Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Poll [64 votes]: How long from release should DLC come out for a game?
  • Poll [64 votes]: How long from release should DLC come out for a game?
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: How long from release should DLC come out for a game?
  •  | 
  • Legendary Member
Poll: How long from release should DLC come out for a game?  [closed]
Release day:  5%
(3 Votes)
Release week:  0%
(0 Votes)
1-2+ weeks:  3%
(2 Votes)
3-4+ weeks:  8%
(5 Votes)
1 month:  14%
(9 Votes)
2 months:  28%
(18 Votes)
3+ months:  42%
(27 Votes)
Total Votes: 64

What does the Flood think? Personally, I'd say somewhere between 3-4 weeks and 2 months.

  • 12.24.2012 10:10 AM PDT

Why don't we just share the hill?

6-9 years.

  • 12.24.2012 10:10 AM PDT

Derp

whenever it should be. it depends on what it is.

  • 12.24.2012 10:11 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

GrownPrism is NOT my gt. Happened when signing into my xbox live account. My real gt is here:

http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Reach/Default.aspx?player=SYNTHES lS&sg=0

3-4 months.

  • 12.24.2012 10:11 AM PDT

Time isn't necessarily the main issue, at least not for me.

  • 12.24.2012 10:11 AM PDT

I don't care about the "when" but rather if there will be enough content to justify the money spent on it.


I was very happy with Dragonborn for Skyrim. I was not happy with Hearthfire.

  • 12.24.2012 10:12 AM PDT

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
-Sir Winston Churchill

The Secret Society 95% of activity is me, I could use some help.

Never.

  • 12.24.2012 10:13 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Legendary Member


Posted by: TheBrandingIron
I don't care about the "when" but rather if there will be enough content to justify the money spent on it.


I was very happy with Dragonborn for Skyrim. I was not happy with Hearthfire.


Well, Dawnguard and Dragonborn are the "big DLCs", while Hearthfire was just a little plug-in. I can't remember when or where they said it, but I believe Bethesda announced that there will be one more expansion like Dawnguard and Dragonborn, and 2 or 3 more little plug-ins like Hearthfire.

  • 12.24.2012 10:14 AM PDT

Meepzoid

Depends, day one DLC is obviously BS because it should have been on the disc. Also Capcom deserves a big kick in the nuts for having all their games with locked content on it.

Honestly I believe DLC should happen when the game needs it. Like if the maps you've been playing on is getting boring there should be more maps to keep things interesting.

  • 12.24.2012 10:16 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:

However long it takes the studio to put out the DLC.

  • 12.24.2012 10:18 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:

Posted by: tha man
Depends, day one DLC is obviously BS because it should have been on the disc.

Why?

  • 12.24.2012 10:18 AM PDT

Cole

Depends. For games like CoD and Halo? ASAP. For games like the Elder Scrolls? Around 4-6 months.

  • 12.24.2012 10:19 AM PDT

Trussingdoor is pretty kewl. He fires lasers and doesn't afraid of anything.

2-3 months

  • 12.24.2012 10:19 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

DLC should be content created after the game is released. Ergo, the developers didn't withhold material for the sake of making more money. However, if they did it for the purpose of prolonging gameplay by making free DLC, then I understand.

Paid DLC should come out no longer than six months after launch, and no later than two years. After that, it's time for an original creation.

  • 12.24.2012 10:21 AM PDT

Meepzoid


Posted by: Methew
Posted by: tha man
Depends, day one DLC is obviously BS because it should have been on the disc.

Why?


Why what? Why is DLC that comes out the same day as the game shouldn't have to be downloaded and the game itself should already have the content?

  • 12.24.2012 10:22 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:

Posted by: tha man
Why is DLC that comes out the same day as the game shouldn't have to be downloaded and the game itself should already have the content?

Because the work they did for that DLC wasn't paid for by the sale of the game.

  • 12.24.2012 10:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Halo 2 isn't dead jorge...... its just missing in action.
MnF Elite Force <>Brigadier<>

Brown coat 'till the day I die.
Sheningans!
Wake me...when you need me.

Mostly depends on how good it is.

  • 12.24.2012 10:31 AM PDT

Literally never, unless that DLC is an expansion pack loaded with new content (in which case, it shouldn't come out until people actually need an expansion pack). DLC is an awful thing.

[Edited on 12.24.2012 10:33 AM PST]

  • 12.24.2012 10:32 AM PDT

Call me Stu


Posted by: CaptKrunch 96
3-4 months.

  • 12.24.2012 10:34 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:


Posted by: I 5ee You
DLC is an awful thing.

Yes.

Giving people more of what they wanted is a bad thing.

  • 12.24.2012 10:34 AM PDT

Posted by: Methew
Posted by: I 5ee You
DLC is an awful thing.

Yes.

Giving people more of what they wanted is a bad thing.
Develop of a good game. If the game is well-received, develop a sequel or a spiritual successor (like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls I and II).

I don't care to pay for more of a game, especially if it's something awfully stupid like extra characters or weapons.

  • 12.24.2012 11:08 AM PDT


Posted by: Methew

Posted by: I 5ee You
DLC is an awful thing.

Yes.

Giving people more of what they wanted is a bad thing.
When 3 maps cost us $10 (and released soon after the game's release) when they clearly aren't worth 1/6 of the game, there's a problem.

[Edited on 12.24.2012 11:09 AM PST]

  • 12.24.2012 11:09 AM PDT


Posted by: Graver18

Posted by: Methew

Posted by: I 5ee You
DLC is an awful thing.

Yes.

Giving people more of what they wanted is a bad thing.
When 3 maps cost us $10 (and released soon after the game's release) when they clearly aren't worth 1/6 of the game, there's a problem.

because $10 is so much money...

DLC doesn't have the number of sales that a retail release will have. So in order to make profit they have to price it accordingly. If they were to half the price to say $5, then I can guarantee that will not result in a double of sales.

You should learn simple economics before posting about the cost of something.

  • 12.24.2012 11:27 AM PDT

Posted by: SRQ baller24
Posted by: Graver18
Posted by: Methew
Posted by: I 5ee You
DLC is an awful thing.

Yes.

Giving people more of what they wanted is a bad thing.
When 3 maps cost us $10 (and released soon after the game's release) when they clearly aren't worth 1/6 of the game, there's a problem.

because $10 is so much money...

DLC doesn't have the number of sales that a retail release will have. So in order to make profit they have to price it accordingly. If they were to half the price to say $5, then I can guarantee that will not result in a double of sales.

You should learn simple economics before posting about the cost of something.
It IS a lot of money, for a poor college student.

However, I'd be perfectly willing to pay $60 for a (well-done and not the same thing rehashed) sequel, because it's a LOT more bang for my buck.

  • 12.24.2012 11:29 AM PDT


Posted by: SRQ baller24

Posted by: Graver18

Posted by: Methew

Posted by: I 5ee You
DLC is an awful thing.

Yes.

Giving people more of what they wanted is a bad thing.
When 3 maps cost us $10 (and released soon after the game's release) when they clearly aren't worth 1/6 of the game, there's a problem.

because $10 is so much money...

DLC doesn't have the number of sales that a retail release will have. So in order to make profit they have to price it accordingly. If they were to half the price to say $5, then I can guarantee that will not result in a double of sales.

You should learn simple economics before posting about the cost of something.
They sell a massive amount of map packs. The small team set up to design those maps could not cost anything compared to the huge amount of profits they'd bring in with $5 a person.

  • 12.24.2012 11:29 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2