7 Reasons Why Gamers Support DLC and Season Passes

If nobody ever buys DLCs and Season Passes, publishers would stop, right? So why do some gamers still support them? Well, here are 7 reasons why.

[XXanderXX]

Cool

[Jakens]

I do buy dlc for the titles I want more of.

[Sam Fisher]

If the game done right as expected, ill support the developers and publishers with purchasing game and season passes, they mess up? They lose my pocket

[optimus]

i never buy dlc...unless it's less than $5

[nitus10]

While I do agree with what you said I should elaborate.

I don't mind DLC if it extends or even adds to a game I really do like such as those for Bloodborne, Dark Souls 2 and The Witcher 3 although I did get them for a considerable discount since I do have a PS+ account.

As for microtransactions well I will use Neverwinter as an example.

For those that don't know Neverwinter is a free to play MMORPG, however, they do have a fair amount of microtransactions and DLC (additional game content) which you as the player can optionally purchase. You can play Neverwinter without paying for any of the microtransactions since IMHO they are basically "fluff" (ie. skins and some weapon and armor assistance). As for the DLC well, these are additional content to the game but you have to decide if you really want to pay for these additional quests.

Even though I gave Neverwinter as an example there are other free to play games that have microtransactions and DLC. As long as you have the choice then I don't really have any issue with this but when games have "Pay to Win" features then I really do have to draw the line.

"Pay to Win" is effectively gambling although the developers/publishers will disagree (big surprise there) but when you play a game that is effectively unfair (games like the Souls and Bloodborne are tough but they are always fair) so that unless you are an exceptional player you do need to pay for that "McGuffin" or "Hail Mary Pass" (usually lots of them) to get you through the game.

Paying for special weapons that will give you an advantage over other players is unfair although I am quite sure those people that fork out for this advantage will disagree. As far as everyone else is concerned they are effectively cheating.

[optimus]

Well, i hardly ever play multiplayer anything so buying dlc for the purpose of playing multiplayer is pretty much non existant for me... Even when it's for games that i enjoyed, things like extra weapons and levels that don't affect my progress, meaning i can still finish the game without it don't serve as an incentive...

The only exceptions i make are for "game of the year" editions which include most if not all of the dlc content on the disk...and even then i wait for it to appear in the bargain bin for $30 or less like i did with red dead redemption and a few others which i guess at that point wouldn't be considered dlc since it's included.

[SegaGamer]

Best example of DLC = GTA 4 two extra story modes.
Worst examples of DLC = Lego games selling characters to us in packs when they should have been in the game from the start.

Sadly, the worst example is the type of DLC we see most of and it's why i hate it.

[optimus]

I would say that red dead redemption's new nighmare is the best dlc of any game ever because it is essentially a new game with a new story, characters, and cutscenes and it is as long as the original game itself. To this day i have yet to finish it...i know that grand theft 4 had 2 big dlc stories but from what i understand (never played them) they could be completed in about 8-10 hrs. Red dead expanded on that idea in a major way. For the $20 i paid for the used game of the year edition i felt like i got a free game for the price.