A couple of years ago, no one would have understood that title; not because the consoles did not exist, but because DLC was anything but "Downloadable Content". We PC gamers are old time users of the "DLC", after all we've always had mods, map packs, expansions, patches and the sort; however the console crowd is relatively new to this and how could they not be since up until this generation no console had a proper hard drive to speak of. So both the Xbox 360 and the PS3's gamers enjoy DLC in some form, however as of late (okay maybe since last year) Microsoft has been securing DLC for Xbox 360 multi platform games with large sums of money in order to gain the competitive edge. Sony's response? Basically "hey it's your game, if you want to sell less in one platform; it's your problem". As bad as that sounds, should console manufactures have to really pay for DLC? Do we want that market to exist? Is any party thinking on us, the gamers? Should we pay for it?
First of all, I think that the ones that will always have a win-win situation here are the devs; because they can make money by accepting Microsoft "bribe" lets say and also by the DLC itself. This is the case of the really cool GTAiV's expansion The lost and The damaged. Furthermore Xbox 360 owners also have exclusive DLC for Fallout 3, another hit multiplatform game. Microsoft really made an effort to bring exclusive content for these critically acclaimed top games and that of course will show in the charts. After all, if you havc 2 identical versions of a game but one has the option to increase it's gameplay value for a few more dollars; I think you, as well as I, would choose this last version.
Is Sony screwing itself over by refusing to pay for DLC? I think they obviously losing sales, but very little in that; because multiple console owners are not that common. And if we count the fact that Sony is still losing money on the PS3, I think they might have the right attitude on this. After all is not the developers the ones that should be concerned in getting their game to as many people as possible? I do not want to sound all high and mighty, but does creativity and fan support all have a price? I know that when all is said and done, it's always about money; but I would like to think otherwise.
On the other hand I really like that Microsoft is willing to spend money to bring users new content and I would like to think (i might be a little naive here), that thanks to them DLC is getting made; regardless that it's being done for just one platform. Maybe Maguire is right and PS3 owners may get their DLC version as time passes by; but I would not be counting on it. So out of all the parties involved in this process, I think however misguided their efforts may be, Microsoft is the only one thinking on us; the gamers.
But one question still remains, should we have to pay for DLC? The answer is yes … and no. Think of it from a consumers point of view, you get what you pay for; then obviously paid DLC will tend to be better. On the other hand, think of it from the devs point of view. Free goodies, bring happiness to consumers; happy consumers are loyal consumers and provide free advertising. So your next big game may have a loyal fanbase BEFORE it's released. In conclusion there is not really one single answer on this, both options not only can but MUST coexist.
Ok, enough of my ramblings on this; I am feeling quite sent right now. What about you? What do you think? Yay MC, Boo Sony? DLC, paid or not? Let me and the rest of the gang hear your take on this!
For a full graphic version of this article, please direct yourself to this post