lead to another point that is really a thing now. All of the extra download stuff they do for video games. That's been going on for a while now. They release extra skins, characters, chapters, DLC content and stuff for games.

There are those who will go the extra mile and get everything for it, though it can add a higher price tag on an already 40.00-60.00 dollar video game.

There are those who refuse to do anything extra for it, sometimes admittedly to the detriment of game play, simply for the exact same reason: They already have shelled out 40.00-60.00 dollars for that game and find it understandably ridiculous to shell out even more.

There are those (like myself) who have their limits. They'll do something for one purpose, like the extra gameplay experience or the extra assistance if needed/wanted, but have other things they won't do.

One example here is Dead Space 3 (yes the release was about two years ago). When the game came out they released some packs that came with extra weapons and suits. The former helped a little, the latter did not (unlike the suits in DS2). They released some mods for items in the game called scavenger bots, increasing the resouces they collected, decreasing the time they were out, and even giving them actual voices. The first two helped out a bit, the last was purely 'cosemetic'. They released three extra (and kind of short) chapters for the game called Awakened, which does add to a little to the gameplay but could have easily been added to the game before release, one could say this method was just done to generate more revenue. All of these 'extras' were not vital to the gameplay and could be done without it.

So what do you think of this DLC thing? How far will you for the game? Where will you draw the line? Do you even bother with it? What are everyone's thoughts and opinons?
 
I enjoy DLC when it's done in a fun and tasteful way and not overly expensive.

I think the best game DLC I've ever purchased was the extra case in Ace Attorney: Dual Destinies. The game itself was download-only, cost €25, and came with 5 cases of varying length and difficulty. The DLC case was €5 and arguably as long, complex, and fun as the better cases in the game itself. It didn't really fit into the plot of the rest of the game and could be played at any time, making it perfect for an "extra" case, and the cost ratio was handled well. The game also offered some cosmetic DLC that I did not purchase.

Some other DLC that I'm very fond of is the DLC maps available for Fire Emblem: Awakening. Fire Emblem is a turn-based strategy series, and the DLC in this case come in the form of extra maps that can be played multiple times over and at any point once the character has unlocked the DLC gate after playing through 5 chapters of the regular game. Some maps are story/character related that offer additional plot insights, conversations between characters, and other characterization, whereas other maps offer you goodies (extra gold, experience points, fancy weapons, skills), new characters you can recruit into your army, or even just challenges much harder than you'll find in-game. Maps can be purchased singly (€2,49 each for most), or in a pack of 3 maps in a given series at a discount (€5,99 total). I didn't buy all of them, but most, and they are very fun and useful.

I like purchasing DLC for cases like this where I think it's done well and provides a fun experience. I don't really like cosmetic DLCs, or fremium games where you're expected to pay for bonuses and the like (such as the newly announced "free-to-play" Pokémon candy-crush-like game). But if it's fun and a good value, I have no problem with it, and like supporting those sorts of endeavors.
 
Yeah I don't mind doing downloads if it helps. The aforementioned DS3, I did buy the extra Awakened chapters and the two mods that helped with the scavenger bots. I didn't get the voice ones, it didn't make any sense after all.

But those that are just cosmetic or don't do anything for gameplay seem like just such a waste I think.
 
My policy is: I will only buy DLC if it contains significant game play change, such as extra levels.
 
NameBlank said:
My policy is: I will only buy DLC if it contains significant game play change, such as extra levels.
Click to expand...

Same. I've only bought two "real" DLCs and that was the Burial at Sea DLCs for Bioshock Infinite. I also buy some skins in CS:GO from time to time, but I wouldn't call that "DLC".
 
I'll purchase any Pokemon Downloadable Content. As long as it's Pokemon, I'd get it! A good example is Mewtwo in Super Smash Brothers. For those who cannot redeem both games in the Club Nintendo site, it will be available in future for DLC.

But as for any other game, it depends if I enjoy the series. If I'm interested in the characters, and would love to see more of their adventures, even if it doesn't do to the plot, I'd purchase it. But if the game is mediocre (which means I may not but it), and the DLC does not do much to the plot, then I may not purchase it.
 
I don't generally care for DLC, as it seems more like a money grab than a way to expand gameplay at a fair value. Plus, unlike disc-based games, you can't sell DLC if you don't like it.

I will buy DLC if it's a good value and isn't stuff that was just kept from the final game to place behind a pay wall (for example, the DLC for the new Mario Golf and New Super Mario Bros 2). However, if it's stuff actually added to the game, I'll pick it up - the Mario Kart 8 DLC had a lot of great content for a great price. Expansion packs are also good too, as long as they're disc-based, such as Warcraft 3: The Frozen Throne.
 
It's going to be a case of Pay to Win. The more you pay, the more you win. If there's no Free to Play way to get packs, I would just quit immediately.
Likelihood is, you'll be wasting money and not achieving anything great, especially since the meta's becoming quite stale. I mean, that's how these franchises make money in the first place.
That was a very tough truth to learn when a couple years ago.

I find it easier to give money to companies that don't force it on you to play.
 
Nintendo is new to the DLC business, but they've been doing very well, I believe. Both Mario Kart 8 and Hyrule Warriors have DLC packs that give a lot of content for a fair price. I bought both and was satisfied. Even though half the content is still unreleased, it's still a good deal.
 
It depends on a lot on the game. For some games I won't really bother with the DLC at all if I liked the game, but not really to a point where I wanted to see more of it after I finished the main game. For other games I may buy the best DLC for only (like an extra campaign, but not the cosmetic DLC). Then there are games I'll buy most or all of the DLC for.

For a Pokémon game I'd probably be buying most of the DLC, but it strongly depends on what kind of DLC it is, how much it costs, and how many DLC packs they're going to release for it. If it's trivial stuff like a new outfit to wear for my main character then I'd likely skip. If they're going to release hundreds of small DLC packs I'd likely skip that too. But if the DLC would contain extra story material, or new areas to explore, or something cool to do in the post-story part of the game, I'd probably buy all that.
 
Zero dollars. While I respect the reality that some DLC significantly enhances gameplay and is worth the extra investment, I am very much so against the concept in general and believe that it negatively affects the gaming experience as a whole.
 
The only "DLC "I remember buying is the extra case in Ace Attorney, and I don't actually view it as DLC since it adds the price to what I would have expected to pay for the whole game anyway and as such it's very fair plus it really is an "extra" case as no other AA game has had as much as six cases.

Also PokéBank if that counts, but I just really do need it.

I also bought a digital skin for my 3DS but for me that's like buying a themed case or 3DS-protector etc.
 
Personally, if it's within reason - sure! But if it's on-disc DLC or something ridiculous (Disgaea D2's DLC is awful. I don't wanna pay $5 per character, I'd rather get them in small expansion - If they weren't on disc DLC) then Arceus no.

I hope Pokemon doesn't go down the expensive DLC road, I prefer the games be clean of any additional content like that because it just feels like I have to rely on constant updating (which I hated about Smash Bros too )) If it's like, amiibo content then sure because you're getting a figure to go with it, but I'd rather Pokemon never go down this road because Nintendo doesn't need to listen to people who constantly accuse them of not keeping with the times like other companies. Though to be fair, I don't see Nintendo misusing any of their DLC content so far and they've been doing good with it. Some games aren't meant for dlc anyway.
 
Thegroyvlekid got me thinking about Pokemon's way of "DLC": having Pokemon hidden inside the game files but locked away until a later date. I'm going to list some points below to compare it to DLC, so... Which one is more ethical? Which one is more enjoyable for the player/customer?
  1. Locking up parts of the completed full-price game and not giving a clear timeline of when the content will be unlocked
  2. Releasing new content over a period of time that wasn't part of the original game development plan and making players pay to access it
  3. Releasing new content over a period of time that was planned from the start and making players pay to access it (pre-order exclusives included since they often get released later for all)
Personally, I think #1 is okay in small doses. We've all seen it via Pokemon games hiding extra Pokemon as 'events', but some companies take it a step further and include what would otherwise be integral parts of the game or expansion packs as these locked-up things. It can be disastrous if done wrongly. Imagine if each Pokemon gym was locked until the anime had an episode on it so that you could progress just like Ash Ketchum. You could see the content, but can't play it. That's where this option can go wrong.

#2 is good in that it's usually optional and/or aesthetic. Games like League of Legends and Team Fortress 2 (I think? I don't actually play them) have costumes and outfits and weapons - it's all minor DLC because it's unplanned (relative to the base game). With this option, it doesn't make sense for developers/publishers to make big/integral DLC simply because the time spent planning new DLC could be spent on a sequel instead. This is also where microtransactions are most common (or at least, most enjoyed) because it lets players pick and choose new things to add to their game.

#3 is where it does make sense for developers/publishers to make big/important DLC simply because it is planned from the start. The Batman Arkham games are in my mind for this with characters, missions, and storylines all locked up as store-specific pre-order exclusives that get released for all after time passes. Big companies have mostly moved away from expansion packs in favour of this type of DLC simply because planning everything all during the main planning stage is more efficient - planning post-launch expansion packs and then not working on it for 1-3 years is simply inefficient compared to planning exclusive DLC and working on it alongside the main game.
 
Number 1 is exactly why I don't think I'm going to bother getting Disgaea 5 even if it gets a Vita Port. As I said before - That kind of DLC is just plain disgusting.

I think adding additional content is neat over time, but unless the game is free-to-play and you can pay for added on DLC, then DLC shouldn't be a means to expand on an already full price game.

I have mentioned before though, that a free-to-play main series Pokemon game would be neat with DLC patches to keep up with times/gens or use gems (and gain gems via methods like Rumble World) would be a nice way to get people more invested into the VGC side of Pokemon.
 
If it's free it's automatically good. Quality is negligible if I don't have to pay for it. Witcher 3 and Grand Theft Auto 5 are prime examples of this. All new features and gameplay additions that are completely free.

Also, disregarding the Amiibo stuff, Splatoon.

jIAzgZ4.jpg
 
sometimes i can considerate buying DLC content only if that content is enjoyable for me and mostly the DLC i bought was worth it

another type of DLC i buy is the one that give me the chance of custom my stuff like the skins in the 3DS (i only bought a few ones)

thats all
 
I'm a fan of DLC if it expands the game in a great way, like Mario Kart 8. But I'm not a fan of micro transactions. Like paying for time to play a game, or for "magic powers" or whatever they pay for. If you have to pay to even PLAY the game, that's just wrong/silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top