DLC: Developing a Loss of Credibility?

This is something you'll find a rant about on any forum involving any videogames created this generation: downloadable content, otherwise known as "DLC". [Note: How "downloadable content" becomes "DLC" instead of "DC", I don't know. Just roll with it.] The rants vary in their purpose: either a game lacks it and the fanbase wants it (Super Smash Bros. Brawl), a game has it and the fanbase dislikes what it got (Dragon Age: Origins), a game has it and it's controversial (pretty much any game with day-1 DLC) or a game had it, and now it's all being re-released in a "complete edition", thus alienating original purchasers.

In general, DLC has been known to bring out the worst in online personalities despite their valid appeal to sales. People argue over the merit of the DLC, over the developers' pure intentions versus the evil publishers', over the pricing, over the timing, over the notion that it might be on the disc, over the mere fact that they had the audacity to put in X instead of Y, when any true fan would clearly want Y... If you've been on a gaming forum, you've seen it. I don't need to explain it to you. You've likely even participated in one or more of these discussions. I know I have. (See: Marvel vs. Capcom 3's bulls***.)

But I'm not here to rant about the coming of a past gaming god who'll rid the world of its DLC sins. DLC isn't all bad. It isn't all good, either, but it's up to us as a community to decide if it's something we need to fix, or something we need to deal with before it's too late.

So let's start off simple. How about a pro/con list to get our bearings? I agree; that is a really good idea! Glad I thought of it.

The Pros of DLC:

• Gives additional content post-release to extend the lifetime of a previously purchased game.
• Allows developers to adjust additional content according to fan feedback.
• Gives the option of updating/fixing games without requiring a new full purchase.
• Offers exclusive in-game items for the most dedicated of fans to show off and feel superior over.
• Adds to profits made by the developer/publisher.
• Day-1 free DLC for new game purchasers offers incentive to not buy used, making sure dev/pub get paid.
• Retailer-exclusive content helps individual retailers gain sales.

The Cons of DLC:

• Cost, obviously. "Full game": $60. Full game: >$60.
• Enables the concept of "finishing a game later" and shipping an unfinished product that needs patching.
• Exclusives add fuel to the fire of elitism that plagues the internet/gaming community already as it is.
• Overly complicates the simple process of, you know, playing the game.
• Results in a new business plan, in which content is cut from the retail release and saved for a later paid add-on.
• Bugs and issues with DLC installing/downloading.
• Internet connection required in most cases, and eventually servers will stop hosting content, making it unavailable.

Okay. Same page? Hope so.

Now instead of looking at this solely from the individual consumer's perspective (which is how most of us do, since it's our money), let's try to approach the DLC phenomenon of this generation objectively. Clearly it's working financially, otherwise companies would cease doing it. If you think about it, they're making a killing on premium content. Are the extra costumes in Street Fighter IV necessary to enjoy the game? Of course not. But some players crave them, and are willing to pay for them. Rather than including them for free and leaving the majority of them to waste on the disc, Capcom chose to withhold them and, essentially, ask players how much they really wanted them.

Correction: they asked players' wallets how much they really wanted them. And the wallets, more often than not, are enablers. And the best part for companies is that the ratio of content to cash is always higher on DLC than on the full retail product. Think about it: Call of Duty games come with long campaigns with tons of set pieces and voice over work, an in-depth online interface, a multitude of weapons and upgrades to earn, a slew of multiplayer modes, etc. etc. That's all $60. Yet Activision can pull off selling a smaller number of maps than what's already available in the retail version for $15-- an entire fourth of the retail game's price. You are paying 1/4 of what you paid for the entire game to get a few new maps. That profit margin is enormous.

Then there's the whole "online pass" thing that EA started, which is free for people who buy their games new, and redacted from gamers who get the game used. Seems like fair practice. If you support the company, you get the full game. If you don't (since they don't see one penny from a used sale), then you don't get the full game unless paying them directly for the withheld DLC. So what's the problem?

Sexy Robot Trip:
the preorder DLC
I'll never have.

Well, a multitude arises. What if the person buying the game new doesn't have an internet connection in his area? What if there's a shipping fiasco in which valid purchasers don't get the codes they need? What about rental stores, who are already under harsh times as it is? What about when we move onto the next generation of games, and suddenly anyone who wants to play these now classic games can't possibly get the full game because the servers hosting the online content have been shut down? What about the loss of value of new copies when the bundled DLC code expires, or the late-bloomer fans who can't get the game's early DLC because the DLC is no longer available for them to download at all?

And this isn't even bringing up all of the potential problems for customers involving DLC, such as using one platform and not getting the same experience as owners on another platform. (I'd like to throw in yet another plea for Capcom to release the Gold Edition content for Resident Evil 5 on PC. Seriously. Come on. I want to play Lost in Nightmares on DX10!) Or how map packs effectively split online communities entirely, as purchasing map packs is eventually required just to play with one's friends. Remember that story I posted earlier, about the guy who lost his gamertag? Losing the gamertag and achievements isn't that huge of a deal-- losing access to ALL of the DLC he paid for under that gamertag most definitely is. Essentially, by being wrongfully banned, he had all his digital game content stolen from him. He's going to have to replace every last bit himself.

The point I'm trying to get to here is, more or less, this... DLC presents a good business model for the near future, but it can potentially ruin one of the mainstays of what makes gaming popular: replayability. Games tend to age very well, because even with the limitations on older consoles, the gameplay itself never gets old when a game is good enough. Kind of like how soccer hasn't really changed in centuries. You think Mario's popularity is based entirely on his current games? I'll say this much: there wouldn't be a new line of Mario t-shirts, hats, key chains, stickers, wallets, energy drinks, pillows, etc. just because it's a good game now. Gaming banks on nostalgia, on the fact that you can dust off your old Super NES, plug in Super Mario World and go to town. How would that feeling change if you couldn't play Vanilla Dome anymore because it was a preorder bonus DLC that you didn't download to this console? Can you even imagine a world where simply being able to use Yoshi requires a preorder at Gamestop (power to the players)?

Another example: Think of all the games released this generation that require title updates to fix their glitches. Now think about dusting off that old Xbox 360, plugging in one of your favorite games you just picked up again at a used store, and... that title update is no longer available. The glitches they fixed are still there, and you can't change it. What then? How nostalgic will you be when you run into that missed game breaking glitch or unpatched infinite?

When I think of my favorite games in the past few years, I think of large-scale, highly supported games. I think of Mass Effect 2-- as well as the Zaeed DLC, the Kasumi DLC, the Liara DLC, the Overlord DLC, the Arrival DLC, the weapon pack DLC, the Genesis DLC... If I want to come back to this game in 5-10 years and don't have my original Xbox, I can't replay the whole thing. When I want to make a new Shepard, I'll have to forego whole character arcs and key decisions between games. That's not right.

But that's just the suits deciding what's best for investors now, not what's best for them in the future. What happens in the future when they have a whole new generation of gamers that doesn't understand why our generation was so great? What happens when Mario and Sonic and co. finally lose their charm due to decades of stagnancy, and newer IPs don't make nearly as good of used games as they should? Hell, what happens if they lose the interest of this generation due to all of the DLC shenanigans? If people's wallets start following their mouths at some point-- and with gamers getting older and needing to support families, that will happen-- then no, they won't feel like preordering at three different stores and downloading all the map packs and getting the cool optional costumes. They'll be swayed by full, unaltered, uncut packages with the entire experience ready to go, right out of the box. And not the kind that comes out a full year after everyone else is already finished with the game.

I'm not saying DLC is all bad. I want to be clear about that. But the big wigs in the industry need to be cautious in how hard they push these new DLC routes. We're slowly becoming all the more discontent with games due to their unfinished status on release, and the fact that companies are announcing DLC packages before the game is even released. When you lose customer faith and product credibility, that's much harder to make up for than a bad quarter.