Not so today. Praise the lord, for now we have downloadable content (DLC), the saviour of the gaming universe. Or the biggest rip-off since the Sodastream, I can’t decide which.
Now first, a disclaimer to the three people that read this column. Let me say here and now that I actually think DLC is a very good thing in theory. But I also think it can be a terrible thing, and could increasingly lead to the release of more rushed, lazy games that require you to download additional content to play, or the release of deliberately incomplete games that make you pay for features that should have been included in the first place. And I for one don't have money to waste on that – prostitutes and smack are expensive.
The wonder years
A nerd who writes articles about videogames for bread-crusts and the occasional pat on the head might make the analogy that games released today are like ‘living’ software. That is, almost every major console is online-enabled, allowing games to be ‘enhanced’ via patches and additional content. This has been both a blessing and a curse. The positives are pretty obvious – an improved game, by definition, improves…the game. Today, developers can release their game into the world, have its merits debated by distinguished people who frequent gaming forums, and then release patches and add DLC based on feedback to make their game even more bodacious. This seems to work best for games that are already pretty decent and need the odd tweak or addition to lengthen or improve the playing experience. However, it doesn’t work for games released as half-finished, shoddy abominations. Lair, I hate you.
The PALGN team wooping it up.
So that’s the downside. The ability to adjust a game post-release means that some developers are rushing games out the door – whether it is through deadline pressure or sloppiness – rather than holding them back in testing for a couple more months. In some cases, it feels like the public is now substituting for a proper beta test of the game. It makes some sort of twisted sense, because if the game sells poorly, there is no need to pump money into patching it. However, should the game sell faster than (warning, bad fat joke ahead) muffins in The Biggest Loser house, you can bet there will be a patch or DLC on the horizon. There is nothing more annoying than purchasing a new game on the first day of its release, rushing home like a madman through peak-hour traffic, ripping the plastic off your teeth as you rush through the door, grunting like a wild animal as you shove it into your gaming machine of choice, and then…having to wait for an hour while a patch downloads or finding out that DLC already exists.
We are living in a material world, and I am a material girl
For me, a couple of things come into play when considering if I will get DLC. The first is whether the original game appeared to be well-made. That is, if the original game was short or sub-standard because of obvious missing features or flaws, I can’t justify spending my money just to try and improve the experience. My granddaddy had a saying about not throwing good money after bad, and while I have no idea what that means, or why my granddaddy had all his dead dogs stuffed and lined up in his shed, I'm guessing it’s relevant to use here.
However, it’s pretty obvious that DLC, if used right, can really add to a game. Let’s consider, for example, that the downloadable content available for the Xbox 360 version of Grand Theft Auto IV – The Lost and the Damned. Whether you thought the back-to-basics approach of GTA IV was good or bad is not up for debate here (it was awesome in case you were wondering), but even the harshest critic can appreciate the work and effort that went into creating that game. GTA IV is still a massive game that offered many, many hours of gameplay in a world that is more realistic and alive than ever before. It also featured a pretty decent multiplayer. In terms of value for money, it was top of the pops.
The expansion, the Lost and the Damned, adds between 10 and 15 hours of gameplay to GTA IV. That’s longer than many full-priced standalone games. So for around $27, many would consider this to be a good deal and an excellent use of DLC. Then there are games that use smaller downloadable ‘expansions’ and content to further enhance a game's experience. Games like Rock Band, Singstar, Buzz, Lips and Guitar Hero were built for slowly dwinding your life savings, bit by bit. By paying smaller amounts for additional content, you can create a library of content you specifically want, making the experience more unique to each individual. Most people have no qualms paying for this content as it is reasonably priced and adds to the experience, particularly when you have a few friends around and a few sherbets under your belt.
Niko and Johnny soon to enjoy a hot coffee.
Then there is free content. This is a no-brainer – everyone loves something for nothing. But consider F.E.A.R. 2, which was a pretty cut-and-dry, 8-hour, single-player campaign, lumped in with a bare-bones multiplayer that was less fun than playing Uno with your family at Christmas. To their credit, Warner Brothers have now released a free multiplayer pack which makes F.E.A.R. 2's multiplayer only slightly less decent than every other game on the market. My grandaaddy once said something about not throwing good money after bad…oh wait, I’ve already used that hilarious anecdote. But that’s the carrot that F.E.A.R. 2 uses to get you in, steal your money and kick your dog, because another two packs containing multiplayer maps and single-player levels are being added in the very near the future, and you can bet your bum-bum that you’ll be forced to pay for the privilege. So somewhere down the track you’ll have paid an extra two payments to create a game that really should have been more complete in the first place.
I smell a rip-off…and chicken
One thing that really irks me about DLC is when ‘new’ content is released for a game only a few weeks, or even days, after the original game is released. It’s one thing to innocently realise your game is lacking something and innocently adding it later on, and another entirely to make us pay for DLC that was developed at the same time as the actual game, and should have been included on the disk. Take The Godfather 2. This game was released on the 9th April, and then two weeks later on the 24th April, not one, but three downloadable packs became available. However, you can buy all of this ‘premium’ content in one convenient pack for $12.95.
Say what?
You mean, I just went and paid $109.99 for a new game, and two weeks later, you’re selling ‘premium’ content to me for thirteen bucks?
So, what the bloody hell was the $110 smackeroons for? Second-rate content?
Clearly, this so-called premium content was developed at the same time as the game itself. Call me naïve (don’t really, I cry easily), but shouldn’t we expect that this content be included for free with the game that we just purchased? I feel an analogy coming on...to me it seems a bit like buying a $110 jacket, only to realise that once you’ve got it home, it doesn’t have any buttons. Upon going back to the store you purchased it from to complain about the lack of buttons, the sales assistant tells you the buttons are an extra $13. So you have to make a decision. Sure, the jacket still functions without the buttons, but it’s a much better piece of clothing with them. But I ask you, dear reader, shouldn’t you have gotten the jacket and the buttons for the one price in the beginning?
You'll pay for my extra costumes, oh yes, you'll pay.
Let’s also consider Valkyria Chronicles. This was a great game, and no one could say that it skimped on its content or its quality. Well they could, but they'd be wrong. With that in mind, I’m much more inclined to pay a bit more for some additional quests to extend my time with the game, so you can imagine my delight when three DLC packs were released. But delight didn’t last long when I saw that one of the DLC packs was for a harder difficulty mode.
S-s-say what?
I’m not a game programmer, and I’m sure it’s time consuming to make a harder difficulty level, that wasn’t available in the original version. I’m sure it takes at least a couple of minutes. But surely if I’ve paid to play the game, and will probably pay for the additional content, the least they could do is to chuck in the increased difficulty level for free.
Time for the preachy bit
DLC is on a slippery slope. What is there to stop developers from deliberately holding back an extra difficulty level in the future – one which they developed at the same time as the original game – and then charging Joe Public extra for it a couple of days after the game’s release? What about not creating a proper ending for a game, and making people pay for it later on (which you could argue is what Prince of Persia did). In short, what should we expect ‘out of the box’ and what should we expect to have to pay for these days? It seems to me the line is blurry and developers are keen to test us out. My advice – no matter how much you love a game, don’t pay $10 for a cool new set of rabbit ears to put on your character that you should have gotten for free. Reward developers who make decent DLC, not those who want to exploit their loyal customers. And don’t pay for content that fixes the flaws in a game that is sub-standard to begin with. And don’t do drugs, except for smack, cause that stuff is bitchin'.
Loading...
