EA have announced that Battlefield 1, like every other modern game, will have a paid for DLC and a season pass along with it. But is this the way forward? We can all agree that DLC is irritating, and many think the already pricey entry free should be enough to get you everything.
As a consequence of this, the community is split, between those who buy the DLC and those who stick with the base game. This hurts the game in the long run as people who don’t buy the DLC get bored with the game due to the lack of content and stop playing.
So why do games have this format? Well it’s mainly pushed by publishers as a way to keep making money on a game. Development for these triple A games costs a staggering amount, and publishers need a good profit to justify the investment. Even though sales normally do this by themselves, it’s the DLCs that really makes the game a hit, as 51% of people buy it – according to Eurogamer in 2011.
Many have accepted DLC as a part of gaming despite the negative consequences, but there is a solution… the dreaded micro transactions.
Hear me out!
Terrible micro transaction models give you an unfair advantage, but when done correctly they are unnoticeable and negate the need for DLC. All you need to do is look at games like Overwatch and Counter Strike, which allow you to buy crates that generate random skins. These give you a different paintjobs and looks for your weapons and characters, but don’t give an in-game advantage.
This model means that the extra profit a publisher needs is covered by these micro transactions, and paid for DLC is not needed. This keeps the community around longer, doesn’t split it as the game has a constant source of content, and improves the game’s reputation for providing free content. People have hated DLC for years, and this is defiantly the lesser of two evils. When done right, these micro transactions can give the game another level of value, just look at Counter Strike. A whole community of traders has erupted around skins, and isn’t going away anytime soon.