Siobhan Keogh: How I learned to love DLC

A scene from the game Dragon Age: Inquisition.

Game blogger Siobhan Keogh takes on the controversial topic of DLC...

I have a confession to make: I like DLC.

DLC, or downloadable content, has drawn the ire of gamers since its inception.

Essentially, DLC is additional content that's not in the base game. There are legitimate reasons DLC might not be in the base game - if time ran out before it could be implemented, for example - but the primary reason that developers and publishers release DLC is to make extra money off of an already successful release.

This has been happening since ages ago - before downloadable content was actually downloadable (it was called an 'expansion pack' then, a phrase which now means 'really small DLC').

A lot of people feel that all DLC should be built into the main game, or released for free. In some cases, DLC is free. But, strangely, I actually like that the DLC isn't in the main game, as long as it's reasonably priced and not some half-baked cash grab.

Take Dragon Age: Inquisition. Last week, surprise DLC was announced for it which came out the following day - long after most people who bought it on day one had finished playing the game. Inquisition was my game of the year for 2014, and as such this surprise was a pleasant one. To me it's a win-win-win - I get to play more of a game that I loved, EA keeps up its marketing of the Dragon Age brand while developers inevitably start working on the next game in the series, and the business makes more money.

That said, I haven't actually played it yet - it could still be terrible.

But the strategy behind Inquisition's release is what I'd describe as 'ethical DLC'. And if there's ethical DLC, there is most certainly unethical DLC. Like when paid DLC is released at the same time as the base game is released.

I mean, come on - if the content is ready at release, you're kind of just being a jerk if you don't give it to players for free. To outsiders, it looks as if you developed that DLC as part of the base game and then removed it deliberately to make more money. I have a few expletives that could describe my feelings on that.

The other type of shady, annoying DLC is the kind that gives you multiplayer bonuses that make you stronger than the people you're playing against. Everyone else has to do the hard yards - work their way up, gradually unlocking stronger weapons and abilities, but if you've bought the DLC you can just barge in on day one and immediately overpower everyone else. But I guess the publisher figures, hey, if people who get frustrated with losing to people who paid more, they can always buy the DLC, right?

Fortunately, New Zealand hasn't had much exposure to the worst type of DLC of all - the kind of DLC that you only get if you buy from a particular store.

In the U.S., there are games that come with DLC at launch if you buy from GameStop. If you buy from elsewhere - say, online over Steam, or another game shop - you don't get that DLC. Ever. In fact, you might get different DLC from a different store, so to get all of it, you have to buy two copies of the game. Usually it's just a handful of not-too-significant things, and doesn't have an impact on the story, but I'm pretty sure it's still straight-up evil.

Of course, the Pokemon series has always used this tactic by releasing two games that are essentially the same but with different Pokemon to catch. But at least Pokemon can use the excuse that it adds an extra layer of challenge, and you're supposed to trade with friends.

Fortunately, most DLC seems to be relatively sensible. If you're ethical about it and make really great extra content, you can give people warm, happy feelings all over again and foster the goodwill of the people while keeping your brand close to its heart.

But I do wonder how many times Battlefield fans have to get stung before they give up and move onto a franchise that doesn't treat them like walking wallets.

* What are your thoughts on DLC? Post your comments below.</strong>