Comment by wolrah | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wolrah | Hacker News Reader

I know it sounds really good to say no DLC ever, especially as a counter to so many abusive microtransaction implementations, but I think it should be obvious to anyone that development of new content needs to be paid for somehow.

Sometimes a game is such a wild success that the sale of new copies can sustain development for years, Minecraft and Kerbal Space Program for example, but even those juggernauts have eventually introduced new versions where that promise was never made. Minecraft Java edition is still entirely free of paid content, but Minecraft Bedrock edition which is the version compatible with consoles and mobile devices has all kinds of stuff. Kerbal Space Program kept their promise that early buyers got everything free, but development on the original has shifted to pure maintenance as they're about to ship Kerbal Space Program 2.

---

Personally I've never understood the problem some people have with the concept of DLC as a whole. If the developer can make more content which I can then choose to buy if I feel like it'll be worth the money, that seems like a win-win. Just like expansion packs in the days of boxed games (and still in physical tabletop/board gaming), or buying mission packs to upgrade your shareware copy of Wolfenstein 3D.

There are definitely certain ways that DLC has been abused which should 100% be shunned. The model used by all too many "free-to-play" mobile distraction games where you can pay to speed up or eliminate move timers, anything competitive with a "pay-to-win" aspect, multiplayer games segregating players without the DLC to smaller and smaller queues, etc. All that is bad, but that doesn't mean the entire concept of DLC is bad.

The important thing in my book is that the only reason I should feel the need to buy the DLC is because I want the content the DLC provides. If I feel like I have to buy something to remain competitive with others who have, or to keep being able to play with my friends, or even to just keep playing at all that day then that game is doing it the evil way.

DLC as we used to understand it (as significant expansions of content) are fine. The modern nickle and diming players for every little thing of modern DLC is awful bullshit and I'm mad at developers for doing it and players for accepting it.

Which is funny b/c I remember around 2008-2010ish, my 'has every game console but might play a PC game once in a while' friend went on a tirade about how Expansion packs for PC games were the reason DLC was so prevalent. [1]

My response was that the Tie Fighter Expansion he was referenced was 20$, had -hours- of content (On top of extra replay value for existing missions) and while not 'half' of the game, was a far better value than DLC of that time. (Looking at you, AC2 extra missions)

[1] - My date/timing might be off, but to frame, this was when.. -some- game (Might have been a Resident Evil 5 versus mode) had DLC that was primarily on disc based on the size of the download.

I think modern 'Mission Packs' tend to be cash grabs, at least in the sense of they usually are a lot lower value than the core game.

I wasn't clear at all about what I meant, sorry.

DLC is what the expansions of the 90s and early 00s turned into, imo. They realized they could make expansions smaller and smaller and smaller and still ask for a similar amount of money and effectively print money. The logical conclusion of that evolution is ridiculous crap like buying a $25 costume or modern Tekken asking you to buy individual characters.

> They realized they could make expansions smaller and smaller and smaller and still ask for a similar amount of money and effectively print money.

Oh I 100% agree, might have worded it too cynically/nihilistically. They get to make money on all ends as lazily as possible.

i.e. in the late 90s, the publishing model meant that you had to pack everything together at once. You wanted to make sure an expansion was worth buying for as many people as possible.

Now, Publishers have realized that two things:

1. The 'Casual' folks will possibly buy one or two DLC things, and the heavy separation of DLC content drives their analytics for future work. DLC that gets 'wacky' or does things that are a bit disparate from other DLC is a tell for this IMO.

2. The 'Hardcore' folks that are obsessed with a franchise will grit their teeth at the markup resulting from splitting things up.

One problem with DLCs is that they dilute the consistent idea or style that might have been implemented in the main game. And the entire model stimulates developers to do that, as it's cheaper to make more of what you already have, instead of making something new with a separate consistent vision.

So they usually look like a fifth leg on a dog, and break the style or balance in the otherwise solid game, and that's the consequence of the model itself. Even if the DLC is good it can feel disproportionate to the rest of the game.

Good DLCs for good games are... scarce.

> but I think it should be obvious to anyone that development of new content needs to be paid for somehow.

I think decades of free player created mods, patches, skins, textures, and maps should make it obvious to anyone that the development of new content doesn't need to be paid for with credit cards and in-game currency. Providing players with tools to generate their own new content increases the longevity of your game, increases the number of players, gets your bugs fixed at no cost, and can even give companies a way to spot amazing talent. There are still people making content for UT99! Some companies don't just make it harder for people to create new content, some file lawsuits against players creating content.

Although modding communities have done amazing things, that doesn't mean developers shouldn't continue to create cool things too and I haven't really heard any complaints about expansions as long as they are seen as worthwhile and are genuinely new additions to a game and not just large parts of the story paywalled off for a quick buck (still looking at you, mass effect).

DLC isn't something that really needs to exist to fund games or to make sure that there is amazing new content for gamers. It's generally just a scam used to bleed whales and make gamers feel bad thanks to FOMO and their increasingly strained budgets.

Why is it that I can still buy DRM for skyrim, but I also need to install a free community written patch to fix a massive number of major bugs?

The problem with DLC is the abuse of manipulative techniques on immature audiences.

In other words, micro transactions targeted at kids and teenagers.

New content? Fine. Fancy outfit sponsored by the latest brand? GTFo

It is sad in it's own right, as it causes class divides to broach into video games [1]. Loot boxes should probably be outright illegal for children [2]

[1] - Try being the kid who has everything second-hand in a school of 80s-90s Automaker employed children.

[2] - Can we also just talk about how MGM has an advert for their gambling app where people are gambling at a wedding reception? The first time I saw it I thought it was going to be about gambling addiction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com