DLC is a touchy subject for gamers. Some consider it to have value in that it allows us to continue playing our favorite games once we’re done with the ‘core’ experience – a luxury we weren’t always afforded pre-DLC. In addition to that, the production of DLC keeps studios happy and employed in that development teams don’t have to be laid off once the game has moved into post-production: there’s more material to be made. Others see DLC as a testament to an industry that concerns itself with the bottom line and business to a worrying degree, and often at the expense of the consumer. These folks feel cheated: why are we being charged for material that was previously sometimes free? Why is it priced so high?
There’s a new element of DLC that now has to be considered, thanks to two recent games: Mass Effect 3 and Street Fighter x Tekken. In both cases, material that is (allegedly) stored in the disc is not included in the core game. If you’d like to experience those parts of the game, then you have to pony up money – even though the material is already inscribed into the disc you’ve purchased.
In Mass Effect 3’s case, this material is an extra character, a Prothean, who offers insight to a race that is otherwise largely a mystery. Similarly, Street Fighter x Tekken’s DLC are additional characters. This has caused much resentment amongst the gaming community, who feel unfairly nickel and dimed. Developers justify their decisions by labeling the material as something optional, a supplement to the core experience, but not necessary in order to enjoy the game proper.
Whether or not the DLC should exist, or if it’s unfairly priced or if it provides real value or not aren't of concern to me. These are fruitless conversations, because the fact of the matter is that DLC is here, and people are paying for it, so it’s a product that has a clear demand, and that demand is being met. DLC is not going away. DLC is not going to get cheaper, because if people are purchasing it at its current pricetag, then that's how much it's worth. But as developers find ways to create additional content to the ‘essential’ game experience, they’re also defining what that core game experience is.
It’s clear that gamers and developers do not always see eye to eye here, do not have the same definition of what the ‘essential’ experience is.
For Mass Effect, many gamers felt that the Prothean are so vital to the storyline, that being charged for an opportunity to learn about this species isn’t fair. The Prothean squadmember, as far as these consumers are concerned, should have been included in the game proper. This is a problem that plagues to DLC as a whole – how do the developers create compelling content without overshadowing what is offered in the main game? You want to entice players with something of value, but the value can’t be too high, either – else you ostracize the non-DLC community. This is especially tricky in the multiplayer realm, where selling DLC can mean giving another player an edge. But then, if they develop material that doesn’t entice players, consumers can default to the complaint that DLC is often useless.
Developers can’t win when it comes to DLC, as far as the vocal, jaded consumer is concerned.
To be fair, a fan’s definition of the “core experience” seems to rely entirely on the basis that the material exists, and it was developed in-tandem with the main game, and as such, they are therefore entitled to it. Needless to say, that’s a pretty arbitrary definition – but this comes from acknowledgment that we’re living in a changing time where software we purchase often does not actually belong to us. Nevertheless, what we can purchase is defined by the developer – buying the disc does not entitle you to everything that is on it, which is a strange thing to think about.
You would think that the people who created the game would be the best suited to determining what the essential experience is, though. What with the defining what the game is and where it should take the players and all. I acknowledge that many distrust Bioware with the commotion around how early the DLC is planned, but let’s not pretend like it wasn’t going to be an issue even if they were up-front about it. There’s a reason why “game includes day-one DLC” is still a headline even though it’s an insanely common practice now. There’s controversy around DLC’s existence, period, especially day-one DLC. This, too, is tricky: when should the developers offer the DLC? If they wait too long, then people move on from the game. Why not just offer it from the get-go? In any case, it’s ridiculous to try to access what type of value a product has before it’s released. There’s just no way to know, no way to tell if the offering ‘belongs’ in the game proper.
Now that Mass Effect 3 is out and people can comment on the DLC, the general consensus seems to be that the Prothean squadmember wasn’t that big of a deal. While it offers more insight to the core game, it wasn’t anything that was necessary to have to get the full Mass Effect experience. This shouldn’t be surprising: that was the reception that DLC like Zaeed and Kasumi were met with in Mass Effect 2. If anything, the Prothean squadmember was an improvement over that DLC – many felt that the Zaeed DLC was a throwaway experience.
Of course, with the rise of alternative development processes – crowd-funded services like Kickstarted games come to mind – that might change. Normally, a consumer does not have a right or a say over what a developer offers for sale: it’s entirely a business decision and your agency in the matter is limited to whether or not you buy the DLC. When the public funds the game in question, however, they’re the ‘shareholders’, so to speak. They’re the ones that the developers have to answer to – and if that community is opposed to DLC, then it’s not something the developer can offer.
For now, though, the tension between consumer and developer when it comes to DLC continues.
