DLC: Hurting or helping gaming?

Is DLC a good or a bad thing? That depends on who you ask. While some might love the fact that their favorite games can be expanded through a simple download, others see the practice of releasing new modes and maps as an excuse for leaving content out of the retail copy. While DLC certainly is a double-edged sword, a lot of the content that developers release is met with unadulterated scorn and hatred. While there are a number of content add-ons that fully deserve this treatment, it’s unfortunate to see worthwhile paid DLC receive backlash from angry gamers.

Some noteworthy offenders of the DLC system are fairly well-known, such as the infamous Horse Armor download for Oblivion back when the Xbox 360 was first gaining traction with the DLC model. Everyone can agree that paying a few bucks for completely worthless skins for something that most people don’t even use (who rode horses in Oblivion when you had every location unlocked anyways?) is a complete waste of money, and such downloads are picketed by gamers’ wallets. Accordingly, many developers have been wary of the DLC model, worried that if they offer new content for their games, their reputation will be tarnished by the gaming press and forum-dwellers who pick apart any new content that hits the virtual marketplace. Not only that, but sometimes DLC goes too far, offering unfair benefits to players who plunk down the extra cash. While it hasn’t been done yet (the recent Prince of Persia DLC isn’t quite that extreme), some also speculate that eventually DLC will become such a nickel and diming process that we’ll be forced to purchase and download the final level in our favorite games. It’s extreme, but a possibility nonetheless. Gamers who oppose DLC also point to the opportunities it offers for developers to slack off, omitting certain aspects of a game that could very well have been included in the retail copy. Patches slip into this pitfall as well, allowing developers an opportunity to rush their titles out the door and fix the bugs after the mass audience has logged hundreds of hours of playtime and effectively beta-tested the final copy. Again, however, incidents of this type of misconduct have been few and far between, and do a few bad apples really ruin the bunch?

Bad DLC.

I say nay (see what I did there?). DLC may have a dark side, but the potential it adds to games is undeniable. Singleplayer games are no longer completely finished after you’ve slain the final boss. Multiplayer modes find expansion in downloadable map packs and modes. The pros of DLC far outweigh the cons. Many gamers take up arms when new DLC is announced for a fee, arguing that they already spent their hard-earned cash on the $60 game a few months ago. A valid point, but in the end, not very realistic. While there are some exceptions, DLC costs quite a bit of money and time to make, and the sooner gamers accept the video game industry is a business and not a charity, the sooner we will see more developers taking the extra effort to expand their hit titles. One of the most common examples I get in response to that argument is: “Every developer should take a page out of Valve’s book, they release everything for free.” Keep in mind however, that Valve owns the Steam platform, and makes money off of every game that they host on their servers. That means that Valve is making money off its own games, as well as other developers’ games, effectively giving them a continuous revenue stream all year round. Other, smaller developers don’t quite have that luxury, relying on commercial, brick-and-mortar sales of their products. It costs more money to print out thousands of discs than it does to load a game on a server somewhere. Although Valve deserves its recognition of being a developer for the people, it’s also important to not throw the blinders on and ignore the business logistics involved. If that means paying for my new content, I’ll gladly pony up the extra $10 to get some extra playtime out of my favorite games. One of the best examples of DLC is Harmonix’s Rock Band 2 platform, which offers up new songs weekly for a measly $2 a pop. It’s hard to argue that playing the same songs over and over again doesn’t get boring, and Harmonix almost single-handedly proves with its DLC business model that a company can put in a little extra effort and be rewarded while satisfying the general public. Everyone’s happy. Yet, when Resident Evil 5 receives a Versus mode DLC that was priced at $5, the world explodes. What a strange world we live in.

Good DLC.

If you don’t like DLC, you don’t have to buy it. The age old argument has its shortcomings, but it’s hard to deny that it’s true. Gamers that don’t want the extra playtime aren’t being forced to read about the DLC, buy the DLC, or even think about the DLC, so why complain? Perfectly satisfied with the stock Call of Duty 4 maps? I’m sure that you didn’t drop $10 on the Variety Map Pack, and you felt damn good about it didn’t you? Yet, others like myself decided that the retail maps were growing a bit stale, and DLC with the phrase “variety” didn’t sound half bad. Halo 3 is another example of the “don’t want, don’t buy” mantra, offering new playlists for the ones who want to play the new maps while still offering a hefty amount of options for those who opted to hold onto their cash. DLC is only as evil as developers and gamers make it out to be, and so far, it’s mostly the gamers that are giving it a bad rep. If you would rather kill every single NPC in Oblivion with your time than spend money on an all-new expansion pack (Shivering Isles), then that’s your thing. I, on the other hand, will support the developers that took the time and money to extend a game that I found truly special, and that’s the beauty of DLC.

Seacrest out.

- Adriaan Noordzij