Should all game modification/extensions such as extra Gamemodes and DLC be free?
Debate Rounds (3)
I feel that we should make all game Mods, extensions, and DLC free.
My reasoning is as follows.
Let's say you just went to the midnight launch for your brand new copy of Halo 5. (This is all hypothetical mind you, but the general jist is quite real) You get home and put the disc into your console. Start it up, have fun with it for a while.
Suddenly, after a few months, there's a DLC pack released for more multiplayer maps. All the decent players start playing those. But you can't go play it because the DLC costs money. Now lets say you either 1: Do not have a method of buying things online, or 2: Your parent(s)/guardian(s) strongly object to online transactions. What do you do? Most of the fun and enjoyment of your game is now dead! It's gone! All because of paid for DLC. Because you have to put more money into a game you have already purchased!
Now I can understand this marketing strategy if the game was free in the first place. Pay for addons to a free game, I'm down with. TF2 went there, just to separate the 6 year old kids that are playing because their parents wont buy anything for them, from the 16 year old players that just want to have fun... and also because they were not making money from their most popular game title which was Free to Play.
I guess what I am saying here is, why must we pay to unlock features of a game we have already purchased? What's up with that?!? What happened to the good old days, where you could buy a whole second game, that may be an expansion pack, but it was also essentially a second game! Where you DIDN'T need to buy the first game to play the second! That's what's happening here! They are releasing less than or equal to second games that require the first game to play it!
So that's how I'm ending this argument. Game expansions, extensions, addons, and DLC should be made free to the public, as long as they are for a paid-for game, and are not a whole second game (like starcraft brood wars. They literally had an entire second game, with its own executable, yet you needed the first game to play the second).
For the argument about kids not being able to afford it or convince their parents to, well that's their choice. If I had just bought my son a sixty dollar video game and then he asked for another twenty dollars for an add on then Id probably say no too. Furthermore, Xbox three sixty requires you to have Xbox live (ten dollars a month) before you can download so without money you'd lack access to it even if it was free.
Paying for dlc means developers can make games I like even better.
I see your reasoning here sir, regarding the funding to developers. And in smaller indie groups, that woulod be very much acceptable.
But lets look at the companies currently doing it. I cannot for the life of me recall who makes Call of Duty, but have a look at some of their content. $5 for a new map pack? Camo Packs?
How about Halo? Buying an entire new story-line thats marked as "Available" in the main disc, but you have to buy half of the story line. (And FYI, im refering to Spartan Ops.) It's like saying to a starving person "Hey, did you enjoy that cheese cube? Well you can have the cracker that goes with it for an extra $5!"... Not to mention the forge packs, map packs, etc...
I could understand this if its coming from an indie developer, charging money for extra features, but not more gameplay that is highly promoted. For instance, I accept TF2 charging money for Hats, items, etc. This is because it does not alter the gameplay, unless you count the dozen AFK 12 year olds trying to trade an unusual black bills for 3 vintage fancy fedoras... but I degress.
Games like TF2 offer DLC that do not alter the gameplay to give an advantage either way, but rather enhances the gameplay experience for he who so wishes to feed Valve's wallet.
Regarding your comment to Xbox Live Gold, we have all already come to an agreement that Microsoft should not charge you money to play online. Thats a different long-running debate that exists on multiple fronts. Anyhow, my point here is that it's perfectly fine for DLC to cost money here as long as it doesn't affect gameplay for the entire player base. Selling DLC for a lock-on rocket launcher is NOT what I'm talking about. Selling DLC for a sexy new skin, model, suit, etc is alright. Because all those salse do is enhance the experience fo the person who bought it.
I guess what I'm kinda saying is that I don't want to be forced into supporting the developers through extensive DLC like multiplayer map packs, or weapon packs just so I can stay on even terms with my enemy... I want to have a choice, where I can say "Yes, I like this game, I'll support it." and the company will go "Thank's for supporting the game, here have this awesome cape to wear in the game to show off to everyone!", not "Thank's for giving us your money jackass, here have these dual mounted miniguns that fire lock-on rockets to go get a killing spree with."
Arcticphoenix forfeited this round.
Ok, given my opponent didn't respond in the last argument... I would like to continue by drawing your attention to the game Killing Floor.
Killing Floor is a FPS game based off of the early 2004 unreal engine (used in games such as Nerf Arena Blast, and Unreal Tournament). In this game, the goal is to kill zombies. Nuff said.
The downside: In order to enjoy a lot of the content (which is unbalancing content might I add), you have to buy weapon packs, skin packs, etc etc etc. All this DLC is listed as available in the shop, but when you goto select it, you get told to go buy the DLC. This is the most annoying kind of DLC in my opinion. DLC that they give you, but you have to pay to unlock it. And on top of that, it throws out the balance of the game!
To conclude, I believe all DLC of this nature (that provide an unfair advantage to one particular player just because they spent money, that are required to play half of the game thats been promoted with launches or trailers, or are essentially a whole second game yet for some strange reason requires the first game to be played) should be free. DLC that do not make a negative impact on other players, such as skins, textures, custom player models, wallpapers, sound packs, these dont matter as much and can cost money for all I care.
Arcticphoenix forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.