Metro last light DLC's

I don't mind dlc that is cheap, but I'd prefer it just to be in the game in the first place.

 

I'm with you. I like the DLC option if it's free, but other then that, I'd rather prefere a big expansion instead of small DLC's. Of course the expansion wouldn't have to be free.

I don't know, for me DLC will always mean minor tweaks in my head. I know that some gamese release rather large DLC's. But the majority is minor stuff, and I'd rather that was just in a free patch, fixing issues etc as well.

 

This. The only developer to release free patches for their games that have more than most DLC out on the market, is CDProjekt RED.

 

Either a big DLC(like Frozen Throne) or none cause I am no big fan of many small DLC I would rather have a few big ones.

 

I only want singleplayer DLC that is about 5 hours long. Making DLC for a multiplayer which is going to die very soon after the game is launched is useless and mony wasting, look to Bioshock 2. Weapons, multiplayer maps, clothes, etc should be added in patched or should be a big DLC with much content and a low price.

 

DLC like Fallout (That actually added quite a bit to the game) would be great, so long as it isn't overpriced.

But I don't want things like downloadable characters and weapons, that's silly, but if they do add that it better be free or very cheap (<10$). I'm not going to buy it anyway.

And If they dare even think about having on-disk DLC or disk locked DLC I'm going to go on a f****** rampage and burn down their studio.

 

On-disc DLC is awesome, I hate downloading it, it's always overpriced. But I reckon game companies should offer free dlc, as Batman Arkham Asylum did. Heck, it's not like they are getting so much out of it anyway.

 

I absolutely HATE and DESPISE On disk DLC because it should already be in the game. Developers shouldn't make DLC before the game is even finished and think they can sell it, it should already be on there. If I pay $60 for a game, I want everything to be there, not be locked out of content that should be there in the first place. In my opinion it's a terrible trend and business practice.

 

But hey, opinions are opinions. I understand that it's easier than downloading and respect that, but I still think it's evil.

 

Oh, hey, I said that above, don't get me wrong! But after-game dlc on disc is cool, too. But, here is my opinion: the game should be complete in and of itself, and dlc should only be added if it is epic and worthwhile. I can't stand paying extra for something that should have been in the game in the first place, I totally agree. Nowadays they make dlc because they feel obliged, but there are people who don't have the money for extra stuff, or no internet connection, whatever. :/

 

If it dlc for the campaign then yes but if it is weapon dlc for MP then no and I can see it going tits up like the physical warfare pack did with battlefield 3 where there was a boycott.

 

why should dlc be free? I disagree with those who said it should be free. Devs put loads of time towards it so they should be paid for it and that is a way of supporting the game and incentive for them to make a sequel (2034 cough cough)

 

Well, the core mechanics and graphics are often taken from the original game, so the dlc is often (not always, just often) just the idea and production, no real development or entirely new process. Dlc is good, but make it worthwhile, make it as good as the game.

 

Best DLC ever -- Play as ulman and hear all his awesome, great, amazing, cool jokes

 

If they make it before the game is even released, I believe it should be free.

 

Mate nearly all dlc are in the works when games are published. That is how the industry works. I have got my moneys worth from 2033. I did not buy the ranger add on for the xbox because the PC community got it for free so why should I pay 240MSP for it?

If there is a dlc like the RAAM campaign dlc for gears of war 3 which adds an additional 2-3 hours worth of campaign then I will buy it regardless.

 

The ultimate dlc, I would buy it!