There are some aspects of gaming that spark furious debates, which console is better? Who’s the best protagonist? Who’d win in a fight between Master Chief and Samus? You know, the important stuff. Well here at TGF we have these arguments a lot , and rather than beat each other into a bloody pulp we decided to settle these issues with words.
So here’s how this will go down, every time a topic comes up we’ll pick our two most vocal writers and pit them mono e mono in a contest of literary skill. Each writer gets 500 words to convince you, the reader, that they are indeed correct. Who wins? well you decide! We want you to tell use who had the best argument, who changed your mind.
Being the first installment in the series, we wanted to start with something big, well we have one of the biggest. This week we have DLC. Is DLC overpriced? is it important? Should it have shipped on the disc? These are all things for our writers to consider. Let’s meet this weeks players and see what they have to say!
Player One: David Geeson (@TGF_David)
So this is me! I’m one of the few UK writers on the site, as well as being one of the sites most avid Xbots. Today i’ll be trying to convince you wonderful people that DLC is in fact a good thing that we should all enjoy.
Argument:
Firstly I want to clarify my position, whilst I am for DLC in principle, I’m not a blind fan of all DLC. In my opinion there’s a vast difference between the map-pack styling of Black Ops and the Expansionist style of Oblivion, one is creatively bankrupt and the other is a genuine piece of awesome. I only support DLC that has a real purpose outside of sheer financial gain, now that you know that I’ll continue.
[pullquote_right]I only support DLC that has a real purpose outside of sheer financial gain[/pullquote_right]The process of making games is a focused thing, once a plan is set into motion it’s almost tunnel like, a developer will only see what is necessary. The modern process is a flurry of deadlines, demo’s and polishing. In all this chaos it can be easy to miss some creative opportunities, this is where DLC has it’s real purpose. After the mad rush is finished and the game has gone gold, a developer can sit down and ask themselves “Did we miss anything? Was there something we could add?”. Given the chance most developers will either find something they never spotted before or salvage something from the cutting room floor. My two favourite examples are Oblivions Shivering Isle DLC and Fallout 3’s Operation Anchorage. Both of these added something spectacular to already outstanding games, both scored high in reviews, and both are held as fantastic additions to the games. Operation Anchorage showed me a side of Fallout that the main game didn’t, a side that I truly enjoyed, the difference in narrative style and game play was a welcome addition to the game and something Bethesda did fantastically.
[pullquote_left]Alan wake, a game that used an interesting episodically styled narrative which actually lent itself perfectly to DLC.[/pullquote_left]Now that I’ve covered that, let’s talk practicality. Even I’ll admit that some DLC comes way too soon and should probably have shipped with the game,but sometimes that just can’t be done. In these cases only the least important content gets cut, stuff that helps explore the main story but isn’t necessarily vital to your understanding. When these get released they present a nice chance for you as a gamer to explore story elements you didn’t see and to invest more time in a universe you enjoy. The best case of this that springs to mind is Alan wake, a game that used an interesting episodically styled narrative which actually lent itself perfectly to DLC. When the two post release story add-ons came out I was excited to learn more about the game, I never felt like the main game was missing anything I was just interested to learn more. With or without it’s DLC Alan wake has a phenomenal story, it’s just that the extra makes it better.
To wrap up I have a metaphor for you kind folks. Instead of thinking of DLC as cake with a piece missing, think of it as the icing on top; it’s not truly vital to the overall enjoyment but it definitely makes it taste better.
Player Two: Breezy (@TGF_Breezy)
Breezy is our resident tech writer here at the Game Fanatics. He has a strong dislike for AMD, Deus Ex: Human Revolution and, as you’re about to find out, DLC.
Argument:
[pullquote_left]You see, a few years ago there wasn’t any such thing as DLC, and developers were happy with the game that was released[/pullquote_left]When I hear the letters D…L…C, I immediately begin to cringe at the thought of investing even more money into a $60 game. I’m sure some of you enjoy the thought of purchasing that new map pack for Call of Duty, or even buying the add-on pack for Red Dead Redemption, but I don’t. You see, a few years ago there wasn’t any such thing as DLC, and developers were happy with the game that was released into the market. But now it seems developers are using DLC to try and strengthen the attach rate of their games. I find this partially annoying, but I can also sympathize with them.
[pullquote_right]if you’re releasing a game that needs DLC to keep people hanging onto it, then to me you didn’t do your job as a game developer[/pullquote_right]What’s annoying to me is you end up purchasing a so-so game, and the moment you’re ready to trade it in for something bigger and better here come’s new DLC for it. In this market clearly dominated by games such as Halo and Call of Duty, I can see why some smaller companies have developed this marketing strategy to attempt to get a few extra coins out of our pockets. At the same time though, if you’re releasing a game that needs DLC to keep people hanging onto it, then to me you didn’t do your job as a game developer. I believe games should be able to stand on their own without DLC.
They did it in past, so why not now? Now, at least to me, we’re seeing a surge of unfinished games that need patches and DLC to survive. Some things that clearly should’ve been included in a game end up being DLC. Things like for example; M.A.G flash grenade and armor add-on, Super Street Fighter IV Alternate Costumes, Call of Duty map packs. These are things that the companies know we want as gamers but choose to make them DLC and charge us for them. The list goes on and on with companies who deliberately do this. Even Criterion Games (who made the popular Burnout Paradise game when the consoles first launched) decided to make cop cars and charge us for them as DLC. Something that you’d think would’ve been included within this racing game. At least the guys who work on the Need for Speed series understood this.
List of Reasons We Don’ Need DLC
• Potentially corrupted DLC
• Requires Internet Connection
• Cost even more money (sometimes)
• Cannot carry over to next generation
• Not on disc
• Takes up memory on console
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
The Verdict
As i’m sure you can see both writer’s have some strong arguments and opinions, but who was the best? That’s not for us to decide, we work here.
The job of deciding who wrote the most convincing argument is up to you, the reader. Who put their point across the best? Did one of them change your mind? Do you flat out disagree with someone? It’s time for you folks to weigh in via the comments section below!
