Downloadable Content in video games is a bit of a mixed bag for myself, and for the gaming industry as a whole. The topic has polarised gamers since the advent of online connectivity in game consoles. For some, it stands as a great way to deliver game expansions that continue to make videogames interesting past their typical lifespans, and to deliver new ways to interact with the content on offer. For others, it is a cynical exercise in money making that serves only to exploit. As with most arguments, the true answer probably lies somewhere in the middle of the two viewpoints.
My viewpoint on DLC, therefore, is rather mixed. I think that for a DLC to work as a value proposition to me, it has to offer significant content. Microtransactions, in that case, offer little to me as a gamer. I feel turned off by how such content tends to treat the underlying game as a patchwork of mix-and-match content, leaving me feeling like I am being delivered an incomplete experience. On the other hand, I think the best DLCs are those that offer multiple hours of gameplay.
In my opinion, DLC that changes the fundamental ‘feel’ of the game is usually a bad thing. I much prefer to play games as originally intended, like it or not. It is an issue that I often feel like I am not getting the ‘genuine’ experience when I can play the game in a different way, or when DLC allows something that is story-breaking such as silly costumes. While unlockables have always been among my favourite rewards in gaming, as a purchase I feel like I am somehow undermining my own story experience, which is a strange and hypocritical kind of view.
What is the worst practice in DLC, however, is that of ‘horse armour’ (made infamous as a poor offering on Oblivion). Transactions that offer little to no value in gameplay terms to the consumer. While I am typically on the positive side of DLC if it extends story and game value beyond the original purchase, ‘just’ downloading superficial items such as armour or costumes as a paid practice runs dangerously close to the more cynical view of offering downloadable content; a poor, no-effort modification that offers no real value that is worth paying for.
As such, my preferred DLC is the variety that delivers story-based content. Perhaps a few hours of optional side-missions or even an extension to the campaign in its entirety. One example that I loved was Fallout 3’s Broken Steel add-on which allowed the storyline to be extended past the endgame, which was a boon to players like myself that felt like they wanted to be able to freely-roam the Capital Wasteland after the story was concluded. It also fixed a major glaring plothole in the original story’s ending which, without going into spoiler territory, made little to no real sense.
Multiplayer map-packs generally offer no value to me as a gamer that doesn’t generally play online in a massive capacity. However, it is of my opinion that such a practice is generally cynical; such a practice splits the playerbase into categories that either have the DLC or don’t. Not being able to play certain gametypes because one hasn’t purchased the corresponding multiplayer pack that has no offline value whatsoever in extending gameplay seems like a shady practice in my opinion.
The worst kinds of DLC are, however, widespread and well-known. ‘Day One DLC’, and ‘On-Disk DLC’, which ultimately come down to the definition of paying extra to unlock or activate content that was already shipped as part of the game’s final retail release. It is difficult to separate some of these kinds of DLC as an actual case of content being held back that was intended for release at retail, but the practice is infamous and prevalent, with core gameplay features being reduced to marketing fodder to boost pre-orders.
This kind of practice is abhorrent and is what has given DLC a bad name. On the whole, the market for downloadable expansions has become a minefield to navigate. Between microtransactions, low-value propositions and even day-one content, it has become impossible to separate poor business practice from a concept that has been developed with the best of intentions.
There needs to be better policing of DLC in the future, but as the main source of any change in the gaming industry is capitalism and marketing, then the future seems bleak as to whether DLC will be seen as an innovation or a money-grab. It is too early to call, but perhaps with the right pressure from player groups, we can start to shift the path to make it the former rather than the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment