How Much Should DLC Cost?

Comments 1 to 25 of 57

veato 24th May 2010, 11:36 Quote
I'm happy to pay for worthwhile DLC at a fair price. £8 for some new multiplayer maps for example. A fiver for your character to have a new outfit though is plain dumb. What I would object to is someone gaining an advantage in a multiplayer game by purchasing expensive items - a system whereby you are rewarded for your bank balance and not your game skill is unfair.
Unknownsock 24th May 2010, 11:37 Quote
Well my problem with DLC is, most of the time it's just not worth it.

A prime example.
I bought Dragon Age: Origins for £20. I got a good 80 hours gameplay out of this on my first playthrough.
And the DLC which i sadly own all of it, costs around £3-5, that gives you one hour max gameplay.
And they don't really give you anything extra to the story.

Now i wouldn't mind paying this if it had more importance to the game, rather than just fillers.
Also you can argue, why should it cost so much as they already have most of the game developed in terms of textures, models, engine etc.

Although i am excited for the new Mass Effect 2 DLC, the fact that it will fill in the story elements inbetween ME 2 and 3, this is defintely something that other developers should look at, as this DLC has meaning.
Although what happens if you didnt get this DLC and bought ME3, what would you miss that was crucial?
Singularity 24th May 2010, 11:38 Quote
First thing I noticed was the comments speech bubble right over the horse's head on the front page :D Found it funny :D
lacuna 24th May 2010, 11:41 Quote
I would only be prepared to pay if there was significant amount of additional content, e.g. The GTA 'Stories' where you basically get a whole extra game, albeit slightly shorter.

If developers want me to pay for new weapons/maps/abilities then they can go swivel. Things like that should be included with the game or free to download. Surely it is better to provide the whole of the gaming community with new maps/features rather than just the affluent ones. If there are regular free updates it keeps the game fresh and keeps it in the charts -its a win for the consumer and the developer.

I suppose we can re-visit that bioshock issue with the DLC actually being on the disc to begin with. I realise that there are mixed opinions on this but I think its terrible form on the part of the developer and obviously goes against Cliff's argument that providing additional content is a waste of time for the developer if the game flops. In this case they had already made the DLC and put it on the disc and it was 100% greed that made them market it the way they did.
Elton 24th May 2010, 11:42 Quote
I don't think the horse armor DLC was too bad since it was eventually bundled with KotN expansion.

The worst culprit is FC2's weapon addons.

3 guns and a car, for a whopping $12.
Silver51 24th May 2010, 12:04 Quote
SEGA - The way it's meant to be milked.
Ending Credits 24th May 2010, 12:31 Quote
I think it comes down to what people would expect to get for free. Patches, new wepons and minor features don't really add a huge amount to the value of the game meanwhile something like a campaign mode or major new content could be a dealbreaker for anyone wishing to buy the game so I feel you should charge whatever it adds to the value of the game (which is what you're doing).

I'm not against charging for DLC but when IW etc think that a few maps are worth 25% of what I already paid (for a very expensive game in the first place) I'm simply not going to buy it.
Slavedriver 24th May 2010, 12:31 Quote
One problem with some DLCs is that it's simply not possible NOT to buy them to enjoy the game. Take map packs for example. All your friends own it, heck all other world owns it, and you are the only one resisting the OMG price. How long do you think you can last?
And no, I don't play Modern Warfare 2 or even played it.

Most of the time DLCs are simply not worth it. In case of Bethesda their DLCs actually break the game sometimes (if you don't believe me just look what those esp/esm's modify in the game except the stuff they need to modify). It's the case not only with Bethesda. I don't think I've ever heard about a patch for the broken DLC.

Basically you pay more for less without any post-purchase support.
whisperwolf 24th May 2010, 12:37 Quote
The main thing that annoys me about DLC on consoles is having to buy points to then buy the content. Sod the points just give me the value in £ and allow me to buy via visa.
Otherwise If it gives an advantage in multiplayer it should be free, giving me a new area to explore once I've finished a game's story i.e. dragon age etc, forget it, I'm unlikely to revisit that type of game once I've played it through. Although I recognise I am probably a minority on this point.
Mraedis 24th May 2010, 12:48 Quote
DLC should be priced to the equivalent it adds to the original game. Say a game cost £40 and has 40hrs of playtime, the DLC costs £10, then it should add around 10hrs of playtime, or boost the original game in such a manner that replaying it adds about 10hrs.
Paddy 24th May 2010, 12:49 Quote
The only DLC I have ever bought was for Dragon Age. Now, it can be argued that all of the expansions they have released so far are too short and cost too much for what you get, but they are not critical to the game. For those who have completed the game and want a few more hours of killing Hurlocks et al, then it is a good to have the option of buying a few extra quests to expand upon the lore of the game. For those who don't want them or can't afford them, then they aren't really missing anything critical.

But for games like MW2 etc. it does seem that they are releasing some updates which seem critical to the gaming experience, forcing you to buy them! Going back to the GSB method of DLC mentioned, in these terms it would work, where the core game is relatively cheap. This means you can have a modular game and pick and mix which bits you do and don't want. If you are only interested in multplayer you can purchase just that bit and maybe add on a single player campaign at a later date if interested.

For MW2 it does seem rediculous paying £40 for a game which is only half complete and then having to fork out another £10 or so for the complete work.
Evildead666 24th May 2010, 13:02 Quote
I remember buying the Horse Armour and both the Vipers lair, and the Mountain castle place in Oblivion.
IIRC it was only like $2 a piece anyways, which isn't that much.

Was a bit peeved when the extras were free on the KotN expansion pack, but I accepted it as part of the pack.

Anyone hear any news about Elder Scrolls V yet ?
gavomatic57 24th May 2010, 13:03 Quote
How Much Should DLC Cost?

How long is a piece of string?

The Episodes from Liberty City were £20 and I'd consider that a bargain after paying £40 for Modern Whorefare 2 which provided me with fewer hours of gameplay and less enjoyment. 5 hours for £40 is a con, whereas the Lost & The Damned gave me that much gameplay on its own.

Yet, if the Horse Armour from Oblivion cost £20 I'd be very annoyed.
GW42 24th May 2010, 13:07 Quote
DLC actually pushes me away from buying the game when it is first out. e.g. I bought Fallout 3 when it was first released, but couldn't bring myself to buy the DLC one by one. They seemed overpriced to me, and some of them got very mixed reviews. Oh, & there was of course the whole Games for Windows thing but that's a different point entirely. What I'll probably do is buy the Fallout 3 GOTY edition when it's nice and cheap.

So with Dragon Age. I just didn't buy it, figuring I'd wait for a bundle deal/GOTY edition when all or the majority of the DLC was out.

But then I tend not to buy the latest and greatest games immediately, so clearly I'm not the main source of cash for developers. I'm usually happy to wait a bit longer, though I've loved previous bioware stuff and Dragon Age would have been one I'd have bought straight away, save for the DLC/add-on issue.
Yslen 24th May 2010, 13:47 Quote
Like many people here, I'm happy to buy DLC when it's a decent amount of content.

The Borderlands and Sins of a Solar Empire DLC/mini-expansions for example. I'm happy to pay up to £10 for something that represents a significant change to the game or several hours more story.

I'd rather avoid the microtransaction way of doing things, because that's not the way I spend my money. Spending a little at a time will inevitably lead to a lot more being spent in the long run, because it's harder to keep track of what you've bought. That's probably what the publishers are hoping for, but I don't know if they've considered the possibility of people like me who will just avoid the concept altogether because they know where it'll lead.

Small standalone DLC packs, like those in Oblivion, are generally ridiculous anyway, with very little content, or something that unbalances the game. Why would you want to begin this epic adventure, escape from prison with nothing but the rags on your back and a rusty axe and instantly inherit an enormous wizards tower, better than any other house in the game? It takes the fun out of it. It actually feels like cheating.
tad2008 24th May 2010, 14:02 Quote
Clearly this is a mixed bag for developers and also for the players of the games themselves with a number of options open to the developers, the end user who plays the game is stuck with the options available, this often makes for some hard choices on wanting to get more from a valued game and what any DLC is potentially worth to that person.

Subscription based games like Eve Online or even WoW don't need micro-transactions as they already have a regular income from the game to keep support and development going. The Eve universe and content continues to grow and expand and all at no extra cost.

A different model is the one employed by ArenaNet / NCSoft for Guildwars. Players buy a campaign and can then buy additional campaigns or expansions that enable them to reach other areas of the world and expand on their weapons and skills without overtly unbalancing the game vs those who may only have one campaign. The DLC they put on you to buy is somewhat questionable in actual value but for long term players of the series, does have it's benefits without detracting from the game for newer players.
REMF 24th May 2010, 14:21 Quote
I never buy DLC.

I am delighted that EA Bioware offer it with Dragon-Age and Mass Effect2, because the drip feed of 'authenticated' DLC is attractive enough that they can scale down the intrusive DRM used by other developers, but personally I will play the game as is, and if its good enough i will buy the GotY edition a year down the line.
ripmax 24th May 2010, 14:29 Quote
Nothing, I'm too used to getting maps/extra content free since i'm a TF2 player.
adam_bagpuss 24th May 2010, 14:35 Quote
The issue i have with DLC is that its becoming more popular and i feel that publishers may/and are holding back on content so as to charge later as "DLC".

for instance making a game with only a few maps then releasing map packs and charging for them is very cheeky IMO.

i think this method of releasing games is going to become very popular as it fills the shareholders wallets a lot more.

So with more DLC becoming available i expect the core game to get smaller and smaller while remaining the same price or higher.

core game - 4 maps £40
map pack1 - 4 maps £15
map pack2 - 3 maps + uber uber shiny gun £20

total = £75 for 1 game that probly should have had more maps to start with.
Fabou 24th May 2010, 14:51 Quote
Like everibody, It depends of what is the content. When it is really adding something to the game and not breaking the online community (DLC for a online multiplayer game are really a mess either you can't acces server because you don't have it either server can't put it because player don't have the DLC) I in this case you can, put a reasonnable price on it.

But a new skin is not really something that should be selled.

The DLC must be something develloped after seing the game has a communauty in terest in some extra.For exemple when in some game the DLC in already on the DVD when it is sold for the first times it is not normal.
PQuiff 24th May 2010, 15:23 Quote

Ok if were talking about a few multiplayer maps or guns,a new suit of armour or even some nice shiny horse outfit it just give some devs a chance to rip us off and them moan that piracy is killing our industry.

If its genuinly new content that adds replay to the game and not some lame crap a fair price is fine. Oh and then they go relase more DLC, why not just wait and treat your customers release it all at one for the fair price?
Fizzban 24th May 2010, 15:30 Quote
Development of DLC is fine with me so long as it doesn't detract from development of the actual game or any expansions.

Some of it is over-priced though. But then again it's a subjective thing. I really enjoyed the Kasumi DLC for Mass Effect 2, and don't regret buying it, but some people thought it was a waste of money.

No one is forcing us to buy DLC. So time will tell how effective it is.
2bdetermine 24th May 2010, 15:31 Quote
How about big O. Majority of the games obscenely overpriced.
gavomatic57 24th May 2010, 15:47 Quote
Originally Posted by 2bdetermine
How about big O. Majority of the games obscenely overpriced.

Are they though? When I was buying Megadrive games back in the early 90's, they were £40-£45. With inflation pushing the cost of everything up around 2% per year or more, they should be well over that by now. Yes they sell more of them than they used to, but they cost a lot more to make now too...
lacuna 24th May 2010, 16:01 Quote
Megadrive games did indeed have crazy prices. I remember the launch price for Sonic 3 was £60!
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.

Discuss in the forums