DLC is ruining content of games

[TokoTurismo]

I'm gonna have to disagree with the OP and agree at the same time

With respect to games such as GT5 i disagree, i am happy paying for extra DLC as the game had over 200 'premium' cars and over 800 standard cars. how many cars did GT3 have? also take in to account the polygon count of the cars, each one takes more work than cars in previous iterations of GT5.

I do, however, agree with the OP about most games in the respect that any racing game by codemasters has an obscene amount of DLC on the PSN before the game is released, which to me seems wrong. DLC should be released at a later date to further enhance a game IMO. Not at release day when you go to select a car in DiRT and it says 'Sorry, you're cheap and only bought the stand-alone game. Earn some more cash and play the game properly'... that just seems wrong to me.

Each to their own, but I think the concept of DLC the way PD are implementing it is fine. Others maybe not...

Haha, I must say I agree with this. I'm okay buying GT5's DLCs. So it's all good for me. 👍

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You just did. And you insinuated it earlier in the thread. While we're on the subject, could you download the patched/upgraded Starcraft 64? Or did you have to buy the game again?

You had to buy the expansion pack unit which enabled the game to have Brood war modes unlocked along with other bonus material. This was due to the fact that you couldn't online patch it in like the PC version. Once again this is the console version of patching or DLC back then. Unlike today where online patch work and DLC can be given.

I'm saying they could be considered, I'm not saying they are the 100% proof DLC. That is what I said.

Do you even know why you're arguing this with me?

 

[NJ72]

Haha, I must say I agree with this. I'm okay buying GT5's DLCs. So it's all good for me. 👍

glad it's not just me

Personally I dont think it really matters whether DLC used to be available on games of a by-gone era. We're not in that era anymore and we do have DLC. Aint gonna change (I doubt) all we need to do, i rekon, is to get companies to use the concept of DLC correctly.

I think the balance that GT5 has of releasing DLC and still giving some new cars away as part of free updates is quite a good balance.

On the update front, I agree with everyone who has stated that we are better off these days. It is so much easier for devs to fix bugs in the game and, in respect to GT5, it also gives them a fantastic opportunity to improve the game based upon fan-feedback. for example, fast-forward of replays, mid-race saves and the like. 👍 to the future for that. And I personally think that DLC is a bit like marmite... (for those who are not from the UK, their slogan was "you either love it or you hate it")

I wouldn't spend money on EA DLC for games like NFS out of principle, they intended on releasing the DLC before the game was released, which is bang out of order to me...




P.s. I tried very hard to express the fact that all of the above is entirely my opinion and, for the most part, not fact. Can i please now have a gold star please?

 

[peter_vod69]

You had to buy the expansion pack unit which enabled the game to have Brood war modes unlocked along with other bonus material. This was due to the fact that you couldn't online patch it in like the PC version. Once again this is the console version of patching or DLC back then. Unlike today where online patch work and DLC can be given.

I'm saying they could be considered, I'm not saying they are the 100% proof DLC. That is what I said.

Do you even know why you're arguing this with me?

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

Nintendo 64 version

In 2000, StarCraft 64 was released for the Nintendo 64, co-developed by Blizzard Entertainment and Mass Media Inc. The game featured all of the missions from both StarCraft and the expansion Brood War, as well as some exclusive missions, such as two different tutorials and a new secret mission, Resurrection IV.[65] Resurrection IV is set after the conclusion of Brood War, and follows Jim Raynor embarking on a mission to rescue the Brood War character Alexei Stukov, a vice admiral from Earth who has been captured by the Zerg. The Brood War missions required the use of a Nintendo 64 memory Expansion Pak to run.[66] In addition, StarCraft 64 features a split screen cooperative mode, allowing two players to control one force in-game.[67] StarCraft 64 was not as popular as the PC version, and lacked the online multiplayer capabilities and speech in mission briefings. In addition, cut scenes were shortened.[65] Blizzard Entertainment had previously considered a PlayStation port of the game, but it was decided that the game would instead be released on the Nintendo 64.[68]

So you needed a memory card to play the expansion missions, but they were included.

PS, in case you are interested, the dawn of online gaming in this context was the Sega Dreamcast. Other services were offered earlier, but none offered patching/dlc on consoles.

 

[NJ72]

FROM WIKIPEDIA:


So you needed a memory card to play the expansion missions, but they were included.

You know a debate is gonna get messy when Wikipedia gets involved

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You know a debate is gonna get messy when Wikipedia gets involved

exactly

 

[peter_vod69]

You know a debate is gonna get messy when Wikipedia gets involved

exactly

So go here then:

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/feature/27671

It's the same in concept as the cartridge add on you could purchase for the Saturn for games like King of Fighters and some of the Capcom stuff. Didn't add extra content, just expanded the capabilities of the console to allow the game's full content to be utilised.

 

[NJ72]

So go here then:

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/feature/27671

It's the same in concept as the cartridge add on you could purchase for the Saturn for games like King of Fighters and some of the Capcom stuff. Didn't add extra content, just expanded the capabilities of the console to allow the game's full content to be utilised.

I wasn't doubting that articles validity, I was just trying to make a funny... evidently I missed the mark... sorry

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So you needed a memory card to play the expansion missions, but they were included.

I said that in my post, but let me bold it for you, so we don't have you reading or interpreting what I say the wrong way.

You had to buy the expansion pack unit which enabled the game to have Brood war modes unlocked along with other bonus material. This was due to the fact that you couldn't online patch it in like the PC version.

The expansion pack unit was a the N64 Expansion Pak, that is what I'm talking about and I even said that in the post before this one. I also further display that you had to "buy the pack" by showing a constrast between the console game and the PC version which could be updated via patch/dlc. No where do I state or claim that the 64 version had exact DLC but rather an expansive pack to be like the PC version. The expansion pack allowed the game to be more than the regular version, which is the concept of what DLC adds to today's games. Once again what do you not understand must I ask for someone else to explain it to you.

Once again this is the console version of patching or DLC back then. Unlike today where online patch work and DLC can be given.

^Further iterates what I just got done saying.

I'm saying they could be considered, I'm not saying they are the 100% proof DLC. That is what I said.

Do you even know why you're arguing this with me?

^ And further proof of me showing that I don't consider it absolute DLC or Patching, however it was the way back then for devs to re-release the same game but with major bugs fixed and sometimes more content than the original version. (i.e. similar to DLC in today's world)

Do you understand yet? Oh and you didn't answer my other question so I'll ask again.
Do you know why we're arguing this?

So go here then:

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/feature/27671

It's the same in concept as the cartridge add on you could purchase for the Saturn for games like King of Fighters and some of the Capcom stuff. Didn't add extra content, just expanded the capabilities of the console to allow the game's full content to be utilised.

Which is the idea of Patching, you know that thing that PD has done about 10+ times since they released GT5. Or better yet what PD did by releasing GT5 XL which is what could be considered a true expansion pack console game, at least in terms of the 90s and early 00s. Another part of what I was debating along with DLC.

 

[peter_vod69]

I said that in my post, but let me bold it for you, so we don't have you reading or interpreting what I say the wrong way.

The expansion pack unit was a the N64 Expansion Pak, that is what I'm talking about and I even said that in the post before this one. I also further display that you had to "buy the pack" by showing a constrast between the console game and the PC version which could be updated via patch/dlc. No where do I state or claim that the 64 version had exact DLC but rather an expansive pack to be like the PC version. The expansion pack allowed the game to be more than the regular version, which is the concept of what DLC adds to today's games. Once again what do you not understand must I ask for someone else to explain it to you.

Once again this is the console version of patching or DLC back then. Unlike today where online patch work and DLC can be given.

^Further iterates what I just got done saying.

^ And further proof of me showing that I don't consider it absolute DLC or Patching, however it was the way back then for devs to re-release the same game but with major bugs fixed and sometimes more content than the original version. (i.e. similar to DLC in today's world)

Do you understand yet? Oh and you didn't answer my other question so I'll ask again.
Do you know why we're arguing this?

Which is the idea of Patching, you know that thing that PD has done about 10+ times since they released GT5. Or better yet what PD did by releasing GT5 XL which is what could be considered a true expansion pack console game, at least in terms of the 90s and early 00s. Another part of what I was debating along with DLC.

Once again:

Do you even understand the concept of patching? Because you seem to be implying that hardware can be a patch.

 

[StickMan85]

I come to this site to see about updates to GT5, and every time I see an announcement for DLC. People go crazy for and buy it blindly with out even thinking. The thing that gets me the most is this recent update they're coming out with, and people are talking about what should be in the game via a DLC? What is that? Wait for GT6, because all these cars that you're buying in these "DLCs" are going to be on there. I know some people are going to post in here, "If you don't like it, don't buy it," or "The developers need the money, this is a great service that they're doing for us!" That's not the point, developers are looking at games like Forza and the Call of Duty series and seeing what success they're having with ripping people off with content that should already be in the game, hell you can't blame them they're making a profit off people that just blindly put there money towards. I'm sure there's people out there that share the same frustrations as me. This is only going to get worse if YOU the consumer stop buying DLC.

Sign here if you think DLC is ruining the quality of games.

DLC is cheap (and good) enough not to even care. That's why people just buy it. What is there to think about "blindly"? I see a car(s) or track I think I (KEY WORD I) would enjoy and buy, it takes little time. DLC is not something one needs to sleep on and debate with ones self in order to buy it or not. It's what three dollars here or six dollars there, big deal. I can find enough change in the couch to cover the next DLC I'm sure. We all have wasted more loot on dumber things I know for a fact. Heck a gallon of gas is DLC prices damn near and only gets you 20 30 miles up the road.

You talk as if waiting until GT6 (god knows when... 2015+) is a smart, savory, an economical option to drive say the new Lambo or hit up a "new" track as with your logic then it won't be so new.

You talk of COD and others that have DLC. I don't play COD anymore but I did buy DLC there too and they were on Steam for 13 dollars I think with per-order, 15 without per-order and you act like that was a rip off or the developers are tearing us a new one to have 4 or 5 new maps added when most get hours and hours of game play for cheap and the stuff dose cost money to make. Go see a movie with your chick and you'll get 2 hours of BS entertainment for 30 40+ dollars.

As for is it ruining games? If you consider more content for dirt cheap ruining games then yeah I guess so but your wrong and/or cheap. Or you just don't like the content you see. Weather you like or dislike it is one thing, we all have taste that varies, but to then say more pluses in 'X' ruining something is dumb. I'd hate to see your opinion of iRacing!

Some hobbies I invest in more, my GT5/iRacing setup just seat and wheel is a little over $700.00, then add a PS3 and a computer for iRacing and to get more to use with that for 3.99 or 6.99 is a deal and therefore I maybe will use my nice setup a little more. On the other hand my cousin who plays GT5 too uses a controller and sits in a wooden chair and doesn't buy DLC. As I said a above taste is not a one size fits all.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Once again:


Do you even understand the concept of patching?

Game patches are usually an update to a game(a.k.a. game updates or patches) that fixes a bug, evens game-play, or adds features to existing game-play.

Which is what I said in my last post, but as I pointed out as well you seem (a trend you have) to neglect or reject certain parts of post and then go onward as if you have all the answers.

Also when do you plan on answering my question?

 

[peter_vod69]

Game patches are usually an update to a game(a.k.a. game updates or patches) that fixes a bug, evens game-play, or adds features to existing game-play.

Which is what I said in my last post, but as I pointed out as well you seem (a trend you have) to neglect or reject certain parts of post and then go onward as if you have all the answers.

Also when do you plan on answering my question?

So neither starcraft 64 nor the Saturn examples I cited were patched, or had dlc.

Keep contradicting yourself, its great!

 

[Swara]

The main point of a game is to have fun...not pay money for DLC.

 

[evilserpentman]

Guys, you'd be much quicker if you used shovels...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So neither starcraft 64 nor the Saturn examples I cited were patched, or had dlc.

They were expansion packs I said. I didn't say there were DLC. I said they could be considered ground work for what DLC is today for the console. Instead of a dev sending you a patch online or allowing you to purchase a DLC online, you have to buy 2.0 version (not really what it is called). Once again go back and read. Geez.

Nothing is fact on the internet.

Nero, the 90's developers were doing the same thing, Age of Empires is a prime example, both the original and Age of Kings released expansion packs around a year afterwards.

Yeah, games were in-fact patched and we did get additional content.
The world didn't/couldn't facilitate charging people for it though, hence it was free, or came in expansions.

It isn't an entirely new concept, it's just much easier to employ and potentially abuse, due to the fact we can do it on consoles now...

I was 100% in agreement with that but adding that there were console games that were considered expansion packs. You say kinda of the sonic stuff, however Sega called it an expansion pack. So who are we to believe here, a desk jockey really wanting to be right or Sega the makers of the game and the pack?

 

[NJ72]

The main point of a game is to have fun...not pay money for DLC.

I agree in part, but if you pay a little more money you have a little more fun?

Same principle as after-market parts on cars right? I bought a lovely toyota supra, for example, i then buy a whopping great turbo for it. Toyota could have put in it, but didnt incase not everyone wanted that much power. I do want it, so i bought it on top...

It's purely a choice thing with the DLC, but it's no different from going into a game retailer and deciding whether to buy a game or not...

 

[NJ72]

I come to this site to see about updates to GT5, and every time I see an announcement for DLC.

Just read the OP again... If you go to the main news page here on GTP right now it says there is an update due. it says nothing of DLC...

Kazunori Yamauchi has just confirmed, via Twitter, the release date of Gran Turismo 5′s next update, presumably version 2.04.

It launches this Tuesday, February 7, 2012, after the game’s online service maintenance period, currently scheduled between 03:00 and 04:00 GMT. Details about the update’s contents remain scant, though Kazunori has already mentioned one minor bug relating to drift trial replays that will be corrected.

says nothing about DLC, just a notification that an update is coming and questioning what content the update will have. Note that content in this article means what features will be corrected and updated, not the DLC it may contain.

As always, stay tuned for more information as its released!

 

[TP1]

I think the point being made is that as long as GT5 DLC is selling, SCE will try to stall GT6's release as much as possible. Which on it's own is a very valid point.

However, if we take into the account that PS3's halflife is coming close and we're relatively sure that PS4 might launch in 2014, SCE and/or PD might have chosen to launch GT6 on PS4 to push its sales. In this case, it doesn't matter if we buy or not GT5 DLC because it will not have any effect on how soon GT6 is released.

Arguments in favor of the second idea are:
whilst GT5 has sold a lot, it doesn't compare to the sales of GT3 which launched together with PS2 (obviously market conditions like lack of competitors and being the only real console at the time helped; but as a general notion, GT3 had a very high success as it launched with a new console).
Another factor to consider is that there have been already the minimum of 2 GT releases on the current console (GT5 Prologue counts as a game on its own). So if they stick to their minimum 2 releases per console generation, then it makes a whole lot of sense that the next release will be on the future console.


Regarding the GT5 DLC: it offers the most bang for buck when you compare it to the competitors and it really is optional, as the original game can be played and completed with or without the DLC.

 

[GReeK_W1ZaRd]

EA and Activision have a thing of releasing DLC a month after the game's released. I believe that PD doesnt follow that belief, since they give us free stuff:

Seasonals: Could be monthly DLC with increased cr/xp and also tickets included.
OCD: Could be a featured only unlocked if you pay 2$ since it includes hard-to-find cars in brand new condition
200% bonus: Could be a feature only available to those who have purchased DLC packs

BUT, yes I agree with the OP that DLC is a rip-off even if it comes from PD. There shouldn't be such thing as DLC. Games on Playstation and Xbox were better before online gaming arrived. Games were complete, and even if they weren't, the missing stuff would be added to the the next title. Why the hell would I pay 14$ for a map pack in COD. Why should I pay the X-Games in Asia for DiRT3? (you can't complete the game without buying the DLC!!!!!). Why do I have to pay the add-ons for NFS? And most important of all......why do I have to pay an online pass to play online if I buy a used game?

DLC make the games feel incomplete. It will be like that if people keep buying them. However.......I will keep buying DLC from PD. I know it will be quality stuff, not just some add-ons created to please the fanbase.

 

[leepangfu]

I think the point being made is that as long as GT5 DLC is selling, SCE will try to stall GT6's release as much as possible. Which on it's own is a very valid point.

However, if we take into the account that PS3's halflife is coming close and we're relatively sure that PS4 might launch in 2014, SCE and/or PD might have chosen to launch GT6 on PS4 to push its sales. In this case, it doesn't matter if we buy or not GT5 DLC because it will not have any effect on how soon GT6 is released.

I don´t think DLC sales have an effect on the release date of GT6. I think Sony would rather have that GT6 was released this year. It will sell more than any GT5 DLC and they can start releasing DLC for GT6.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I think a point against the OP that should be pointed out is DLC is easy to be sold because of how quickly people shift from game to game. If gamers are easily swayed into spending $60 USD on a new game a month, then a few dollars on add ons is highly likely. It also is a cheaper solution and gives you the feeling of having a new game, or being more updated than those who don't have it.

I see DLC as a friendly tool in that manner, however I do stress that purposely making content and then putting it on the shelf only to sell it later when it could have been in the game at the start is wrong. It is an abuse of DLC, and it is made worse when Developers go out and tell media that they had said content already made but since they couldn't add it at that point they'll just sell it as if it was made after the games release.

 

[GReeK_W1ZaRd]

I think a point against the OP that should be pointed out is DLC is easy to be sold because of how quickly people shift from game to game. If gamers are easily swayed into spending $60 USD on a new game a month, then a few dollars on add ons is highly likely. It also is a cheaper solution and gives you the feeling of having a new game, or being more updated than those who don't have it.

I see DLC as a friendly tool in that manner, however I do stress that purposely making content and then putting it on the shelf only to sell it later when it could have been in the game at the start is wrong. It is an abuse of DLC, and it is made worse when Developers go out and tell media that they had said content already made but since they couldn't add it at that point they'll just sell it as if it was made after the games release.

There is not a game from 2010 that I still play. GT5 is being refreshed every now and then, DLC is indeed a good call. The game must have costed me close to 100$ by now hah....with the original price when it came out and the extra packs. But yeah. keeping the game fresh till GT6 is tough task. it'll be interesting to see how PD will procceed.....👍

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

EA and Activision have a thing of releasing DLC a month after the game's released. I believe that PD doesnt follow that belief, since they give us free stuff:

Seasonals: Could be monthly DLC with increased cr/xp and also tickets included.
OCD: Could be a featured only unlocked if you pay 2$ since it includes hard-to-find cars in brand new condition
200% bonus: Could be a feature only available to those who have purchased DLC packs

BUT, yes I agree with the OP that DLC is a rip-off even if it comes from PD. There shouldn't be such thing as DLC. Games on Playstation and Xbox were better before online gaming arrived. Games were complete, and even if they weren't, the missing stuff would be added to the the next title. Why the hell would I pay 14$ for a map pack in COD. Why should I pay the X-Games in Asia for DiRT3? (you can't complete the game without buying the DLC!!!!!). Why do I have to pay the add-ons for NFS? And most important of all......why do I have to pay an online pass to play online if I buy a used game?

DLC make the games feel incomplete. It will be like that if people keep buying them. However.......I will keep buying DLC from PD. I know it will be quality stuff, not just some add-ons created to please the fanbase.

It's off topic but I love your avatar, I guess your a One Piece fan?

Back on topic I agree with you that is the point I'm trying to make, when big companies give purposely hold back content that was meant for original release, and sell it down the road that is abuse. Especially when said content is needed to finish a game and the makers know that but do it so everyone buys it and they make extra cash along with the full sales of what could be called an incomplete game.

PD are different, and I think some of the issues with DLC could more so be blamed on the corporate greed (like all) of Sony rather than PD. I think PD have done a great job with DLC, there are many things that I can complain about on GT5, but this is not one of them, they are still trying to keep us playing. Which is good.

There is not a game from 2010 that I still play. GT5 is being refreshed every now and then, DLC is indeed a good call. The game must have costed me close to 100$ by now hah....with the original price when it came out and the extra packs. But yeah. keeping the game fresh till GT6 is tough task. it'll be interesting to see how PD will procceed.....👍

Exactly. Most people don't play games this long, but when you add good DLC things change. And to be honest I probably saved more money buying DLC rather than buying a new game every month. I would have bought MW3 and BF3 but I didn't because of GT5 DLC. 👍 to you as well and great points you've made.

 

[GReeK_W1ZaRd]

It's off topic but I love your avatar, I guess your a One Piece fan?

Back on topic I agree with you that is the point I'm trying to make, when big companies give purposely hold back content that was meant for original release, and sell it down the road that is abuse. Especially when said content is needed to finish a game and the makers know that but do it so everyone buys it and they make extra cash along with the full sales of what could be called an incomplete game.

PD are different, and I think some of the issues with DLC could more so be blamed on the corporate greed (like all) of Sony rather than PD. I think PD have done a great job with DLC, there are many things that I can complain about on GT5, but this is not one of them, they are still trying to keep us playing. Which is good.



Exactly. Most people don't play games this long, but when you add good DLC things change. And to be honest I probably saved more money buying DLC rather than buying a new game every month. I would have bought MW3 and BF3 but I didn't because of GT5 DLC. 👍 to you as well and great points you've made.

Yup, I love One Piece. 👍

Back on topic, Kaz said it himself: "I needed 2 more years". Sony pressed him to release it to hit some competition I imagine. Unused content was left outside of the game and we could have many more Premium cars now If the game came out in mid 2011 and lots of the features which were added later. Also Sony is the one who determines DLC price, and 1$/car is not bad at all, when DiRT3 cars cost 1.30$ or 1.50$
On a completely side note....it's funny because EA announced that the game called "Syndicate" will not have an Online Pass!!!! WOW! Good job EA! 👍

We will come to a point where we pay 60$ for a game that is 65% complete, and another 30$ to buy the extra content. (we may be already there)
I only respect GT5's DLC because the game already had huge content in its release and they just keep making it bigger. Cars like Scirocco and Golf would be in the game if Sony hadn't rushed things....that's what I think.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yup, I love One Piece. 👍

Back on topic, Kaz said it himself: "I needed 2 more years". Sony pressed him to release it to hit some competition I imagine. Unused content was left outside of the game and we could have many more Premium cars now If the game came out in mid 2011 and lots of the features which were added later. Also Sony is the one who determines DLC price, and 1$/car is not bad at all, when DiRT3 cars cost 1.30$ or 1.50$
On a completely side note....it's funny because EA announced that the game called "Syndicate" will not have an Online Pass!!!! WOW! Good job EA! 👍

We will come to a point where we pay 60$ for a game that is 65% complete, and another 30$ to buy the extra content. (we may be already there)
I only respect GT5's DLC because the game already had huge content in its release and they just keep making it bigger. Cars like Scirocco and Golf would be in the game if Sony hadn't rushed things....that's what I think.

Exactly, that is a point I made earlier and why people should be worried about DLC. Developers and the companies they work far are quite smart, they know how to get more money than what their item is worth.

 

[GReeK_W1ZaRd]

I would have bought MW3 and BF3

Sorry mods, I have to reply to this.
If you want to get a game based on reality and serious play, get BF3
If you want to mess around quickscoping and just play like a lonewolf, get MW3

I have both, each one has its ups and downs. 👍

 

[TP1]

I don´t think DLC sales have an effect on the release date of GT6. I think Sony would rather have that GT6 was released this year. It will sell more than any GT5 DLC and they can start releasing DLC for GT6.

That would be a possibility to consider, but GT6 is very likely miles away from being anywhere near complete. Which makes it irrelevant to even consider as it's unrealistic.

Also read my innitial message, I added more arguments in favor of GT6 on PS4.

I think the point being made is that as long as GT5 DLC is selling, SCE will try to stall GT6's release as much as possible. Which on it's own is a very valid point.

However, if we take into the account that PS3's halflife is coming close and we're relatively sure that PS4 might launch in 2014, SCE and/or PD might have chosen to launch GT6 on PS4 to push its sales. In this case, it doesn't matter if we buy or not GT5 DLC because it will not have any effect on how soon GT6 is released.

Arguments in favor of the second idea are:
whilst GT5 has sold a lot, it doesn't compare to the sales of GT3 which launched together with PS2 (obviously market conditions like lack of competitors and being the only real console at the time helped; but as a general notion, GT3 had a very high success as it launched with a new console).
Another factor to consider is that there have been already the minimum of 2 GT releases on the current console (GT5 Prologue counts as a game on its own). So if they stick to their minimum 2 releases per console generation, then it makes a whole lot of sense that the next release will be on the future console.

Regarding the GT5 DLC: it offers the most bang for buck when you compare it to the competitors and it really is optional, as the original game can be played and completed with or without the DLC.

 

[GTP_Monkey]

DLC is ruining the game, Your having a laugh, Its improving the game tenfold.

 

[ghsnu]

I agree, but in a different way.

Seems that DLC and online in general have ruined the quality of games. I miss the good ol' times of being able to hop on Star Wars BF2 or GT4/Forza and have some fun time beating the AI rather than deal with the numerous :censored:s and "sqeakers." I'm just sick and tired of seeing the next best shooter and racing game, only to then see its online based with very few offline options (Forza, COD, BF...).

Then the numerous DLC's - not as bad as Forza, where they get a $10 car pack EVERY month. Or COD's $15 a map pack.