I made a comment on the Nation Of Gamers blog’s latest post concerning the idea of micropayments and downloadable content in games, and decided to share it with you, because it’s a big comment compared to what I normally write on other websites.
I think micropayments should be available where it makes the most sense. I myself won’t buy anything for Farmville, because while it’s an okay game I don’t invest enough time in it to make such a purchase worth it.
As a TF2 player, I myself have said I’d welcome the idea of a store being opened in Steam in which a player can buy special hats or misc items for say, 50c an item. Lots of people say that’d be a bad thing in such a good game, but I like the idea that all the normal hats remain in the game as drops/crafts and that contribution items keep getting introduced as such. But then have some new official ones available for sale, so if you wanted one you COULD buy it, but it wouldn’t in anyway cheapen the experience of obtaining a Fancy Fedora, since it’s still only available in a drop. But I digress..
Players of Oblivion welcomed The Knights Of The Nine DLC because it gave them a new variable to work with in the game, and provided a whole heap of new gameplay. In a game like Grand Theft Auto IV, selling the ability to see and drive a single new cartype wouldn’t be enough to warrant payment, but if say, the game made 100 buildings that were previously just there for show open and can be explored fully, or a whole new aspect of gameplay were added that changed the game world, then I’d be interested.
I read that the creators of Mass Effect 2 upon releasing the game, released DLC days later that expanded the world. What this says is that they had this DLC ready before the game was released, but rather than include it in the game, decided to squeeze players for that little extra money. This I find is "blatant profiteering". Imagine if GSC said "Look, I know you want to explore the S.T.A.L.K.E.R wastelands more, but if you want to get out of the first area, but you have to pay to do that." I paid $50 for my game, so I should get the full game, shouldn’t I?
DLC should come secondary to expand upon the original game; it should not be a necessity.However, then you’ve got that section of people who enjoy supporting the developers. This is a "noble" thing, but again is something that should really only be done if it’s worth it. Like I said, I’d gladly pay 50c or even a dollar for a hat in TF2, or $15 for The Passing DLC that’s coming out for L4D2/L4D1, not only because I play the games but because with all the free stuff Valve gives us, I’d like to give something back. However, I won’t go overboard and buy something I wasn’t going to use just because it benefits someone else; that becomes a waste of money.
It all comes down to what you want. If someone wants to make their farm in Farmville bigger and doesn’t mind spending a little cash, then by all means it’s a good deal. However, companies who are cutting their games in half to force people to buy the DLC, thats just bad, and shows they have no idea how to make the customer happy.
TL;DR DLC is a great way to support the developers after the game is released, but as with all products; some micropayments just aren’t worth it.
So that’s my opinion on it, slightly hindered by my tiredness. What do you think about the idea of DLC in the gaming world?
