Downloadable content obviously has its downsides, and I myself have repeatedly pointed to it as a huge problem for the industry. It seems like a way for developers to quickly cash in or milk a successful game to death—and that’s all true, in most cases. However, DLC is nothing new, and we’ll probably never see it disappear. It’s a permanent installment of gaming and has been since the beginning of time—but why exactly has it popped up in the gaming industry, of all forms of entertainment?
Before the first electronic computer even booted up, people were gambling their fortunes away through cards or roulette machines. When computers hit the scene, they weren’t immediately an option for casinos to cash in on more suckers’ money, given their clunky size and low functionality. Pinball machines were the closest thing to a viable arcade game. However, as soon as the late 60s and 70s rolled around, a huge surge in computer games occurred, and the golden age of arcade gaming began. Computer games of all types enjoyed a new burst of fame—but what exactly was causing these games to be so successful?
The answer is quite simple: the very same tactics that encourage DLC and pay-to-win market strategies. Arcade games are even more ruthless than computer games, requiring users to pay to continue playing rather than respawning, and sometimes even rigging the game to kill the character to force more tokens and therefore more money out of the player. There’s no downloading involved, though—game developers and arcades simply forced the user to shovel out $20 of tokens every time they wanted to beat a game. In a similar tactic, DLC weapons, areas, and unlockables will often allow players to gain access to something pre-programmed into the game, all for the small price of $2-5. Like tokens, it’s initially a small amount, but like arcade systems, the games are rigged in favor of those who own DLC weapons and the purchases will quickly add up to more than you originally spent on the game.
While DLC is widely abhorred, arcade gaming is just seen as the norm. This is because the first generation of gamers acknowledged arcade gaming as a money-grabbing tactic in league with gambling, while modern gamers are used to one-time purchases of consoles, pcs, and games. The only thing stopping original consoles from introducing DRM and DLC was technical limitations; with those limitations lifted and the same tactic in reach that led arcade gaming to be so successful available for developers and publishers to use, it’s only natural for them to use it. Of course, it would be nice if we could always have one-time purchases, but with the state of the market for both large and small publishers, providing a game without additional content is just throwing away money. Accepting that the industry is plagued be cheap marketing tactics to take money out of your pocket and replacing it with DLC is an inevitability—instead of wasting our time lambasting DLC, we should instead start praising the companies that choose not to use it.
Let me tell you what is the problem. In the old days, i paid 40 bucks for a game that could last months. Now i buy a 60 bucks game that can be completed in a few hours and lacks greatly in comparison with the previous installment. Worthy example, mass effect 2 and saints row 3, way too much content lacking to be sold as dlc.
its horrible and we should all boycott it as well as weak games.
skyrim outsould mass effect 3:1 without dlc that ea so much believes that gamers WANT.