I wrote a news post relating to this subject earlier tonight, but I thought I’d expand on the thoughts I alluded to in there in a proper blog post. It’s a matter of some debate, and the post itself provoked some discussion. This is good, as it’s an issue in the games industry that needs talking about.
I’m referring to DLC. But not just any DLC. DLC that you get a little voucher for in a sparkly new copy of a game, like it’s some “free bonus” and not at all something that’s there to squeeze a bit of extra cash out of purchasers of a pre-owned copy of the game.
It’s happened a few times recently. The most recognisable examples are probably Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2, both of which provided “free bonus” content for those who purchased the game new. Dragon Age included a new character who integrated into the storyline and had a bunch of quests associated. Mass Effect included the “Cerberus Network”, a ticket to a whole bunch of free DLC. They’ve since started charging for new packs, but the first bunch of additional content available for Mass Effect 2 players was gratis. So long as you had access to the “Cerberus Network”.
Most recently, we’ve had Alan Wake. Now, I will hold my hands up here and say I haven’t yet played Alan Wake. I understand it’s rather good. However, one recurring comment that I’ve heard from a number of friends is that the story comes to a somewhat unsatisfying conclusion. Perhaps “unsatisfying” is the wrong word; the game sets itself up for a sequel, apparently. Fair enough; plenty of games have done that. Did anyone play Baldur’s Gate: Dark Alliance? Worst. Cliffhanger. Ever.
But for purchasers of the game to be teased with the fact that there is some DLC coming “soon” that will continue the story beyond the cliffhanger ending and bridge the gap between this and the semi-inevitable sequel? That sounds awfully like leaving a game unfinished and withholding the true ending to me. Now, granted, Remedy haven’t said they’ve deliberately withheld content. But something stinks about this. Think back to the days of the PS2; if you purchased a narrative-based game, you’d expect it to come to some sort of conclusion, whether that’s a cliffhanger ending designed to set up a sequel, or a definite finale. Very occasionally expansion packs made an appearance, but these were, for the most part, confined to home computers with the ability to install data.
What we have now is effectively a game which says “Here’s the game. Here’s a cliffhanger. BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE!”—but only for people who either bought the game new or who are willing to pony up 560 Microsoft Points for the privilege of continuing a story which should have been finished in the main game.
I find this sort of thing more objectionable than EA’s approach with Dragon Age and Mass Effect‘s DLC. At least in those games, all the DLC takes the form of optional sidequests. Sure, some of them impact the main plot. But they don’t strip out what appears to be an important part of the core narrative of the game.
Alan Wake, being a more linear game by nature, doesn’t have the luxury of sidequests to insert into its structure. As such, I know I personally would much rather they had either left this content out altogether and put it into the sequel, or included it in the game in the first place. To do it in this manner seems rather unnecessary, not to mention a sharp poke in the eye to those who typically purchase pre-owned games because they’re cheaper. (cf. me)
Still, this looks like becoming something of a standard business practice for large developers at the moment, so we should probably get used to it. At least the independent and smaller developers haven’t jumped on the bandwagon yet.
DLC is all very well and good—it hearkens back to the old days of going to the shops to buy an “expansion pack” for a favourite game—but when the “extra” content feels like it probably should have been in there in the first place? Hmm. I start to think it’s not such a good idea for people with money and power to get their claws into.
What do you think?