DLC vs loot boxes: make it worth buying

On the one hand, we have a practice that single-handedly demolished a gaming brand’s goodwill (loot boxes), and on the other, we have expansions and DLC which, when practiced correctly, offer a way to get extra revenue for making actual, valuable content that extends a game’s value proposition in a pro-consumer way.

We all hate when gamers are nickel-and-dimed into buying content that should have been in the base purchase of a full-retail-price game. Not only this, more nefarious practices have become more commonplace in the last year; loot boxes totally ruined Battlefront 2 and Shadow of War and led to a controversy that left waves rocking the industry for potentially years to come. Utilizing the ethically-questionable methods of gambling, loot boxes inherently represent greed and cynicism in its worst form. Unlike DLC, there is no redemption for the loot box.

On the other hand, with DLC there is a very clear distinction between the wrong and the right way to go about business. Gamers undoubtedly have a love-hate relationship with DLC, as since its widespread adoption in the 360/PS3 generation it has led to some good and a lot of bad, potentially even paving the slippery slope that landed us into the dubious territory of the loot box. There are good DLCs and bad DLCs, and the distinction needs to be made.

The wrong way to go about offering videogame DLC is clear and obvious; stripping content already expected of the game to sell back as an ‘expansion’, holding DLC hostage as a pre-order bonus, or the method most popular in mainstream gaming today which is to sell a ‘season pass’ that is often costed at more than the initial outlay of the game itself. The list goes on of every example of DLC gone anti-consumer. A dishonourable mention goes to the selling of pointless extraneous content such as costumes that would otherwise have been present in the game as a reward for player activities. The much-maligned ‘horse armour’, as seen in Oblivion, is a famous example of how costume DLC can go badly, badly wrong.

However, the important distinction between the practice of DLC and loot boxes or microtransactions is that as a method of keeping player engagement and maintaining a profitable player base is that there is a way to do DLC in the right way. For example, most gamers would agree that The Witcher 3’s DLC is a shining example of how to behave in an otherwise cynical industry.

The best examples of DLC are those that expand the game’s playtime and replay value. Grand Theft Auto IV and Red Dead Redemption excelled in their own DLC offerings, with the content being so meaty that they were later sold as full games (Undead Nightmare, Ballad of Gay Tony and The Lost and Damned). The content described was great simply because it offered a valuable expansion that was tangible to players.

A more modern example of DLC done right can be seen in Resident Evil 7. Capcom already earned my goodwill in this case because they delivered a stellar mainstream horror experience, and possibly the best AAA game to come out in years. Not only this, but the deal was sweetened with the initial offering of the free ‘Not a Hero’ DLC. While it suffered from its own issues, there is no denying that there is a good sign in giving an expansion for free that most unscrupulous publishers would eagerly strip out and monetize.

While yes, the concept of the dreaded ‘season pass’ reared its ugly head with Resident Evil 7, the sheer excellence of the content proved to be worth downloading. The banned footage, which gave us an actual expansion and elaboration on the game, used the mechanics to a great effect that changed the whole tone of the product. Simply through delivering something worth buying, Capcom made DLC that I am willing to buy.

It feels so painfully stupid to say this, but 90% of doing DLC right is not rocket science; it’s just to deliver a good package that is worth the price. Resident Evil 7’s DLC was fun to play and offered something different and new to the main experience. If this, and the other good examples of game DLC are anything to go by, it’s that there is plenty of gamer goodwill out there, if you treat gamers right. It may come as a shock to EA games, but the way to sell a product is not to manipulate the customer, or to engage in anti-consumer practices, it’s simply to make something worth buying. 

Is DLC a good or a bad thing?

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.