DLC Debate: Game Extenders or Incomplete Video Games?

It's Thursday, which means it is time once again for your early afternoon delight. Guy = check. Yasar = check. Witty musings and information galore concerning the world of video games? Triple check all around with a cherry on top.

This week the world infamous Yasar and Guy Show throws around the topic of downloadable content or DLC and whether or not this is a win-win for all or just another way for companies to milk more money out of gamers' already drained wallets. Warning before we move forward: Definitive answers of the yay or nay variety do not abound. These are merely the spitball opinions of two gamers trying to figure out the ever changing landscape that is draining us of funds.

So let's kick off the debate, shall we?

Guy: Over the last few years we have seen the console gaming landscape change as next-gen machines have moved system gaming closer to the model long used by their PC brethren. The pattern is clear by now: A highly anticipated game is released, patches to correct issues and bugs that should have been caught pre-release come in rapid-fire succession (read: "rapid-fire" really means anywhere from 2 weeks after release to 3-months), followed soon after by downloadable content maps, upgrade or strategy packs, and continuing adventures in the fantasy land of your choosing.

DLC can be great in terms of extending the drama of enjoyable RPGs like GTA IV. In that instance, the major DLC packages were like two new games priced at $20 a piece. They expanded on an already rich world and added much wanted replayability for gamers reluctant to say goodbye to Liberty City once the main game was complete. Map Packs, available for series such as Halo and Gears of War, have proven invaluable to devoted online squads, but the steady rise in cost for such additions could start to affect just how hardcore a gamer decides to be when it comes to a particular franchise.

My question is:  When do downloadable options truly enhance a game in a way that justifies their additional cost and when are they just an easy way for companies to get more cash out of us for a game that is essentially shipped incomplete to retailers? Shouldn't all of these extras already be included in the retail version? Not only do I know that Yasar is chomping at the bit to get on his soapbox and rip away about this very thing, but Danny O'Dwyer over at Gamespot is just as irked by this not so welcome hike for video game content that should either be free or just already included in-game at the point of sale.

Yasar: A decent amount of the DLC we see is aimed at taking your money without adding anything new to the gaming experience.  Costume packs are a great example of this.  Many games make you pay for costume packs when in reality all they do is change the color of what your character is wearing.  You've essentially payed for a palette change. This is kind of cool if you want to customize your character, but charging you for it is absurd.  The game doesn't play any differently if your ninja is wearing all black or wearing pink with green polka dots. 

Some of you may read this and disagree.  Think about this: that $5 you're spending on making your character look slightly different adds about 10% to the total cost of the game.  You're not getting 10% more game by making your character look "cooler."  If you want to unlock all of the Street Fighter IV costumes it's going to cost you about $25.  You don't get any new characters or moves, just cool costumes.  That's more expensive than customizing a Barbie doll (or at least that's what Guy tells me. I was more of a GI Joe guy myself...).

Guy: Yasar's GI Jane fixation aside, a bit of a game-changer has recently been introduced in the world of online gaming. In response to the growing trend of no-ROI for publishers stemming from the rise of the used-games market, THQ announced last week that they would be including a code with new copies of UFC 2010 to enable online play elements of the game. Gamers who buy the title used will not be able to use already redeemed one-time use code and thus have to pay $5 to access all of the online features. This followed on the heals of EA's announced EASports Online Pass feature that will require a similar one-time-use code to play and access online aspects of their sports titles. Buy it used and you'll have to drop down another ten bucks to EA to get invited to the online party. With games like NCAA Football 2011 utilizing an online Teambuilder feature, this could become an issue with gamers not usually inclined to buy new.

So DLC is now evolving into something else entirely. No longer just a way to supplement, augment, or increase the playability of a popular game, it is now becoming, in my ever so humble opinion, a safety net for publishers to secure their bottom lines. Do I disagree with it? No, not really. It's not the most ideal situation for gamers who tend to wait and buy used at a discount.

Part of the bargain factor will be lost if gamers expect to be able to play a full complete feature game. As it relates to DLC, this could potentially mean that certain gamers buying used copies, sans any type of code, would have to purchase a pass before they could even get the chance to purchase any actual DLC. I don't fault the companies though. The used market is booming, but the developers and publishers don't see any of the cash from those pre-owned third party resales. Going forward, I'm sure the debate will only heat up as more companies jump on the bandwagon and implement online passes of their own.

So what say you, fellow delegates of the joystick nation? Is this just an acceptable evolution of the industry or rallying point for a consumer gaming revolution? Rage on in the comments section below.

As always, you can follow the rest of our traveling video game opinion and info roadshow via Twitter @SavingsGCapes and @YasarSavings.