Just take a look at Black Ops 3, the game has been released for just under 6 months and yet they have already released their 2nd DLC about 2 weeks ago. Is this what's supposed to be going on with DLC these days? One every 2 to 3 months? I remember back in he day when stuff was released every year, but the way it is now, you're going to be spending the same amount of money that you paid for the game or more each year just to get a bunch of new maps.

What are your thoughts?

I think it depends on what you're getting and what it costs.

If the DLC is cheap enough it doesn't bother me too much. I'm not a fan of DLC but if it is good value then I'm okay with it. I prefer games where people can make their own custom content though rather than relying on the game developer to provide new content or maps or whatever.

Still, it does seem a little close to being too often.

Many publishers follow that trend, even possibly doing it more often than that. Capcom, notably, added lots of DLC for Street Fighter IV, including three upgrades and a 3DS version. Music games often have songs added as DLC. Episodic games often have a new episode added monthly or so. This has been perhaps both a benefit and a detriment to them, depending on the product. It would seem that many publishers milk their cash cows for quite a pretty penny. EA is notorious for this, releasing a number of pay-to-win games and locking important content behind expensive DLC. Nintendo, a company once known for releasing completely finished products with no DLC, locked many features behind Amiibos and other DLC. However, Nintendo doesn't get the bad rap EA does because their DLC is very polished and isn't simply to milk for money. Notable DLC includes the Smash Bros. Amiibo functionality and the Mario Kart 8 DLC packs. The Mario Kart 8 DLC packs are an incredible value for the money, adding 16 tracks, 6 characters (iirc), and a number of customization options for $12. And many Amiibos can work in a variety of games. Nintendo has produced an excellent business model for renewable DLC. I'm hoping that will be carried over to the NX. One exception to Nintendo's policy might be "Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival". There have been numerous Amiibos for the game, however; the game was widely panned by critics. It would seem to many that the game is more money grab than quality product.

Overall? I wish DLC would often follow the pattern of Splatoon: Make a quality product that can be considered finished, but perhaps not expansive, then expand it bit by bit with free, quality DLC. Splatoon is the business model DLC should aspire to. Make a product that can sell at good price consistently, then release DLC on a frequent basis to invigorate the playerbase and breathe new life into the game.

I remember a time when you purchased a game at a store, you were done paying for it... *sigh*

I'm not a fan of DLC, and I only really download the free DLC stuff. I have not played Splatoon, but their DLC seems to be what DLC should be, and not milking trusted fans for more money.

I only want DLC when the retail game already feels complete and i feel that whatever dlc comes out isnt original content that was locked behind a paywall. Though with all this constant dlc, i usually will wait until a GOTY edition comes out with all the dlc or wait until the season pass is dirt cheap. The fact they charge us $60 and then want us to pay another $60 for dlc is ridiculous 

TristanTehGamer1 : I agree, games that make you pay to unlock stuff that you need is a waste. I hate the games where you get to a certain point, and even though you didn't finish the story, you need to pay to get passed that point. There's plenty of games that are like that, and I have not yet played one of them because I don't want to get too attached to a game where I need to pay to complete.

The COD franchise is one of those franchises where if they dropped one of their games and they ended up being complete trash. Millions of people are going to buy it anyways. They will also by the DLC following it. In my opinion they do this to have higher revenue and to maximize share holder value of their stocks, bonds, ETC. But your right, this goes for a lot of large gaming companies out their. And I don't agree with it at all. Large companies like activison and EA, push out games and DLC and it doesn't matter about the quality of the DLC or games. They will make a profit and that's all they care about. But look at the witcher. This game is such an amazing game and sole well too. The expansions they are dropping are packed with content. And on top of that they released a slew of free DLC. Only if producers can be more like the ones from CD Project Red.

Beastmode64 : That's true for EA, however, Activision has no say in that. Activision isn't the one pushing out the games and DLC, they are only the guys who essentially manufacturer the CD 's and scan the games onto them, and they are the ones who promote the games and ship them to stores, they have literally nothing to do with what's put into the game or the DLC, they just sell the games.

In terms of a game like CoD, a different company makes each game, like for Black Ops 3, Treyarch are the ones who make the games.


That's what makes it confusing because if Treyarch puts out dozens of DLC for this game, they won't make more money, Activision would be the one to make the extra money, but the developers of the game get barely any extra.

Unfortunately,that is pretty standard in the industry. It is just a way to squeeze more money out of gamers. At least it is not a full price game that is mostly the same,save for new characters and stages. DLC is a double edged sword. Some games do it right,like Forge of Empires,they offer perks,but are not essential to play the game. Then there are games like DCUO that locks the best gear and powers behind a pay wall and free players have almost no chance against paying players.