Meaning For Ten Bucks Or less
There are plenty of problems with DLC – I don’t know if this post is the place to detail them all. But as I see it, there are two primary types of DLC out there. The first exists in multi-player offerings, everything from additional maps to new songs for Guitar Band Hero Rock Lip Times. These are stand-alone offerings that provide additional content to be stomped through, and don’t concern whatever story mode or campaign arc the game ships with. Other than the varying price point (by which I mean to say, if you’ve spent $30 on Modern Warfare 2 maps without them even fixing the absurd levels of game breaking bullshit that are part and parcel of that multiplayer experience, you are daft in the head), the model generally works.
DLC starts to run into problems for games with cohesive single player campaigns, or where the single player campaign is the entirety of the game. The problem is very direct – DLC splinters the game’s community into two groups. This problem is bad enough with things like map packs, where all that is being fractured is the matchmaking. But if you ever plan on developing your IP further, and making a sequel, you need to assume that what the plot ended with the actual game. That has the unfortunate side effect of rendering everything that takes place in the DLC moot. Which is why so many DLC packages contain new levels and scenarios where absolutely fucking nothing happens.
I first noticed this issue, actually, with the first piece of DLC I ever bought – the additional content for the new Prince of Persia (not the movie tie in. . . thing, but the new cell shaded one). It was a game I actually really enjoyed, but the story itself ended on an incredibly down note. Seeing as how the DLC adds a new level and a new chapter immediately after one of the most depressing endings in gaming history, I was looking forward to seeing what Ubisoft would do with that scenario.
It turns out they did nothing. The Price and What’s Her Name bound through an entirely new temple, if by “new” you mean a brief rehash of what was already plentiful in the maine game. Not that the DLC was bad, I actually enjoyed it. But there was nothing there that wasn’t in the game proper, and at the end of the DLC they were in just as bad a position as at the end of the game. Identical in fact.
Now, other DLC attempts to circumvent the plot tampering problem by setting their content “outside” of the main story, or in the middle of it, or by ret-conning it into the existing plot arc. Gears of War 2 released an abandoned level that the team finally polished for release. If GoW2 hadn’t already been a full and exceptional game, I might have felt a bit cheated about paying for that. Tomb Raider: Underworld did the same thing, but then at least tried to branch off an offer different game modes.
The first Force Unleashed pack was a stage that they wedged in between two existing stages in the game, though it doesn’t seem to care where you are in the game or what progression your character was at. The other DLC (which I refuse to buy, based on its current brevity and price) takes place in an alternate reality version of the game that splinters off from the “real” ending, and has absolutely no bearing on the sequel.
All of this was running through my head today as I stared at the box for Alan Wake, a game which I thoroughly enjoyed despite its casual faults and would be very happy to play more of, if there were any. The original buzz was that the DLC for Alan Wake would actually be Alan Wake 2, an approach that I found refreshing and exciting. That changed shortly after launch, and now the DLC will be a “bridge” between Alan Wake and its sequel. In other words? Nothing is going to happen. It can’t.
Because Remedy can’t reasonably expect players to have definitely purchased the additional chapters in order to maintain their understanding of the story. Even they realize that would be unsportsmanlike. So the solution is to release DLC that’s a rehash of Alan Wake in slightly different scenarios where nothing relevant to the plot takes place. And since Alan Wake steeps itself so heavily in its own plot, that means there won’t be much there.
Now, the first of these two (or maybe three) DLC packs is going to be free, because I bought the game new. So I’ll obviously check that one out. And at the relatively sane price point of $7, I might investigate the others anyway, depending on their length. But DLC could be doing so much more, especially for a story-driven game like Alan Wake. It could be, if it wasn’t for the very nature of the delivery system. I can already hear the narration on the final bit of DLC, telling me how despite my best efforts the situation was still grim, and it would take much more to finally set things right. As in, it will take me buying Alan Wake 2 in 2013 (or whenever it comes out).
Now, a very good friend of mine did suggest a solution to this problem. Release meaningful DLC, and then pacakage the sequel with a redemption code that makes the DLC for the first game free. The real fans of the game will buy the DLC long before the sequel comes out, the people that don’t care about the plot will skip it, and the people who only buy the sequel will actually have an additional incentive to go back and pick up the first one.
Of course, this is a great solution, so don’t look for the industry to adopt it anytime soon. But they’re going to have to come up with something. The community has already had a rough time adapting to DLC, and overall I think the feeling is pretty universal. We like it, we want it, and we’re willing to pay for it. But we most definitely want more out of it. There’s got to be a middle ground between clunky additional levels and full on episoding gaming that allows additional DLC to have meaning and substance, but not break the game for people who aren’t willing or able to carry the addional cost. And the developer that finds it first is going to find itself awash in delicious cash dollars.