Perhaps I shouldn't have used DLC as a blanket term. What I meant is not launching with cut content (which would later be given to players at a price), day-one DLC etc. On the other hand Dawnguard and Dragonborn are essentially the modern day equivalent to expansion packs and given the fact that there were released 1-2 years after the game's initial release, we can assume they were not cut content.

 

But I'm not saying Bethesda are a perfect example, Valve would probably be a better example of how to treat your customers right. And Witcher 2 (as far as I'm aware) is another AAA game without DLC, yet. And I doubt you'll get very far with the argument that Skyrim was poor quality... I'm not even a massive fan and yet can still realise it as a very, very good game indeed.

The day-one DLC thing is a bit more complicated than that. Lots of that stuff is the sort of thing that wouldn't have made it into a game without having its dev costs paid for by an alternative means, or the sort of thing that wasn't totally ready for the QA period but which could be worked on during testing by the remaining devs, and so on, and so forth. The fact that something was cut content does not automatically make it a cash grab. And sure, you'll get content that was deliberately cut less out of those concerns and more out of a desire to make more money at launch. But it's not as simple even as saying that day-one DLC is all a ripoff.

The Witcher 2 hasn't had any DLC, no. Projekt RED released an enhanced version of the game about a year after launch with a great deal of content that wasn't in the original game for various reasons (wasn't fully ready yet, wasn't totally off the drawing board yet, etc.). Whether you think that's effectively the same thing as releasing DLC is a matter of opinion.

And I, personally, thought Skyrim was a game that did one thing really really really well - create a vast, beautiful, immersive setting - and most other things (like character creation, storytelling, and voice acting) mediocre to badly. Whether that constitutes an acceptable trade-off for players is a matter of opinion, like I said, not fact. It's unquestionable, too, that the Skyrim suffered from a truly epic amount of bugs for the first few months (longer for PS3 players). You can chalk that up to Bethesda's notoriously shoddy QA process if you like, but it was still a fairly serious flaw.

As for Valve, well, they might not add paid DLC to their own games, but through Steam, they've done a very great deal to encourage other companies to add paid DLC to their titles. Valve gets money from those sales, too.

For what it's worth, I don't really consider DLC in and of itself - or microtransactions for that matter - to be an intrinsically good or bad thing. They're just part of how game buying and developing is these days. Companies can do good things through DLC, and they can do bad things because of it. I think both kinds of doomsayers about DLC - the anti-DLC people and the anti-anti-DLC people - have gone overboard, though. Spending money on DLC is not going to cause prices for "full" games to skyrocket while launch-day released products get more and more crummy and insipid. And not spending money on DLC is not going to cause the gaming industry to collapse from inability to make a profit.

For what it's worth, I don't really consider DLC in and of itself - or microtransactions for that matter - to be an intrinsically good or bad thing. They're just part of how game buying and developing is these days. Companies can do good things through DLC, and they can do bad things because of it. I think both kinds of doomsayers about DLC - the anti-DLC people and the anti-anti-DLC people - have gone overboard, though. Spending money on DLC is not going to cause prices for "full" games to skyrocket while launch-day released products get more and more crummy and insipid. And not spending money on DLC is not going to cause the gaming industry to collapse from inability to make a profit.

I think, generally, that the misuse of DLC regardless of economic viability etc. is a disservice to customers, and is breaking down the trust that should exist between gamer and developer.

P.S. BBP I said nothing about ME3 DLC - if your going to attack me about misusing facts, get your own straight first. I come to these forums for friendly debate and it frustrates me when people assume that because I have a differing opinion, that I am some sort of stubborn opinionist who refuses to change his mind.

P.P.S Nonetheless I think its actually been proven that part of the 'From the Ashes' DLC was actually already on the game dsc, despite BioWare and EA claiming this was not the case. I'm not sure what universe you have to be living in to think that's acceptable.

P.S. BBP I said nothing about ME3 DLC - if your going to attack me about misusing facts, get your own straight first. I come to these forums for friendly debate and it frustrates me when people assume that because I have a differing opinion, that I am some sort of stubborn opinionist who refuses to change his mind.

 

P.P.S Nonetheless I think its actually been proven that part of the 'From the Ashes' DLC was actually already on the game dsc, despite BioWare and EA claiming this was not the case. I'm not sure what universe you have to be living in to think that's acceptable.

That is in response to where you called ME DLC exploitive and a scheme. In your blind hatred for EA you also claim that they do not have a fanbase and were crap at producing games and needed DLC to stay up.

Brother, if you want to argue, at least argue objectively.

That is in response to where you called ME DLC exploitive and a scheme. In your blind hatred for EA you also claim that they do not have a fanbase and were crap at producing games and needed DLC to stay up.

 

Brother, if you want to argue, at least argue objectively.

EA may have a fanbase, but using the same evidence as above, its clear that their hate-base negates any fans that they've collected. We also have to remember that these people are fans of the developers (both within EA and outside) nobody is a fan of the corporate chiefs running the show and causing the problems.

Really all this negativity is unnecessary, there is no such thing as an objective perspective so I'm not going to pretend. I don't like EA because of the way they've treated me and others as a customer. I am therefore biased. Though you also seem to have a personal angst against me and at every opportunity attempt to shoot me down with statements like 'stop with the EA hate' and 'stop manufacturing facts' without providing any counter arguments. I would call that subjective. I think you could take a leaf out of Euphrosyne's book. She doesn't seem to need to resort to that kind of behavior.

Anyway this thread is getting to heated, we just need to calm down and have a friendly debate. I'm sure we're all capable of that. We don't need to come down on eachother like a ton of bricks when one of us gets are facts wrong or has a differing opinion. I'm not here just to spout my opinions, I want to know what other people think too and and perfectly happy to adjust my stance - that's how discussion works. Shouting at me isn't convincing argument so let's just stop with that.

Anyway this thread is getting to heated, we just need to calm down and have a friendly debate. I'm sure we're all capable of that. We don't need to come down on eachother like a ton of bricks when one of us gets are facts wrong or has a differing opinion.

Very true. Good call.