So, do you like games that have DLC in it? For me it depends on what type of DLC it is. If it's something that isn't canon to the game's story and is just for fun then I would be willing to buy it. But if it's something that is part of the game's story (and should've been part of the full game)and is in a ridiculous price then I won't buy it. I hate those kind of DLC.

So, do you like games that have DLC in it? For me it depends on what type of DLC it is. If it's something that isn't canon to the game's story and is just for fun then I would be willing to buy it. But if it's something that is part of the game's story (and should've been part of the full game)and is in a ridiculous price then I won't buy it. I hate those kind of DLC.

Ever since On-Disc DLC and True ending DLC came to existence,I began to hate DLC with a passion

Part of me likes DLC, part of me doesn't. It's awesome when it extends the story or adds a character but it makes me think, why couldn't they of just had that in the game in the first place? So yeah, iffy on it. 

It has to be done right.

 

-If it is day-one, then no.

-If you have to pay for it to get the 'real' ending, then no.

-If it's useless, no. (Say, Oblivion's Horse armor)

-If it is literally one gun, weapon, or skin, then no.

-If it's something that you should have, then no.

 

I want DLC that comes later on, and merely expands the game, like some of the expansions for the Elder Scrolls or Fallout games.

DLC is a money-grabber, so it's only acceptable when done in moderation. A simple expansion or accesory pack is fine, but when DLC is what gets you the "full" game, or when DLC is necessary to fully appreciate the game- yeah, no.

No, not usually. Especially the DLC you have to pay for.

Kinda. I like the one's that expand to the story. Like Bioshock's Infinite's ones that are going to come out; New character, new weapons, new vigors (I think), and new missions. I'm also DYING to get Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon. That's probably the best type because you don't actually need the game to play it.

No, not usually. Especially the DLC you have to pay for.

 

This. Especially EA never make their DLCs free. DLC's are nothing but a way for the company to earn more money. They could just add everything in one game and not having DLC's but nowadays almost every game has atleast 1 DLC. 

if it's good and not too expensive.

This. Especially EA never make their DLCs free. DLC's are nothing but a way for the company to earn more money. They could just add everything in one game and not having DLC's but nowadays almost every game has atleast 1 DLC. 

what about kh?

what about kh?

What about it?

What about it?

nvm lol

what about kh?

KH has no DLC and almost 99% of Nintendo games has no DLC wish is good.

Edited May 4, 201312 yr by Metal Snake

DLC should only be optional expansions and day one or two DLC is horrible. It just screams "we were too money hungry to put this in the full release when we could so we'll make you pay extra for it"

I agree with Tails. Still strongly dislike DLC though.

DLC should only be optional expansions and day one or two DLC is horrible. It just screams "we were too money hungry to put this in the full release when we could so we'll make you pay extra for it"

This so much

Yes, with DLC developers don't need to make reissues.

I think that some DLC is done very well, and I think that it furthers the experience. It basically makes expansion packs mainstream, and it's nice for that reason.

 

What ISN'T nice, however, is how it's done. If DLC was actually a true addendum, then it would be flawless, but what grinds my gears is that a lot of DLC is basically already on the disc. It's a means to get more money out of you when you've already paid a lot of money.

 

So, while yes, DLC can be done well, I am opposed to the concept of a means to stick you for more money.

I love the DLC of Theatrhythm Final Fantasy.

It depends on the amount of content. If it's DLC that expands the game by a decent amount, then yes.