Gamer Limit Banner

Episode30
This week I’m joined by Chase Cook, Paul Clark, Shawn Evans and Kevin Miller as we attempt to wrap our heads around the enigma that is downloadable content.

We respond to your comments as we break down the pros, cons, and potential effects of this relatively new phenomenon within the gaming industry.

[podcast]http://www.gamerlimit.com/podcasting/Limitcast30.mp3[/podcast]
Listen to the LimitCast Subscribe to the Limitcast Feed Download the Limitcast

As always, leave your comments, questions and suggestions below – and don’t forget to hit us up on iTunes.

  1. I don’t listen to the limitcast often, but this one I listened all the way through. However, it cut off in the middle of you guys talking. I’m downloading the file now to see if the rest is on there.

  2. I think this generation is a really big testing ground for digital content, because its the first that really has the option to do so and publishers/developers are finding that it’s a great way to keep people interested in their games for a longer period of time.

    I’m split on map packs vs actual new “quests” and whatnot, but I think The Saboteur was a hilarious example of being able to push out a game that was censored but could be uncensored for free with an early purchase. It allows them to put the content they want in, but not be officially rated for that explicit content by ratings boards. As far as I know, its the first title to use DLC just for that purpose, and I think that, especially with regions like Germany and Australia who are known for being strict on violent games, it could be used in a similar fashion for other games in the future.

  3. You guys basically covered my opinions on DLC one way or the other through the separate viewpoints. I don’t really feel like the car analogy truly reflects the situation simply because you would have to consider that the cars are each complete and ready to go on the day of purchase. If, say, FO3 had two versions at release, one basic and one that included all of the DLC (Game of the Year Edition) then I could see some justification for a higher price point for a “luxury edition” of the game just like the auto industry.

    I feel like most DLC is simply a way for a company to suck gamers dry after their initial investment of $60. I do, however, feel like games such as Rockband/Guitar Hero are in a separate category all together. These games offer you a certain amount of content for your initial investment and if you want to add to that investment, you have the option. The reason I feel like this is different is the amount of choice you have in your selection. If you don’t like country music, for example, you don’t have to buy the country music songs. If you love KISS, then you can simply buy the KISS music and leave everything else alone. If game companies/developers were to put these together for the consumer, we would all end up with songs that we did not want (much like the initial soundtrack included with these types of games). I feel like this is the best method of distributing DLC as is the best at letting the gamer truly choose what he/she wants before diving into extra content not knowing what to expect.

    That being said, I feel like games with DLC that is fairly void of transparency before playing through, such as Operation Anchorage, is an entire different monster. If you’re going to provide gamers with DLC, we deserve to know exactly what we’re getting (without providing story spoilers of course) before laying out additional funds just to be disappointed with our decision in the long run. I suppose you could just read reviews for every DLC available before buying it, but that’s not really a future I look forward to.

    I feel like expansions are completely different than DLC. DLC, to me, is simply an addon to what content you have already purchased while expansion packs traditionally offer the player with a new/different set of quests/material. I feel like there are probably going to end up being the future of the DLC market simply because they typically offer more bang for the average gamer’s buck. As consumers, we are truly the only ones in a capitalistic society to say what stays and what goes.

    I feel like the older vs newer generation argument as far as a medium is concerned is a moot point. Games might have actually cost more for the N64 and SNES (probably even the NES) at the time because of the costs associated with packaging and physical carts/memory/server space (for online games)/etc, but they did not require the same amount of production time, advertising costs, etc that companies are putting into newer titles. Basically, DVD’s/CD’s might cost less to produce, but the work that goes into them is so much more advanced and takes so many more people to produce that I feel like today’s games are potentially cheaper per man hour for the end user.

    All I have to say about map packs is that I buy them, it kind of sucks, but then again I usually only buy the games that require them as online games. The only CoD game that I’ve actually beaten the on the current gen console is WaW. I feel a little ripped off after I buy the extra maps, but I don’t really have a choice as I’ll be missing out on matches if I don’t buy them. Map packs are probably a good example of the corporate whoring of a gamer’s wallet.

    Good ‘cast. Keep them coming.

  4. Do you want Guacamole in your Burrito? If so, it’ll be an extra $1.50. That’s what I think when I think about DLC.

    The biggest thing about DLC is that as Gamers, we’re used to getting updates, patches, extra content, etc. for free. So if we’ve gotten it for free in the past, why are we being charged for it all of a sudden?

  5. Curtis, I disagree. Why? Because the answer to do you want guacamole in your burrito is ALWAYS yes :)

  6. If you go on a Wednesday, Moes gives you free guacamole. I can has DLC the same way?

  7. Now that I’ve listened to the full version, just wanted to say that we never own the game and we aren’t paying for anything other than the rights to own a copy and play it. Our money just buys us a license, and if we don’t follow the rules of that agreement/license, they can take the right to play it or even use things like XboxLIVE away from us. When you buy a car, you own the car. You can mod it, you can take it apart and sell it, whatever… but with software/games, we can’t make copies and sell it, or lift ideas/characters/etc and use it as we want, etc…

    As for the DLC topic… I think you need to consider when the launch DLC is made/finished because there is often a long period between finishing the game, sending it to print, and when it actually gets to us. If they make or finish that launch day DLC in that time period, then it makes sense that we would pay for it just like we’d pay for anything after its released. If it’s on the disk, I don’t think its justifiable unless it wasn’t complete and we actually needed a patch to finish it.

  8. I’m going to side with Kevin on the “Chipotle/Moes” debate. LOVE Chipotle.

Leave a Reply