If Downloadable content and patches never became a thing, where do you think gaming would be?

[Shadowking58]

Something I just recently started thinking about. There are plenty of times with modern gaming that I hesitate to buy a game just because there's so much DLC. I'm the kind of guy who fondly remembers the days where you had to play 700 vs mode matches, or 20 hours of vs mode matches to unlock Mewtwo. Nowadays, stuff that used to be unlockable and you actually had to work to get are either really easy to unlock, or are put behind a paywall as DLC. I don't like the idea of buying a 60$ game and not having all of the content, what with the eventual DLC that comes down the line (depending on the game)

So, if Downloadable content and game update patches had never become a thing in the industry, where do you think gaming would be now?

 

[Octavia]

generally you are paying $60 for all the content. DLC is just extra content that never would have happened in the first place if DLC wasnt a thing. There are of course exceptions, and it often gets abused by companies that dont let a silly little thing like ethics get in the way of profit, like EA. But Smash Brothers, for example, since it seems what you are going for, without DLC, there wouldnt be any of the extra characters post launch. You could make the argument that they could delay the game until they could launch with all of the characters and stages, but that isnt very feasible. Eventually, the game is going to have to ship, and deadlines are a thing that have to be met.

 

[Nadia]

So, if Downloadable content and game update patches had never become a thing in the industry, where do you think gaming would be now?

It would probably be where it was before, companys would have to test and finish their products before they release them.

generally you are paying $60 for all the content. DLC is just extra content that never would have happened in the first place if DLC wasnt a thing.

Sadly it is often more like you are paying $60 for the full Game, then the company wants that you pay 20$ more for content that is already on the disc/on your hard drive, and so on.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with fair DLC that gives me optional extra content, but companys often use DLC to cut out content that should be in the Game from the beginning, just to press more money out of us gamers.

 

[DeathTheGordon]

I'd guess that if there was no online patches Ubisoft would have been dead and gone a long time ago.

I am a bit more weary about DLC after being conned by Borderlands 2's season pass that only pre-paid for some of the DLC they made (and of course who could forget Fable 3's fabled colorful dye's pack), I do still think DLC can be a good thing but I don't jump into the add on section as soon as I finish a game anymore. But then again these days games are so big they don't fit on the game disc.

 

[Octavia]

Sadly it is often more like you are paying $60 for the full Game, then the company wants that you pay 20$ more for content that is already on the disc/on your hard drive, and so on.

Yes, day 1 DLC and already on disc DLC is dumb and unethical, but its not the majority of DLC content. That is what I was talking about when I said some companies abuse the concept of DLC ((Im looking at you, EA, and Mass Effect 3!))

 

[Whitetail]

Tbh the companies that release broken buggy messes tend to hardly ever really clean it up after patches, it's not very often that I hear about a game that was infamously buggy on release getting much better over time (though they're often bug prone sandbox games where it's hard to fix literally everything too). Overall patches are pretty good in general, especially for anything with competitive nature to it since it allows egregious issues to be fixed over time instead of letting the game stagnate when one big glitch or ridiculous strategy ends up breaking the entire balance of the game.

I think most companies tend to be pretty decent with DLC tbh, you've got your major offenders but by the by I see a lot of games just using it to expand upon the world and release additional content in a way that's a bit cheaper than having to box out expansion packs like they used to. For DLC I tend to find it's better if it's either small inconsequential things like if you just really want some hat or something or big changes like added campaigns and that sort of thing.

For things like Fighting games I do see how DLC creates a rather interesting dynamic, since it allows you to add in more characters which can throw the established meta for a loop. Though I don't know nearly enough to say much beyond that though, most I played before was mainly Smash bros and they only started jumping on the DLC train recently

 

[A88mph]

I would imagine, for the most part, all the fixes and DLC would be in Expansion packs, like in the old days. On consoles, you would have what Street Fighter has a habit of doing: releasing multiple version of the same game.

 

[Rich Jammer]

I would imagine, for the most part, all the fixes and DLC would be in Expansion packs, like in the old days. On consoles, you would have what Street Fighter has a habit of doing: releasing multiple version of the same game.

I was just gonna respond with what this guy said.

If there was no DLC they would just release it as an Expansion Pack. Look at The Sims 1 and 2. Heck, even valve did it with Half-Life 1 with Blue Shift and Opposing Force. Old RTS's did this all the time. War Craft 3 had Frozen Throne and C&C Generals had Zero Hour.

Or again, like what A88mph said release the game like what Capcom did with Street Fighter 2. Turbo, Super, Championship Edition etc.

Or they would release a better version after a while like what Konami did with Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance and Metal Gear Solid 3 Subsistence or Capcom with Devil May Cry 3 Special Edition.

Let's go back further with old adventure games. Alot of the old Adventure games released on floppy disc then later re-released on CD-Rom with full voice acting.

So in the past, in some cases it was even worse getting extra content. Like if you wanted to play Virgil in DMC 3 you would have to buy the full game again instead of just the DLC.

In the past also extra characters were hidden with cheats. How did you know these cheats if you didn't have Internet in the day or a friend didn't tell you? Well you'd have to buy a magazine which probably cost as much as a DLC character nowadays. But of course this wasn't so wide spread.

 

[Rocketknightgeek]

In a world without DLC, fighting games would have minor to major revisions once every couple of years (or less) and you'd be expected to pay full price every time. Vanilla, championship, hyper, super, super turbo...etc.

I recall that Samurai Showdown was the king of this version x.y/z nonsense though, especially given that it was a NEOGEO game and thus was outside of most peoples budget for just one version.

 

[Barbaloot]

I honestly think the average of quality would be about the same. On one hand, big companies wouldn't be releasing half-finished bullshit because they could never add in anything beyond that. They would be gimping their game permanently by choice, and that would be incredibly dumb to do.

On the other hand, some other games couldn't get any better than they are. Take Splatoon, for example. It'd probably have more stuff at launch than it did, but I doubt it would have as much stuff as it does now. Same with big glitches. Pokemon doesn't really do DLC or anything, but when X and Y had a BIG game-breaking bug in it that they didn't find, it got patched out. Without patches that bug would still be there forever.

 

[TigerKirby215]

Ubisoft would probably be dead. EA would definitely be dead. Valve would probably be dead...
Basically: A whole lot of dead companies.

 

[SubrosianDimitri]

Games would be released as complete games, and any extra content would be expansion pack discs.

And maybe Chris Sawyer would have made even more money off Roller Coaster Tycoon.

 

[Gamerdude854]

There would be more complete games, Nintendo is one of the only company's that seems to release full games now, sure Nintendo does do DLC, but you don't feel pressured to get it like when other company's release DLC

 

[danmiy12]

There would be a million expansion packs...ever remember how bad some games got like the sims (the 1st one) or everquest...or WoW...at least hopefully there would be more content in each game but ya full priced exanspion sets every year priced at 60 dollars each...

or if it had to be the fighting genre it'll be 1 expansion every year for 60 dollars that adds maybe 1 new mode or 4 new characters that you cant pick.. remember super street fighter 2 hyper edition...

 

[Whitetail]

On the other hand, some other games couldn't get any better than they are. Take Splatoon, for example. It'd probably have more stuff at launch than it did, but I doubt it would have as much stuff as it does now

Tbh it's either balance now or balance later, having to contend with major game breaking strategies the devs weren't able to foresee until they release an updated version later sounds like it'd be kinda annoying

In the past also extra characters were hidden with cheats. How did you know these cheats if you didn't have Internet in the day or a friend didn't tell you? Well you'd have to buy a magazine which probably cost as much as a DLC character nowadays. But of course this wasn't so wide spread.

God though I always wondered this sort of thing since I figured it wasn't normally planned to be like "oh we'll tell a magazine sooner or later"
Didn't really click until way later that most cheats in games were actually just things from when they were debugging/testing and working on the game, might as well hide them in the game for the players to have fun with later if you already went through the fuss of programming them in

That or sticking in unfinished content they still wanted to get out since they put the effort into it to begin with

 

[Nadia]

Ubisoft would probably be dead. EA would definitely be dead.

That would be wonderfull, just think of all the game licenses that would become accessible for companies/developers who actually care about the games.

 

[Toxic Punch]

Imagine a world where Diablo 3 stayed garbage or Bloodlines stayed broken
A world where Genroku Legends never released or MK8 200CC doesn't exist

A lot of pubs and devs would have gone under
making video games costs real dough and many pubs and devs rely on dlc money to stay open

The benefits to patches and dlc are far greater than the negatives even if you've been soured on the idea by pubs and devs willing to abuse the idea. You mention not feeling comfortable buying "incomplete" games. First I suggest trying to detach yourself from absolutely having to own complete games. Some games will never release in a state you consider "complete" or may be extremely expensive to own. Second, why are you paying $60 for video games? c'mon son.

Amazon and Bestbuy offer 20% discounts
Deals can be found everywhere for PC games
Used market etc.

 

[Oreo]

If DLC didn't exist, games wouldn't have the production values they do now. Games can cost tens of millions of dollars. That is $10,000,000+. Reports lead to game budgets of AAA title releases within recent years hovering around the 60 million range. When you're working with budgets that large, time most certainly is money. So often times, games will ship earlier than they should to achieve a release date that investors are happy with. Games that may not be planned with DLC may later down the road release content they were already working on, but had to cut due to time and budget constraints. That way, the people writing the cheques don't have to lose more money while that content is made before release, and they get their investment back when that content finally releases since it costs money. That's not to say you're being charged for content you were supposed to get for free; you're being charged for content you wouldn't have received at all because of time constraints, and if they give it to you post-release with a price tag on it, they get to keep the higher-ups happy while being able to finish what they started.

Not to mention that when you invest a certain amount of time into making a game, you'd like people to keep playing it for quite some time after release. DLC is a great way to get people to either keep playing, or come back if they had stopped. DLC usually funds the support games get after release, anyway; patches, bug fixes, balance changes, etc. all happen because DLC can fund the devs' continued work on the same project. Without that DLC, they'd have to immediately move on to the next project, as continued support wouldn't be sustainable if there's no money to pay them for the additional work. That's why often times, after the final DLC is in the market, support for a game will end shortly after. There's no more income, so there's no more development that can be budgeted.

So, to answer the question, what would games look like without DLC and patches? Games would take longer to come out, not have the same production values, probably not have as much content, DEFINITELY wouldn't look as good as they do, and probably wouldn't be able to advertise the game. Games potentially would be more stable and bug-free on release, but if an unforeseeable oversight DID become a problem, it wouldn't ever get fixed, since you need prolonged sales and DLC to fund those fixes.

 

[Nadia]

Imagine a world where Diablo 3 stayed garbage or Bloodlines stayed broken

And what if they instead of making a "garbage Diablo 3" that was neither a good Singelplayer game nor a real mmo, they would have to make a "Good Diablo 3" in the first place?

A lot of pubs and devs would have gone under
making video games costs real dough and many pubs and devs rely on dlc money to stay open

Thats how the economy unfortunately works, but right now it's not much better, publishers and developers still go under left and right, small ones and big ones, and often because they get bought up by companies like EA who benefit the most from the current state of the industry.

The benefits to patches and dlc are far greater than the negatives even if you've been soured on the idea by pubs and devs willing to abuse the idea.

In general I have nothing against patches and DLC, as long they are used in a reasonable way, but often the reality looks quite different

You mention not feeling comfortable buying "incomplete" games. First I suggest trying to detach yourself from absolutely having to own complete games.

To make it simple, I'm just a consumer/customer, who wants at least a finished product in a good quality, and why should I try to detach myself from that?

Games would take longer to come out, not have the same production values,

You are probably right with that, but would be not necessarily a bad thing.

probably not have as much content, DEFINITELY wouldn't look as good as they do,

I see this different, I think that many games would even have much more content, because they would not waste so much time to make the games look extra flashy, and would instead focus resurces on "revolutionary" things like "Good Gameplay" and stuff like that, maybe you heard of that? It's a classic feature that was used a in many games when I way young.

and probably wouldn't be able to advertise the game.

There are many media sides and magazines who cover games even small indi games, so I don't see realy a problem with that, whe also have sites like Youtube and Facebook now that make it even easier to spread the word about this "new game" that everyone should play.^^

Games potentially would be more stable and bug-free on release, but if an unforeseeable oversight DID become a problem, it wouldn't ever get fixed, since you need prolonged sales and DLC to fund those fixes.

Than look at console games, they only got patches with the introduction of next Gen Consoles, and would you say that all Games before that era where a "unplaynable buggy mess" like many games are now at start?
Or would you say that many old games have not much content, or look bad for there age?

 

[Avering]

I see this different, I think that many games would even have much more content, because they would not waste so much time to make the games look extra flashy, and would instead focus resurces on "revolutionary" things like "Good Gameplay" and stuff like that, maybe you heard of that? It's a classic feature that was used a in many games when I way young.

This is not really an argument I can really reason on any side, as there are both pros and cons for it, but I had to grab this one out. No, bigger companies would not try good gameplay, heck, there would be even less reason for them to try new things as it is a much bigger risk if the game don't sell. With DLCs you have a bit more leevay in trying out new stuff, as you can get more money from smaller amount of people. Also, before DLCs it wasn't that much different, only you couldn't really argue against a game missing features ast they would probably not get into it anyways. Unlike with DLCs, where (albeit for extra costs) it would eventually find their way into it.

 

[Nadia]

With DLCs you have a bit more leevay in trying out new stuff

You should suggest that to some companies, I would realy like to see if they try something NEW and not try to sell the same uninspired overprized DLCs over and over and over.....

 

[Avering]

You should suggest that to some companies, I would realy like to see if they try something NEW and not try to sell the same uninspired overprized DLCs over and over and over.....

Large companies will be large companies, DLCs or not. I think the last time I saw some new stuff before DLCs was Mirror's Edge. After it you could see Destiny, Titanfall, Division, which while not exactly "Oh my god so unique!", were certainly more innovative than the usual.
But for smaller groups these are pretty useful, as they don't have to wait for x numer of sales to start working on an expansion, instead they can make a third of the work for third of the time for third of the price.

 

[Rich Jammer]

 

[Oreo]

I see this different, I think that many games would even have much more content, because they would not waste so much time to make the games look extra flashy, and would instead focus resurces on "revolutionary" things like "Good Gameplay" and stuff like that, maybe you heard of that? It's a classic feature that was used a in many games when I way young.

You can't have more content if you don't have money. The "more money" doesn't go into just visuals, it goes into everything. In fact, you'd probably have worse gameplay and better graphics, since the consumer market demands a certain level of fidelity due to continued advancements in technology. The way the market worked in 1996 does not apply to 2016 because the costs of making a game are much, much higher.

There are many media sides and magazines who cover games even small indi games, so I don't see realy a problem with that, whe also have sites like Youtube and Facebook now that make it even easier to spread the word about this "new game" that everyone should play.^^

Not every game can have the budget or the price point of an indie game. The industry would actually be in a pretty rough spot if it did. You need the big budget, big name games to drive the industry forward. And that type of advertising is not big enough to sell those games. If you want to sell a game, you need TV spots, advertising in movie theaters, etc. That costs money. I can guarantee you that you aren't even aware of 99% of the indie games released on Steam because there's so many and they don't have an advertising budget.

Than look at console games, they only got patches with the introduction of next Gen Consoles, and would you say that all Games before that era where a "unplaynable buggy mess" like many games are now at start?
Or would you say that many old games have not much content, or look bad for there age?

Yes, old games have glitches. Some of them severely game breaking. Games having more glitches now is partially because of publisher demand to release extremely complex games in too small an amount of time, games being more complex and therefore having more moving parts to break, or player perception of strange things happening more often due to putting more hours into newer games than older ones. Games always have had bugs and always will have bugs. We can fix those bugs now, which is cool.

As for content, games used to be cheaper to make. They didn't cost the literal tens of millions that games cost now. Teams were smaller; Super Metroid was made by a team of 23 people. The technology limitations allowed a team of 23 people to make what was then a AAA title. You can't make GTAV, or Destiny, or Metal Gear Solid V with 23 people. So to create an enjoyable experience, that meets the standards of amount of content and visual fidelity in 2016, you need a team that's 10 times as large. Possibly even more people. And you expect to pay that huge staff with sales figures alone when games cost as much now as they did in 1994? It can't be done.

 

[Toxic Punch]

And what if they instead of making a "garbage Diablo 3" that was neither a good Singelplayer game nor a real mmo, they would have to make a "Good Diablo 3" in the first place?

lmao what

It's almost like you're suggesting they purposefully went out of their way to make a bad game so they could improve upon it later

From reading and listening to the original dev team I can assure you they honestly believed they were making a good game. They were wrong, but they still honestly believed that the game they made was good.

To make it simple, I'm just a consumer/customer, who wants at least a finished product in a good quality, and why should I try to detach myself from that?

Because of the sentence that immediately followed where you quoted me

Some games will never be "complete"
How could you possibly own a complete Team Fortress 2?
Suppose you stopped playing a game which gets new content regularly. Do you buy the new content for the purpose of having a "complete" game even though you're no longer playing it?
What if you wanted to buy Dead or alive 5 or Mortal Kombat X? Those games have released "complete" editions but still continue to release new content. Would you wait until development has completely halted and player population is at an all time low?

That's why my suggestion is buying your games cheap and picking and choosing dlc you want instead of wanting/waiting for "complete" games

Let's take Superbeat Xonic or Project Diva as an example
am I going to buy every dlc song for the sake of having a complete game?
No way, i'll just buy the songs I like, my wallet will thank me for it.

 

[Avering]

From reading and listening to the original dev team I can assure you they honestly believed they were making a good game. They were wrong, but they still honestly believed that the game they made was good.

I sincerely believe that the game itself was good, only not Diablo level good. And there's not really many game developers who want their game to be bad.
Actually the improvement argument can be best visualised with X:Rebirth. It started some god awful, but the guys working on it managed to make it pretty decent.


Actually, now that I think about it, I generally don't have that much against DLCs, hate them I may. Huh. (As long as they actually worth something. I am looking at you Paradox and EA)

 

[Nadia]

It's almost like you're suggesting they purposefully went out of their way to make a bad game so they could improve upon it later

No what I mean is that they focussed in adding pointless MMO features like the auction house into a singelplayer game to force more control into it, and killed the fun for a lot of players this way.

Some games will never be "complete"
How could you possibly own a complete Team Fortress 2?

You have to differentiate between content that should be in from the beginning a and content that is just an extra.
And yes for me is a Team Fortress complete from the beginnng, it has all playable classes and required maps from the beginning so you can play the game online with friends.

But you seem to see this things different, a playable class is probably for you not much more as a "silly hat" DLC, am I right?

Suppose you stopped playing a game which gets new content regularly. Do you buy the new content for the purpose of having a "complete" game even though you're no longer playing it?

I stop to play games when I don't have fun with them anymore, or they get boring, then I play a different game and maybe come back to the other game at a different time if I want to.

I buy extra content if I want to have it, for example I could buy a costume pack for DoA5 if I like the Costumes in it, or skip them all because I don't like them, but I just don't like it if a company cuts content on purpose and tries to sell it sometimes even as DAY ONE DLC to me.

What if you wanted to buy Dead or alive 5 or Mortal Kombat X? Those games have released "complete" editions but still continue to release new content.

Same like with Team Fortress, for me the games where complete at least for DoA, I come to MKX in a momment because thats a special case.

The PC version of Mortal Kombat X is a great example, it was so bugged that they instead of fixing the problems just cut the support for it entirely, if the System like it is now, where soooo perfect like you and
Oreo seem to think, something like that should not happen, particularly on the PC right?^^

Would you wait until development has completely halted and player population is at an all time low?

I don't care if a player population is at a all time low, because I mostly play singelplayer modes, and if I play multiplayer I like to play with friends.

Let's take Superbeat Xonic or Project Diva as an example
am I going to buy every dlc song for the sake of having a complete game?
No way, i'll just buy the songs I like, my wallet will thank me for it.

To be Honest, the Names of this two games are the only things I realy know about them, I don't care for music games.^^