Looking at the recent Dark Souls 2 DLC, I really want to play it. That and some of the Borderlands 2 DLC looks really good but I can't bring my self to buy the main game and grind through them. Should ALL DLC be made standalone? I don't mean the DLC that just adds new skins, maps, or minor changes. I mean the single player DLC that creates a whole new area to explore. It shouldn't be too hard, I mean sure for someone who is level 50 in BL2 they want a challenge so make the DLC harder for them. But for people who just want a quick 3-5 hour experience and who doesn't want to buy the main game they could just turn the level caps down? Would make sense, as it would help sell more of the DLC's for games that only have a limited audience of the people who brought the main game. It worked in the past for PC games where majority of "DLC" (which were more expansion packs) back a few years ago were mostly standalone. What do you guys think?
I see your angle but that means you need the entire game engine for each DLC which will never happen.
Yea that is true. But what about beta's , alpha's, and demos? They again require the entire engine to work but only come with a handful of levels, maps, etc. It is basically the same thing.
True. Well using BL2 as an example. That is game that made DLC VERY easy to access. Visit the nearest Transport Point and they were right there to "beam" too. No need to slog thru anything. I always went back to Sanctuary when I was finished playing so I could go wherever I wanted next time I played
DLC need to have an option to have separate playthrough from the main game, we did see this happen in some games where you have an option to choose. Other than that DLC is made for fans who dont find hard to grind main game to see new stuff.
Dlc needs to die. Give me a finished game, update it with patches, including some new content every now and then and then release an expansion after a year or two. Diablo 3 is a perfect example. Game launched, patches changed it over the last two years, then we got an expansion. I hate seeing silly dlc for games that add very little to the game. It's money milking, simple.
There is the possibility that there is licensing fees in creating a full standalone game vs dlc for a current game. I'm pretty certain actually, new games need to be rated and reviewed by content boards and the major console manufacturers before they release.
COULD NOT AGREE MORE!! DLC does need to die, expansion packs were by far the best. Sure with D3 expansion you have to have a certain level character as it continues the story. But there is nothing stopping blizzard from making that entry cap level 1 and changing the difficulty for newbie players (loot also of course!). Whilst also at the very start including all the cutscenes from the original stock game so that new players can catch up on the story. Hope this makes sense.
Yeah DLC is just a money thing. Think about the DLC that has been in games that is already there, and you have to pay to unlock them?! It's good to see some people like the single player campaigns! Think of how many people, by the time they pay for DLC etc, spend $100+ just to play a couple of multiplayer maps. WTF? Think of all the DLC's that are just multiplayer maps, where people may play just one map out of say, 4 that come with the pack? I also believe that multiplayer maps should be playable by single players, where you compete against the computer (like in a single player map) to achieve different objectives. You could have dozens of objectives on a given map, such as rescue a 'team mate', collect intel, blow stuff up, shoot certain targets and so on. It couldn't be too hard to implement and would add great value to the game. This of course, would best apply to a FPS, but doesn't mean the same principle can't apply to other games.