Re: Batman - Arkham Knight
And all of that should already be IN the game. They clearly have more content, delay the game and put it in the disk or make it free. I'm paying for a completed game, not for a company to half ass it and then charge me more for content that should already be in the game at the start. They're being greedy mother****ers because they know that the sheeple will bend over and take it. The only good DLC is free DLC because that shows they actually give a **** about their customers. If I sound angry it's because I am.
That's a huge oversimplification and one I often hear people use to rag on DLC. Also, resorting to calling people "sheeple" for supporting a game series they enjoy is ironically simplistic and a reactionary approach (sort of like a sheep
).
Do I disagree with your position? No.
But lets be realistic here. 90% of AAA video games receive DLC that costs money on top of the original game.
Something I don't get is why people liken DLC to material thats cut from the original game. Has that happened beforehand? Sure. But thats VERY rarely the case. They begin planning and working on this stuff years ahead of time. They plan the DLC as DLC, and focus on the main game first, complete it, and then focus on creating DLC. Its not like they're just cutting sections of the game to add as DLC (though some games have done so in the past, and that'll be obvious if the content is already on the disc and just locked behind a paywall). If its the latter case, you're absolutely right.
But we don't know that, and I doubt that'll be the case.
Ultimately, DLC is just smaller sized expansion packs. I don't remember people flipping out and saying expansion packs should've been part of the original game back in the 1980's and 1990's of PC gaming. Whats the difference with DLC, other than that its digital and not usually sold in disc form?
I like DLC because it extends the life of the game you buy. You buy it, spend a few weeks playing and beating the core game, then move onto something else. A month or two down the road new content for the game comes out in the form of DLC, and you get to come back to the game, see the story expand, etc. I like that aspect of DLC.
I agree sometimes its done in extremely suspect manners (like existing content locked on disc, which shows it was intended as part of the original game), and in that manner anger is warranted.
But here? Not really. Just don't buy it. If you feel like you're missing out on something then do buy it. Choice is yours. I'm not buying the Season Pass. I'll just pick up what appeals to be (the single player campaign DLC).
Now, that said, an example of DLC done right is Mario Kart's DLC for the Wii U. They've released a HUGE amount of new content (tracks, karts, higher CC difficulty, etc) at cheap prices (or free) that actually does expand the core game in a worthwhile manner, and manages to seem not tacked on while also not seeming like it necessarily should've been a part of the core game.
Point is, DLC can be done right for both the companies and customers, its just a fine balancing act in terms of production cost, development time of that DLC, and pricing.
There's just certain game series I love that I'll always buy DLC for: Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and the Batman - Arkham series (I know this is Rocksteady's last Arkham game but its a guarantee WB Montreal will continue the franchise afterwards, building on their experience with the Origins engine and using an upgraded version for the next gen consoles--likely built on what Rocksteady did for Arkham Knight).
