DLC: Xbox 360 vs PS3
DLC exclusivity, a new battelground for the console war
A couple of years ago, no one would have understood that title; not because the consoles didn’t exist, but because DLC was anything but “Downloadable Content”. We PC gamers are old time users of the “DLC”, after all we’ve always had mods, map packs, expansions, patches and the sort; however the console crowd is relatively new to this and how could they not be since up until this generation no console had a proper hard drive to speak of. So both the Xbox 360 and the PS3’s gamers enjoy DLC in some form, however as of late(okay maybe since last year) Microsoft has been securing DLC for Xbox 360 multi platform games with large sums of money in order to gain the competitive edge. Sony’s response? Basically “hey it’s your game, if you want to sell less in one platform; it’s your problem”. As bad as that sounds, should console manufactures have to really pay for DLC? Do we want that market to exist? Is any party thinking on us, the gamers? Should we pay for it?
First of all, i think that the ones that will always have a win-win situation here are the devs; because they can make money by accepting Microsoft “bribe” lets say and also by the DLC itself. This is the case of the really cool GTAiV’s expansion The lost and The damned. Furthermore Xbox 360 owners also have exclusive DLC for Fallout 3, another hit multiplatform game. Microsoft really made an effort to bring exclusive content for these critically acclaimed top games and that of course will show in the charts. After all, if you havc 2 identical versions of a game but one has the option to increase it’s gameplay value for a few more dollars; i think you, as well as i, would choose this last version.
Is Sony screwing itself over by refusing to pay for DLC? I think they obviously losing sales, but very little in that; because multiple console owners are not that common. And if we count the fact that Sony is still losing money on the PS3, i think they might have the right attitude on this. After all isn’t the developers the ones that should be concerned in getting their game to as much people as possible? I don’t want to sound all high and mighty, but does creativity and fan support all have a price? I know that when all is said and done, it’s always about money; but i would like to think otherwise.
On the other hand i really like that Microsoft is willing to spend money to bring users new content and i would like to think(i might be a little naive here), that thanks to them DLC is getting made; regardless that it’s being done for just one platform. Maybe Maguire is right and PS3 owners might get their DLC version as time passes by; but i wouldn’t be counting on it. So out of all the parties involved in this process, i think however misguided their offerts maybe, Microsoft is the only one thinking on us; the gamers.
But one question still remains, should we have to pay for DLC? The answer is yes … and no. Think of it from a consumers point of view, you get what you pay for; thus obviously paid DLC will tend to be better. On the other hand, think of it from the devs point of view. Free goodies, bring happiness to consumers; happy consumers are loyal consumers and provide free advertising. Thus your next big game might have a loyal fanbase BEFORE it’s released. In conclusion there isn’t really one single answer on this, both options not only can but MUST coexist.
Ok, enough of my ramblings on this; i am feeling quite spent right now. What about you? What do you think? Yey MC, boo Sony? DLC, paid or not? Let me and the rest of the gang hear your take on this!
reynanuy on 
Me on 
Me on 
Me on 
I wouldn’t pay for DLC personally. There is a high risk that as DLC pays off and becomes popular the devs will make a habbit of narrowing the actual game content in favor of the DLC to come.
Think about it. We are already complaining that most games don’t last more than 8-12 hours and want more for the heavy price tag. This is the case with most game genres such as FPS, Action/Adventure, Shooting, with the exception being RPGs and Sports games. Really, why shouldn’t I be able to play an FPS single player campaign that lasts 20 or 30 hours, while at the same time I can log more than 200 hours on games like OBLIVION or GTA?
I think we are generally ripped off unless they use the lack of medium space as an excuse. If the DVD9 is not enough then by all means move to Bluray. Then make an XBOX360 add-on drive and move to better gaming for all consoles.
On the other hand maybe that’s exactly what they want to do by using the DLC method. Pay 60$ for game X and another 20$ for X’s DLC#1, then another 20$ for X’s DLC#2 etc instead of putting everything in one disc with a 100$ price tag.
Fair?
I suppose you didn’t like my yesterday’s comment.
Not at all, i agree with most of what you say. I didn’t approve it earlier because yesterday i was down with rather nasty cold, i am still in bed so go figure. I had not consider what you say there, that devs could get used to the whole pay for more content model; thanksfuly some devs like Criterion have released tons of free dlc and hopefuly, based on the longevity of the Burn Out Paradise game, some other studio will follow their example. However what you say about adding gameplay hours to FPS/Adventure games, that can be rather impractical due to the fact that the story is pretty much linear and like a long movie, can get boring if it dwells on; with open world games such a Oblivion, GTA or Fallout 3 you almost automaticaly have much more hours to log in due to the freedom of what to do next. However FPS games comensate for this with multiplayer support, at least most of the time.
The lack of medium space should not be a technical issue, after all with a hard drive and multiple discs you can do whatever you want; nevertheless it might be more dificult for Microsoft to support this since the Xbox 360 Arcade doesn’t have a hard drive. But I for one, don’t want to go back to the PS1 era when you had 3 or 4 discs per game; specialy on RPGs.
If you think about it, the DLC model is very similar to the Episdic one; think Sam and Max the adventure games for PC, their episodic content(6 episodes per “season” and 10 each) is like paying a $60 buck game over the course of like 6 months. Is not that bad at all, but as always whatever model the devs are using we need to make sure we are getting our money’s worth. And with some of the paid DLC around, i just don’t feel that …
I apologise, I thought that you didn’t approve the comment. My fault!
About the gameplay longevity in FPS/Adventure games, one could think of it more as a favourite TV series instead of a long movie that drags on. I completely disagree with some modern gamers attitude “play till you drop and finish the game in one session or two, timing yourself at the same time”. I prefer to take games slowly, noticing the little details and enjoying as much as I can without anticipating the game’s ending CGI. Still, even with that attitude I find most games to be shorter than I’d like. However you are right about the open world games. It’s probably easier to last longer than other genres.
I suppose we will have to see whether the majority of DLC for games will be really worth the money. At least we, as gamers have the means to define the quality and quantity of DLC and choose whether to pay for them or not. If the offering is good enough by most standards, then the DLC is a success for the maker. If not, then the maker fails. Unfortunately this is the ideal situation, with the reality being that most people will just buy anything they throw at them as long as it costs 10 or 20$. It’s typical consumers attitude.
Get well soon.
I really should take your example and take games more slowly, I tend to finish most games ASAP without really enjoying them; even in open world games like Fallout 3, i find myself always rushing after the main quests. As you say, offer and demand will make sure that DLC is priced accordingly if at all; however I am afraid that the consumers view you point out is quite correct. Even with today’s economy drowning, most people will get stuff for under $10 without a second thought, and that’s bad really bad. Well we’ll see what happens, lately there has been a lot of free DLC(Farcry 2, Unreal Tournament, Valkirya Chronicles, Mirrors Edge, Gears of War 2, etc) and even when it’s usually just small things(maps, weapons and sometimes characters) it’s still always a good thing!