GameTopius - The Geeks Paradise.

The idea of downloading additional things into your game after release was supposed to be something that extended the lives of games and made them better over time.  Instead, little has changed and some games are only just now starting to come around.  In most cases we've received a similar amount and quality of content, but just payed more for it over a longer period of time.  The worst part is that in many ways, this has put the PC platform at a distinct economical advantage.

Some are finally starting to notice the disparity with Valve recently announcing a new campaign as DLC for Left 4 Dead.  The thing is, that DLC is going to be free for owners of the PC version of the game but Xbox owners will have to pay $7 for the same content.  This kind of thing has been going on for a few years now and it shows a clear separation between how essentially the same system is seen on different platforms of gaming.

All of the map packs so far released for the Call of Duty games have been $10 each to download on consoles through closed networks while PC gamers could download those same packs for free off of fileshack or somewhere.  Valve's own Team Fortress 2 has received a significant amount of DLC that's been completely free on the PC.  Xbox owners of the same game however have only received maybe half of that content and have had to pay for it in $5 packs.

Why is this?  The idea of this kind of content delivery was scarcely heard of on consoles, so console gamers see no reason not to pay for it, but on the PC these amounts of content are usually just considered parts of patches.  Furthermore, why pay for a few extra maps and costumes when modders are making and offering new ones for free all the time?

A look at places like l4dmods.com reveals whole communities of people putting out content that much of the time is equivalent to what's included in DLC, only it's free.  This goes from fan-made maps in the Call of Duty games to new campaigns in Left 4 Dead or Half-Life 2 to the choice to unlock new costumes in Street Fighter IV instead of paying to unlock the ones already on the disc.

So far only Epic has attempted to open consoles up to this massive world of content, but only Sony let them allow mod support on the PS3 version of Unreal Tournament III.  Conversely, Microsoft is the reason Valve has had to charge for their DLC on Xbox instead of following their "DLC should be free" mantra.  If Sony is indeed a little more open with publishers and online content, who's to say they wouldn't have let Valve follow that mantra had the PS3 version of The Orange Box been successful enough to warrant continuing support, or if there were a PS3 version of Left 4 Dead?  This kind of disparity between PSN and XBLA has influenced Microsoft before.

Instead, console manufacturers have now enforced this system for DLC because they have been proven to that console gamers will pay for this content while PC gamers know better.  Does this mean that they think of console gamers as a less sophisticated market?  Dare I say they took advantage of an ignorant consumer base?  The platform shouldn't matter, some gamers are paying for content while others are getting the same content and then some for free.

The thing that I find the most disappointing is that a working model for how and why to deliver DLC was already in place for the Xbox and PS3 to follow.

When DLC is released for a PC title, it's usually a $20 or $30 expansion pack that offers hours of new content - usually at least a whole new campaign to go along with maps, characters, and other stuff.  Examples include all the expansions for The Sims games, Crysis Warhead, or the Kane's Wrath expansion for Command & Conquer 3. 

Furthermore, these expansions space full sequels much further apart so that when a new game with "2" in the title is made, it isn't just the same game with a few new weapons and enemies (like Gears of War 2 for instance), but is really more akin to a platform change.  The reason PC gamers are mad at Valve about Left 4 Dead 2 is because from their point of view, what that game offers looks like what you would get in a $30 expansion pack.

So far only a couple console games seem to have offered gamers new content in this way, and it's helped greatly extend the lifespans of each of them.

Since its release in January of 2007, Burnout Paradise has added amounts of content that a few years ago would've just been devoted to another $50 game, but has instead now been offered mostly for free.  This has turned the game into a markedly different experience from what it was upon release and kept people from trading it in at GameStop.  At this point it's hard to imagine another full retail Burnout game being made within this console generation.

What we really need to see more of in terms of DLC on consoles is stuff like the "Lost and Damned" and "Ballad of Gay Tony" packs for Grand Theft Auto IV.  Instead of quickly throwing away this giant game world that they invested so much money into, Rockstar has decided to offer gamers more stories and more significant content within it.  Do you really think there's going to be a full-fledged "Grand Theft Auto V" during this generation?  Imagine if that kind of extension was applied to a game like Final Fantasy XIII - which Square Enix intends to turn into a decade-long franchise.

To you who mainly play on consoles, how do you feel about having to pay $10 for what your PC counterparts might be getting for free?  Do you consider the PC and console platforms to be separate enough to warrant the differing treatment of consumers?  If not, do you think that these are just baby steps until console gaming comes around to a more expansion pack-oriented system for DLC?


Lou Lantos - blog.desirevo.com

I was quite exclusively a PC gamer when growing up, so I guess I've sampled both sides of this debate. I would very enthusiastically store away my pennies to purchase ridiculously expensive graphics cards and CPU upgrades so that my frames were a stroke quicker on Counter Strike or Quake 3 Arena. Essentially you HAD to be an enthusiast to want to commit so much money and effort to getting the best out of your experience, and that does indeed remain the dividing line.

Consoles are not platforms open to the userbase for expansion and elaboration, they're very closed and very controlled. The nuts and bolts are hidden away from any casual programmer, and to tamper with them insights an avalanche of legal crap that would only serve to widen the shit-eating grin on any company president's face.

The PC's time-honored tradition of an enthusiast, secular userbase pretty much solidifies its right to free content. People work tirelessly to create modifications of their favorite games, and they spread throughout the community before the developers themselves have a chance to get all pissy about it. It's an open playground for those guys, and there's no way to control it. Rather it's controlled internally, by the enthusiasts themselves. Democracy is left entirely to the people, free of restraints or enforced conditions, and they seem to cope just fine.

Console gaming is too lucrative and heavily moderated to ever encourage the type of scene that PC gamers enjoy, but that doesn't mean that within the boundaries laid down we can't get a little more bang for our buck. To answer the question, I feel some what hard done by to be paying extra for content that others may get free of charge. But to any casual gamer who doesn't understand the difference between a PC mod and console DLC there's no alternative, only that which they see on PSN or XBOX Live. And as such people apparently make up the ruling majority, a push towards expansion pack-oriented DLC, in the purist sense, is probably still some way away from being a concrete reality.