Middle-earth™: Shadow of Mordor™
1 day 2 hours
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
5 days 2 hours
3 days 21 hours
3 days 6 hours
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
I'm just going off that it's all categorised as "DLC" under Steam, and I know I've read news releases that will say "New DLC for [game]" and it's a skin pack (Rocket League is an example of this). I'm not aware that there's been some sort of official categorisation.
As to whether it 'actually' has to be downloaded or not is up to the developer, really, there are plenty of games that download the content regardless of whether you've paid to 'add' it, so I wouldn't think that's a good metric for classification. I believe Forza Horizon 3 does this with its expansions (could be wrong, I'll find out tomorrow), as an example.
Steam often generalize their titles to categorize them together. There's only 1 place for additional transactions in steam games, so you also get micro transaction currency in the DLC tab (see PLEX purchases on EVE Online or Crown purchases in Elder Scrolls Online for examples).
Very valid point about downloads, I'd used a flawed argument myself and completely missed it! Total War series is another example of games that update/download the new content immediately, but then put a paywall behind it so that you can't play 'as' the new content until you pay for it; so I know where you're coming from.
Developers often do this for 2 reasons, 1) it helps increase sales of DLC if(competing against X you keep seeing new content behind the pay wall as you play new race who does Y different to everyone else, of course I want to pay to be able to play as them!), and 2) it avoids multiplayer segregation through patches. If everyone is playing off the same patch in Forza then everyone can race together still. I didn't think the later Forza games had any actual Expansion Passes or sizable DLCs, I thought there were content packs, maybe some skins but almost all (if not every) car was available through in-game currency.
Forza, there's a game that was happy to rip players money from the great grandchildren of their players. With some top-level cars costing hundreds of pounds in micro-transaction currency, it really is a joke. I've never been to much into racing games myself so I've never encountered that kind of price before, but if I were to play I'd rather not pay to unlock the content (even if it was only 10% of its current price) because it removes the feeling of progression. It would be just as bad as paying in Monster Hunter to unlock all of a creatures equipment before you can beat it.
Removes any satisfaction from winning, removing any value (through a sense of achievement) from the purchased car, reducing much of the enjoyment utilizing the car to work towards future vehicles. That's getting back into personal opinion though, so I'll stop there XD
It's true that PC sales are still tanking, but gaming and gaming hardware is a serious growth sector. Last year gaming hardware sales topped $30bn for the first time:
And that's likely to be even higher this year. So, while Nvidia are making a whole lot of cash from AI and datacentre stuff right now, the increase in the graphics card revenue has been a huge boost to their bottom line.
Intel have been talking a lot about gaming, and from people we've spoken to that's going to continue with their touted discrete GPU tech. This is more likely a move to bolster their future AI earnings, but equally a decent discrete GPU for gamers would give their bottom line a bump too.
When you say "DLC" are you only including content that adds to gameplay? Because I feel the opposite, that the majority of DLC isn't good, because a lot of it is just skins or minor tweaks or additions and such.
Obviously though it's going to vary by the type of game though.
Apologies but I’m not entirely sure if I follow you correctly, I presume when you talk about gameplay-less DLCs you mean patches/updates that add micro-transaction content to the game?
Whilst technically speaking skins or updates are a form of content, I’d argue that these micro-transactions are nothing more than that, places for people to invest into the game. These would include things like Destiny 1 (and 2 I believe)’s Silver, Star Wars: Battlefront 2’s loot boxes, AC Origins shops weapons/armour and League of Legends skins. It’d also argue they’re not DLC, as rarely do you have to download any files to open/use the microtransaction items (instead being locked files already in the game).
I’ve never really worried over these micro-transactions either, as I’ve managed to resist purchasing any packs I regret. There are always prices you look at and question ‘why’, but others who love the game decide they want to invest that much into the title they really enjoy. For purchasable rewards to exist at the higher boundaries makes sense for me, so long as they don’t disadvantage those that don’t pay (something that the community has recently picked up on and started to complain about).
I believed that the community (and gaming companies) had reached a consensus in this decision, and had also adjusted their usage of the term ‘DLC’, reserving it to cover ‘Expansion Packs’ only. Am I wrong in this assumption? Off the top of my head I can’t think of any companies that are happy to name their small updates and skins as DLCs, but I’m all-ears to titles or names.
I'm stunned Intel are dipping their toes back in the GPU water after the catastrophe of Larrabee. Short memories maybe, or Raja has convinced them it's actually possible this time.
Back in the day, Intel kept telling us in the tech press that Larrabee was going to be great, right up to the moment it was killed. We'd all been really hoping for a third GPU way...
Thank you for saying! Glad you enjoyed it.