Your Opinion on DLC - DLC Costume, Waste of Money or not?

[Jomarcenter]

I been noticing the rise of DLC Costume specifically in Japanese games where you pay 1$ and you only get costume set that mostly consider as useless and also a very bad and stupid DLC idea.

From legend of heroes Zero no kiseki, Ace attorney Dual destiny, Bravery second and other games now implemented on DLC costume which on most game have very little or not impact on how the game played out, Sure they can add a few quest or additional with the costume but some games only offer DLC costume and nothing else which mostly as a gaming consumer and a game designer it a total waste of money and a stupid thing to add to you game.

But what do you think? is DLC costume a waste of money or something special that a gamer can support a developer more?

 

[sabao]

My primary gripe with DLC is that most of the time additional content feels like they were intentionally kept out of the primary release so publishers can milk players out of all their money. Players are compelled to cough up the extra dough, because the experience would feel incomplete if otherwise.

Costumes are optional. You can experience the entirety of the game with or without them. They're a novelty that don't necessarily alter your playing experience. Some people like it. It's there for vanity's sake, or for the hardcore completionist in the extremest case.

 

[Tsukihime]

only offer DLC costume and nothing else which mostly as a gaming consumer and a game designer it a total waste of money and a stupid thing to add to you game.

No, people love costumes.


The amount of money some people are willing to spend on cute apparels for their avatars is unimaginable.


For a lot of games, they are one of the primary sources of revenue and, especially for MMO's, do not risk destroying the balance of the game which would basically drive players away and eventually kill the game.


There are plenty of reasons why one would purchase additional costumes, fully acknowledging the fact that the only difference that it would have is them looking different from others.

 

[sabao]

On that note, if I could get back all the cash I've spent on character skins in games, I could probably buy two AAA games on Steam right now.

I regret nothing, however. I look fabulous.

 

[Jomarcenter]

No, people love costumes.

The amount of money some people are willing to spend on cute apparels for their avatars is unimaginable.

For a lot of games, they are one of the primary sources of revenue and, especially for MMO's, do not risk destroying the balance of the game which would basically drive players away and eventually kill the game.

There are plenty of reasons why one would purchase additional costumes, fully acknowledging the fact that the only difference that it would have is them looking different from others.

How about single-player offline games since now they also getting DLC costume treatment? For online games I am ok with it, since it really give out if the player is unique to the crowd but now single-player offline games offers DLC costume that no one even can see it unless if you do a let's play video of it which only a few people per game really do it.

 

[Tsukihime]

How about single-player offline games since now they also getting DLC costume treatment? For online games I am ok with it, since it really give out if the player is unique to the crowd but now single-player offline games offers DLC costume that no one even can see it unless if you do a let's play video of it which only a few people per game really do it.

Let's plays are one audience.


Live streams are another.


And these aren't exactly "only a few people per game". If you mean really big youtube or twitch celebrities then maybe, but there are plenty of casual streamers.


And what if you just want to have this really cool looking piece of armor when you're playing? Even if you're playing it on your own, you would still have standards for what you're looking at.

 

[DragonVine]

I have less of an issue with DLC that's cosmetic (like costumes), than DLC that basically should already be available in the game. Some DLC can be good. I loved the DLC for The Last of Us, for example. It depends on how much it expands beyond the orignal gameplay. I'm not a fan of "buy this map DLC to see where all the secrets are," like in more recent Assassin's Creed games, but I do like the DLC's that add extensive extra missions. For me, it all depends on whether or not it expands the gameplay in a signifiant way.

Adding one sidequest - probably should have just been included from the start.

Adding several missions that help expand the immersion in the story - not that bad.

 

[♥SOURCE♥]

Tsukihime is right.

Spoiler

 

[Wavelength]

I have a feeling it might just be me, but whenever I see these costumes as DLC, I find myself thinking "wow, those are priced much higher than they're worth" and I have never bought one.  I'd probably pay $5 for a pack of 20-30 total costumes (in a traditional JRPG where you have 4-10 characters) or for ~10 costumes (in a game where you have a single protagonist), in a game that I'm constantly playing and re-playing.  But in general I see costumes priced at $1-$2 apiece, which just strikes me as bad value.  I mean, for the amount that it would cost to outfit my team in a set of mediocre costumes, I could buy a full Humble Bundle!

I have very occasionally bought costumes in League of Legends, but that's something that I've already played for a couple thousand hours and it's an online F2P where people playing alongside you will see your costumes and some costumes come with a lot of other cool aesthetic changes.  (Bromacia!!)  Even then, I've only spent like $40 total over two years, because again, I find the costumes ($5-$25) to be rather poor value compared to other ways I could spend my money on video games.

 

[Galenmereth]

It depends entirely on the game whether I consider it or not, or whether it feels "right" or not. An example of where I've spent quite a bit of money on cosmetic outfits and stuff like that is Guild Wars 2. But here I have no problem with it because

a ) I could've worked my way towards these "premium currency" only items using ingame currency because it's possible to get that cosmetic premium currency for the normal gold currency, and real money just gets it faster

b )They're really well done, and I absolutely love putting together outfits and color schemes on them

Point a. is not necessarily true for me even if I can get stuff using ingame currency if it feels unfairly loaded. GW2 has the right balance for me in both quality of the items in question, and fairness of the system. Take other games, like FFXIV, where they've introduced real-money only cosmetic items not attainable any other way; I'm not fond of that, and I ignore it. It feels off to me, even though I certainly love dress-up in that game too.

 

[Matseb2611]

The whole purpose of the DLC approach serves only one purpose - to make easy money. If your main goal is to make good games and to be seen as a reliable developer, I'd stay away from the DLC formula completely. Add everything into the game that needs to be added on release, and if you get new ideas later, turn them into sequels, prequels, or spinoffs.

You only ever get 2 types of DLC:

- Useless ones (like costumes and items that don't add anything aside from looking nice)

- Useful ones (which either give you an advantage in the game or add more content)

Both of the options will not sit well with the players.

Edit: The only exception is if the DLC is completely free.

 

[sabao]

The whole purpose of the DLC approach serves only one purpose - to make easy money. If your main goal is to make good games and to be seen as a reliable developer, I'd stay away from the DLC formula completely. Add everything into the game that needs to be added on release, and if you get new ideas later, turn them into sequels, prequels, or spinoffs.

You only ever get 2 types of DLC:

- Useless ones (like costumes and items that don't add anything aside from looking nice)

- Useful ones (which either give you an advantage in the game or add more content)

Both of the options will not sit well with the players.

Edit: The only exception is if the DLC is completely free.

Functionally useless DLC wouldn't really affect anyone that doesn't have them in the first place, so I don't really see how anyone can be upset by their existence. What I believe is the real sore point in this case is selling alt costumes at like, 20 USD or something.

As for additional playable content, I'm on the fence. Does the additional content justify their being separate entities like say, The Last of Us' Left Behind side story, or is it a whack job like Arkham City's Nightwing mode where most of the stuff looks/feels recycled?

 

[Matseb2611]

Functionally useless DLC wouldn't really affect anyone that doesn't have them in the first place, so I don't really see how anyone can be upset by their existence. What I believe is the real sore point in this case is selling alt costumes at like, 20 USD or something.

The reason I say it's bad is because it's a clear scheme to milk money, which can cause many players to lose faith and respect in the developer. It's not so much about players not being affected by this content. It's the principle of taking money for something that serves no purpose at all and should technically be free.

 

[sabao]

Is it really considered exploitative if the added content was expansive enough to warrant a separate purchase and download? I mean technically certain DLCs are precisely that: expansions. They could be expanded stories that may not have necessarily fit into the main one but does not necessarily require large enough changes to qualify it as a separate numbered sequel. They could be small optional tweaks to change up one's next playthrough. The key word is optional. I'm completely against on-disc DLC. Continued developer support for a product through additional content? Why not?

 

[Matseb2611]

I think it really depends on a. the amount of content, b. the price, and c. whether the DLC is an addition to an already complete game or a missing piece that should've been there on the first place.

I personally think DLC being free is a better option, because it can help to increase sales of the original game, and everyone ends up being a winner:

- The dev gets more sales of the original game

- New players get more content for the same value

- Existing players get free new content

Just my two cents.

Edit: Just thought I'd also add the fact that the current system does not reward player loyalty. You have a bunch of paid DLCs coming out, forcing the players to spend money, and then a few months down the line, the devs release a GOTY version or a Director's Cut that combines all the DLC with the original game for a better value, which in a sense is a slap to the face of all those players that were loyal and purchased the game and its DLCs early on.

And what's the alternate solution some devs do? The season pass, which in essence gets the player to pay money upfront before the DLC is even made, with no indication of how many DLC packs there will be, what their quality will be, how much content they'll have, or whether they'll even be made at all. It's just a really bad practice and players shouldn't fall prey to it.

 

[Scythuz]

To be honest, my only gripe with dlc is when it is either a. over-advertised, b. the game actively blocks content off (dragon age: origins and arma 3 are two quick examples I can think of) or c. it actively gives players who don't own the dlc a disadvantage (paying for unlockable weapons in a game seems like nonsense to me unless the game is F2P and even then only certain methods seem morally acceptable.)

I don't mind alternative costumes because they don't have an impact on the game itself and if they're being made while the rest of the game is being developed then, usually, it's done at a time when most graphical assets are already done.  No point in paying someone who isn't doing anything so get them to do dlc instead.  I'm not saying I would ever buy alternative costumes purposefully but as long as it doesn't get taken too far or holds back the game in anyway I have no issue with it.

DLC that get's treated like a full expansion pack will always be my favourite, Dark Souls 2 and (some, not all) Crusader Kings 2 DLC, for example, does precisely this.  It makes me wonder if we need separate tags for types of dlc rather than just putting them all under one vague name.

I also feel that expansion pack level DLC should not be released at launch even if it didn't actively take away from dev time, it just leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths regardless and it would be better to see the games reception first in order to gather better ideas.

 

[Braydon]

It's a pathetic money grubbing tactic like almost all forms of DLC.

 

[Galenmereth]

Take Mario Kart 8's DLC; first part was released months after release, second part close to a year later. It's 4 cups (16 tracks) and 8 new characters total, meaning half the content of the original game added. Many of the tracks and characters were based on fan demand, but are quite unusual in a Mario Kart game (Animal Crossing and Link), which is a perfect fit for optional DLC content. It all cost about 1/5th or so of the original game's price.

To me this is the prime example of good content DLC (not just cosmetical), as it expands on the game for the fans without having to wait for an entirely new entry in the series on a new console. Much better than a sequel, both for our wallets and in terms of choice. It gives the developer the ability to take fan demand into more legitimate consideration, too.

I think Scythuz is on to something: we really do need a separation between different forms of DLC. Day one DLC should not be compared to post-release DLC either.

 

[Jomarcenter]

I also feel that expansion pack level DLC should not be released at launch even if it didn't actively take away from dev time, it just leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths regardless and it would be better to see the games reception first in order to gather better ideas.

Kinda lolz that you already said for a next time "Your opinion on X" topic which is about DLC release dates.

But anyways in my opinion is another unnecessary idea to have a DLC the same time as the game release date. I mean you pay a game that you can play right now and then a DLC that have additional content for you to pay an addition price. I mean give some zero day buyers a break after buying the game on the first day I mean they want to play a game and in a few minute, hours they hit by a DLC paywall or kinda fell like you need that DLC to continue or even fell that the game is actually over.

few of the good examples of it is Watch_dogs which the release date of the actual game is May 27, And it story featured length DLC called Bad_Blood DLC is release on September 25 which is a good 5 month gap since the game actual release date.

And also while I was typing this Galenmereth Mario Cart 8 Example is also a good timing of the DLC release dates due to the fact that it been release month or a year for additional content like new track and characters which you cannot find in the original copy of the game before the software update take place. Which I kinda want to give Galenmereth a thumbs up for bringing up about the Mario Kart 8 DLC.

 

[Scythuz]

few of the good examples of it is Watch_dogs which the release date of the actual game is May 27, And it story featured length DLC called Bad_Blood DLC is release on September 25 which is a good 5 month gap since the game actual release date.

Yeah exactly, when it comes out on the same day it just feels like some kind of manipulation rather than a genuine attempt to make more good content.