It was an interesting discussion about the DLCs, in particular to this Capcom instance.
Though I felt there are issues pertinent to DLCs in general that are less often discussed. The real problem is often clouded by the more common complains such as 'day 1' or 'whether the content is on disc'.
For housekeeping:
Whether the content is already 'on-disc' is not the problem - they could just make you having to download the whole thing (instead of the unlock key) and occupy your hard drive space. That would be worse.
The time frame which DLCs come out after the game release also matters little - parts of the game sold separately a month after the game's release is exploiting; while parts of the game sold separately day one blatantly translates to "you are getting ripped-off and how do you like that?" - It's just a matter of extent.
The real problem is that, developers/publishers are holding back contents which are parts to a complete game and selling those on the side. The current system (of delivery, if you will) is not only endorsing but encouraging that.
In contrary of DLC's original intent of adding extra content and extending a game's life, they are exploited far more often than being used constructively.
A valid argument that Terminator02 brought up is that, 'whether one feels having received a
complete experience after playing the game [without the DLCs]. This notion is however, subjective to each person.
(one could easily argue for the Capcom case, as 'characters' are the core of a fighting game - it's what you are playing for, hardly could ever be considered 'extras')
The 'entitlement' card gets thrown around too often as well: players' feeling of entitlement (whether this actually exist or not) has everything but at the same time, nothing to do with the DLC issue. Players have been buying games the same way all along - it's the first party that have changed their ways of delivery over the years.
While the players have little choice in how complete the game is that they purchase (as publishers could lock parts of the game away as they see fit); and perceived completeness of a game is solely based on our subjective experience (which could be argued both ways) - the publishers (and to a lesser extent in most cases, the developers) are actually
encouraged to hold back parts of the game, and sell them separately, through one of delivery methods of 'DLC'.
(pre-order bonus, retail exclusive, and other forms of micro-transactions can all be considered delivery methods of 'DLC')
The 'mona lisa' paintings used as a DLC analogy has been around for a while, but in case you haven't seen it. It's
here, and
here
(i think the idea illustrated by the pictures are self-expository)
Relating back to the Capcom case, without DLC delivery methods,
Capcom would, definitely have included all of the 12 'extra' character in the integral release of the game - in an effort that 'a game as perfect as possible will generate the most sales';
or another possible scenario would be:
those characters (and potential revisions to the game) will be included in a updated release of the following year - hoping the 'extras' could push the sales of the 2nd iteration of the same game.
However,
Current DLC system gives the video game publishers/developers a means, and even worse, an incentive to not produce complete or 'as perfect as possible games', but rather intentionally holding contents back in hopes to generate extra revenue selling them separately.
This is unhealthy for the console game industry. (especially in long-terms)
It's important that we keep the arguments specific to console and handheld gaming. The distinction is that, for the most part, console and handheld gaming does not traditionally endorse the practice of any micro-transactions (even up to the 6th generation). This distinction between console gaming and other media (such as iOS, pc gaming, mmo, etc) is vital -
the console gaming niche has been buying complete games.
From a perspective, we can see the most heavy DLC tend to occur in established IPs and popular series/name-brand games. Because this is where they are mostly likely able to 'pull-it-off'. This very fact tells us that the nature of most DLCs is to exploit.
Players with a certain prior knowledge and attachment to a series are the most likely to purchase 'extra' contents, in effort for their gaming experience to be most complete. Most negative notion towards DLCs are also voiced by the similar group of players who actually care about the established IPs and the industry.
This turns into a vicious circle, as the industry's most loyal supporters are also being the most heavily exploited.
Companies may be profiting from the micro-transactions of DLCs in the short-term. But it is not worth compromising the culture of the console gaming base. Like mentioned in the tempcast, people will eventually 'vote with their money' and stop endorsing this practice.
I have linked this article for anyone that would like to read more on the topic:
http://www.maycontai...ploited-by-dlc/
Some quotes I found worth noting:
I don't like the nagging feeling that I get with some games, that something has been left out so they can add DLC later.
If there was no option for adding DLC later, would we really be seeing the likes of Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine launch with only five multiplayer maps?
If enough people pay for [it], no matter how grudgingly, then the publisher or developer will take that feedback and say [it] was worth that money. Rant on the forum all you like.. but actions speak louder than words, and buying the item supports their decision to carry on exactly as they are.
...and the idea has been suggested that eventually we’ll see schemes where you barely get anything for your initial purchase, but have to unlock the rest of the game in pieces, with a fee for each one.
] 