Poll: Do You Buy and Play Single Player Story DLC?

If I really like the game and the DLC gets good reviews, I still wait for a complete/goty-edition. I'm a sucker for nice collections.

I usually buy a game day one, complete game within a week or two, trade game in for maximum return.

@Useyourname Ditto.

I don't buy anymore in general.

Bloodborne dlc was the best I’ve ever played btw.

Lots of factors with this a lot of the time the DLC take to long to come out take Ni No Kuni 2 the first dlc still hasnt been released as far as I know and that was released in March. The other issue is cost I kinda want to play the South Park dlc but the cost doesnt seem worth it to me as the story bits are a bit short from what I have read. I did really like Lost Legacy I think that is a better way to go for single player dlc.

@get2sammyb It's confirmed that SE canceled the DLC because of Hajime Tabata's departure?

I'm always going to buy single player dlc.if a add on or dlc doesn't have a story dlc im not buying it.i don't care about multiplayer dlc.or costumes dlc.word up son

i do buy the season passes of games that i realy like/look forward to. mostly i just buy the special editions of a game with the season pass included.

i have done so for the witcher,ac origins and oddessey,uncharted etc)

i also want to play the spiderman dlc's but because of red dead and me still needing to finish ac oddessey (again because red dead is taking over all my gaming time) i just can't be bothered to get the dlc for spiderman yet.

but yeah i'm not against WORTHY STORY dlc,but aslong as red dead is not done yet,i won't have time for any interesting
new dlc/games. that's why hope to finish it before ac oddessey's first story dlc releases,since i ofcourse want to finish the main game first.

@get2sammyb the witcher expansions are fantastic,without going into spoilers,the hearts of stone dlc has one of the most interesting villains i have seen in gaming,and the blood and wine expansion ist just mini witcher game on it's own,and includes a very nice new big area to explore. i could even live in the city of beauclair myself !

also have you played the lost legacy?

A lot of DLC is a bit naff or poor value for money though isn't it?

@Quintumply Same here - i rarely buy at launch and then I forget.

This gen, I have only bought a handful of single player DLC, including Old Hunters and Frozen Wilds.

Just don't buy Ubisoft DLC and you should be fine

I'm not sure I can lump all of these together. Sure games are all $60 and season passes tend to be $20 or $30 but I still think there are a lot of variables to consider to pick 1 answer per each question above.

Right now I'm playing the post game in DQXI, that was included free Day 1 on disc, and that has more content, and feels like a DLC pack, than the few others I've played. Zelda BotW $20 season pass really wasn't worth it for me. I really wish GoW had had DLC if just for that 1 boss fight that the entire game was leading up to that never came. I played 2/3 of H:ZD and about half of the DLC, then GoW came out and I never went back to H:ZD, though I'd like to finish both the DLC and main game, they were sort of their own separate things.

I bought and played and traded in U:LL, never thought of it as DLC, it's a game. I still haven't' played TLoU2 Left Behind stand alone game though I bought it ages ago, kind of waiting for the new game to get a release date. I really liked Enslaved but the thought of playing as the pig never appealed to me so I never even considered it. I played NNK2, enjoyed it a bit, then traded it in, pretending the season pass doesn't exist. I still haven't' played XC2 yet b/c I'm waiting for a bundle w/ the DLC game.

So my answer is "yes", I do, but not all the time, like with most things in life it all depends.

But really, after 100 hour main game DQXI, and whats' looking like a really long post game, all included for $60, somebody explain to me again why we need DLC? Put it in the game or put it in the sequel, done.

It really depends on the game; the content of the DLC, price of the DLC, etc.

I bought the DLC expansion for Horizon Zero Dawn, I liked the gameplay, and I didn't mind playing some more, especially since there was quite a bit of time between the release of the main game and the DLC. For Spider-Man, I've had my fill; and the DLC seems to be more of the same. I also find most DLC expansions to be on the expensive side. You pay €20, a third of the main game, but you're only getting 1/10th of the content of the main game in most cases. The Witcher 3 is one of the few examples of DLC done right IMO.

Anyway, I'm old-fashioned. I like my physical collection, so I prefer games like God of War, The Last Guardian, etc. I don't have to worry about cut content, missing out on potential story stuff. Just a single experience, a complete game, everything available from day one. I don't mind spin-offs like Lost Legacy though.

What I'm trying to say is, I have absolutely no problem if games don't have a DLC expansion. Especially if that means that the developers can work on something else. A sequel, or a new IP; new experiences if what I prefer most, and I don't think DLC expansions tend to offer that.

I bought all expansions for Fallout 4, Dishonored 2(low-key one of the GOAT games), Witcher 3, Horizon... when they went on sale. I was looking to give R* full price for GTAV SP DLC but nooooo they don't want our money. That said I don't want original content cut out and be sold as DLC. The aforementioned games have long enough campaigns so I don't suspect anything fishy in the way of content being cut out, so I gladly buy their DLCs.

I know that I can't be bothered to get into DLC after I "finished" the main game. Unless I got the complete edition at reduced price after all DLC has come out.

I'd rather get a stand alone spinoff or a completely new game that expands on the game's main story.

I'll buy it usually if I like the main game, but I really don't like standalone DLCs or DLC side stories, as I find it breaks the immersion and cohesiveness of the original game. I think that all story DLC should be integrated into the main campaign or game module.

I very rarely buy them separately. If it’s part of a GOTY edition or collection I’ll play it.
Think Spider-Man DLC is the only one I’ve bought since The Frozen Wilds.

Once I’m done- I’m done.

If I have the cash to burn and I enjoyed the game, then yeah, I'll stump up for SP DLC. A lot of times whenever this stuff came out, I just never had the money to get it. I missed out of Sleeping Dogs' DLC when that came out, I missed Infamous Festival of Blood when that came out, but I can get them now that I have some extra money.

If I really enjoyed the main game, then I'll usually get the single player expansion packs. However, there's always a lot of different games that I want to play, so I'm often happy with waiting for a GOTY version before before getting the game.

I've only ever bought The Witcher 3's Hearts Of Stone and Blood & Wine. Both are absolutely superb pieces of DLC and so bloody cheap considering the content of each. More Geralt is a good thing.

As someone who is highly motivated by narratives in games, I almost never buy this sort of DLC. It's like reading the Silmarillion. It's backstory. It's side content. It's best used sparingly, and I'm certainly not going to SPEND MONEY on it. If it was meant to be part of the story it would have been part of the narrative from the beginning, and if the story couldn't stand without it then the game's narrative is broken and it rightly deserves criticism (looking at you FFXV).

To be fair, I rarely enjoy side quests in games anyway. They usually detract from the pacing of the main plot and rarely add anything to the experience for me. It's a rare game that can invest me in a tangential plot. Just another reason why The Witcher 3 is a rare gem.

Edit: I'm much more apt to care about standalone story content, because it's a fully realized narrative of its own. I'd buy a spinoff before I buy a tack-on or a plothole-patch.

I certainly have no issue buying SP DLC - I have bought H:ZD, The Witcher 3, AC: Origins, FC5, AC:Odyssey etc SP DLC in recent years so I have no issue with SP DLC content at all. I have bought GotY/Complete editions too - Rise of the Tomb Raider and the Witcher 3 are examples - both on PS4 after getting both games originally on Xbox.

I do prefer to buy DLC to stand-alone in general - the only stand-alone DLC I have bought are Lost Legacy, First Light and the old blood (Wolfenstein) but I am not adverse to buying stand-alone DLC.

The motivation to buy SP DLC is often not just 1 thing - I can love a game but not feel like I want to buy the DLC but I have to like a game to buy - along with factors like cost, what it adds, where it fits in to the main game, who is involved, how long it takes to complete, does it expand on the playable area, am I still playing the game, moved on to something new or wanting to return to it etc. There are multiple factors and most are as important as each other. That also ties into reasons I may not buy the DLC too and again there isn't a 'main' reason - often several that are equally a factor.

I don't see a 'big' difference between SP or MP DLC in whether or not I will buy. The same reasons often factor in to both types. Blood and Wine was one of the best, if not best DLC I have bought and its better than some games taken on its own (without factoring in the rest of the Witcher 3). Others, like those SP Arkham Knight missions didn't appeal at all - not for the cost. Every game's DLC has to be looked at individually and assessed to see if I think its worth the investment - whether its SP or MP. Some is, some isn't. Just because I bought the Witcher 3's SP DLC, doesn't mean I will buy Spider-Man's. Just because I got the Platinum in GoW, doesn't mean I will buy DLC if they added some. It would come down to assessing it at the time and considering numerous factors that will be 'unique' to that DLC and my circumstances at that time - same as I would do with any other games DLC - SP or MP based...

This is a great debate and there is so much at play here, such as how much I like the game, how long until the DLC hits or whether the main game was enough for me. I loved The Witcher for example and finished the game and bought the first DLC but never played much of it, if anything I'm more likely to replay the main game. I never finished Horizon but want to go back and do so and may get the DLC for that, I finished Spiderman and loved it so bought the DLC and maybe they have it right with how close it is to launch as if it came next year I may not have bought it. When I think about it I tend to get DLC for the shorter games with Resident Evil VII having some of the best.

The main reason is these days games are so long to start with, so by the time I finish them (if I actually do) then the next games are out and I move on. Even now I have my next few months planned out as I've just finished Spider-Man and am currently playing Red Dead Redemption 2 and God of War side by side, whilst swinging back for the DLC. Then by January it'll be Resident Evil 2 and possibly Kingdom Hearts so any other DLC would simply fall by the wayside

@AdamNovice Well it's not an either or now is it? I would have preferred GoW be a complete game, or be titled GoW:Pt 1, or GoW:A New Beginning. Something other than the way it ended.

It is possible one good side effect of an all digital future is since we can't trade games in there's no reason for future DLC to keep us from trading them in. And once it's an all digital all streaming future we wont' even be buying games, they'll all just be monthly or yearly rentals, so there's really no reason for any DLC. Of course the downside is everything will be episodic like the Telltale games, or have announced DLC like FFXV get canceled, or a game like Lego Hobbit get put out for 2 of 3 movies with just rumors of the 3rd movie being DLC but that never happened. Still haven't played that one, I refuse.

There's always an upside and a downside to every situation, and every game and DLC is different. Well not every one, but there's a lot of variation.

This generation, I’ve only bought dlcs for Horizon Zero Dawn and Spider-Man.

I’m not counting standalone titles like The Lost Legacy and The Old Blood, these titles are like full games.

If I like the main game then I'll always buy the dlc eventually, provided the type of content is up my alley. If it's reasonably priced like recent Sony dlc has been then I'll buy it once I know it's all been released and reviewed, and if I consider it over-priced as with Ubisoft season passes, then I'll just wait for a decent price drop in a PSN sale and get it then 😀 Btw, I absolutely loved Lost Legacy and got it day one...I maybe even enjoyed it more than Uncharted 4! That elephant scene was adorable. I also really enjoyed Frozen Wilds expansion.

For me, it just depends on the quality of the dlc. I bought bloodborne dlc and beat it multiple times because the bosses in it are the best in the series. I bought horizon for the extra machines featured in the dlc. I skipped spiderman's because it doesn't offer anything really substantial.

@get2sammyb in many ways Sammy, hearts of stone is a more focussed slice of the witcher 3 experience with story that's not dependent on the main game. Genuinely one of the best dlcs I have ever played and one for people who liked witcher 3 but found the scale/scope just too big. Worth a punt if you get a deal.
EDIT:Sorry, didn't realise a few people had got in there and replied to you with the same stuff!!

The Old Hunters it the only one I bought directly, but I played many others DLC thanks to the Definitive Editions of their base game (Dying Light, Witcher 3, Resi 7...)
As @Carlos82 stated, the offer is just too big. I'd like to play the Prey dlc, but in the meantime many new games arrived and older games and DLC I haven't bought before went on sale.
I think videogames this gen have a very long life span.

If I really love a game, I'm happy to pre-order the DLC (even when it's arguably not great value for the money). Here's how I look at it--I enjoy supporting developers that have created content that I value. I almost view DLC as an opportunity to "tip" developers who made an incredible base game, and I get a bit of extra content as thanks for my patronage.

BTW, I've bought the DLC for Breath of the Wild, Horizon Zero Dawn, Spider-Man, Trials Fusion, and Mario Rabbids Kingdom Battle. No regrets.

@get2sammyb Never too late to bring Geralt back into your life. Never. Ever. Find a gaming lull and load it back up and I bet you'll might just get hooked again. And you can always just jam out the main story. Blood and Wine is amazing. It's big. One of the best DLC adds and right up there with Old Hunters and Frozen Wilds. Story-wise, it FAR surpasses any DLC expansion I've ever played--hands-down.

If a game I really want DLC from it's usually through Game of The Year editions or something of that kind. Buying the physical game twice has happened, one original and later the completed version (if available). But many times I've just waited for them to release a complete package and then starting shopping those for some lesser crowns, naturally, it's cheaper that way.

Stand alone DLC are priced too high so would rarely buy them. DLC should be linked to the game not a seperate entity. DLC also needs to come out within a short time period. I have little interest in going back to a game 6 months later to play some extra DLC.

Usually after the I've played a good chunk of the game and always when the DLC is discounted.

All of From Software's stuff has been a cut above the rest imo.

@Useyourname Mostly Double Dip if i like the game enough. 😁

Where is the option of I never buy DLC or I wait for the Complete/Royal Edition, to me the only DLC done right is the Free one like in Monster Hunter World keeping the game alive with nice updates that's how everyone should do it, but that's just my opinion

It all comes down to price vs length.
A lot of paid have 5 hours of gameplay, which is not worth 15-20 quid , sometimes 10. Where the main game is 30-40 hours . Example the first three destiny 2 dlc were not worth the money. Same for ff15 ; however there are some good companies that do decent, sizeable dlc . One comes to mind the witcher developers. Also in terms of stand alone dlc, the new infamous stand alone dlc was awesome as was watch dogs 1 dlc about the raymond kenny (although not stand alone)

The Witcher DLC is the only one I've really gone back for as the base game was so great. Plus, they'd made loads of incremental changes to the base game as well by the time I came back.

In most cases I never play such DLC as I've normally moved on from the game. I picked up the HZD DLC but couldn't get to grips with the controls going back and obviously went back at an end-game level.

I never bought FF15 because they'd announced so much extra content and now probably won't ever get round to it.

it depends on a lot of things, although this gen i've bought a lot less of it.. though i've bought a lot fewer games in general. generally if i've liked a game enough, and would like to see more of it, i'd definitely consider it. but i think the only SP expansions i've bought for PS4 are the first two expansions for destiny (dark below, and prison of elders) and frozen wilds for H:ZD. i didn't buy the destiny season pass, so each expansion was 20 quid separately. looking at the amount of content, especially if you take out the raid/pvp maps which aren't really single player content, it does seem terrible value for money.. but dark below came out and offered something more to the base game at the right time, and i think last time i checked one of the destiny stat trackers, i had something like 139 completions of the crota raid, so i played it more than enough for its value. for H:ZD, loved the main game, but didn't think more SP content was necessary since there'll inevitably be a sequel.. but i reckon the sequel will probably not appear til PS5, so the expansion was more of a PS4 swansong for H:ZD. it was pretty good value, and very enjoyable, so had no regrets. for other games, like God of War, or Uncharted 4, i thought the campaigns were pretty complete, and more weren't necessary. assuredly there'll be a sequel for GoW, and i'd rather not get fatigued on the franchise, so putting any new content/ideas into the sequel would be preferable. for some games with additional SP content, i either didn't like the game much in the first place (eg: arkham knight), or got bored/fatigued on it and didn't finish them (far cry, the witcher, ac:origins...) and couldn't face the thought of more of it. on PS3, extra content was generally cheaper and better value for money imo, and in some cases, like the tiny tina dlc for borderlands 2, had stuff that surpassed the main game.

i haven't really bought that many multiplayer packs for PS4 either.. the only one that comes to mind is battlefield 4, i bought most of those separately (not the premium pass). i think i downloaded some of the packs for battlefront when they were given away free, but can't remember if i even played them all. my PS4 transaction history shows that i've not bought anything on psn since october last year (H:ZD frozen wilds).

By the time DLC comes out I've moved on to new games.
Once I've finished and enjoyed a game, I don't really want to go back and there shouldn't be any need to add more content to a complete story/game.
I also don't tend to replay games, with all the new titles coming out and how big they are there's no time.

Not sure if I've ever bought story DLC/Season Pass for a single-player game. The only ones I've bought so far were ones that had multiplayer gameplay like Borderlands 2, Uncharted 2 and 3, the first Destiny, and For Honor.

I'll take single-player anything over multi-player any day.

Thoroughly enjoyed GR Wildlands in single-player and co-op. Haven't touched the PvP at all.

I usually buy single player story dlc if I enjoy the main game, I prefer expansion like horizon zd frozen wild / bloodborne the old hunters or a standalone game like lost legacy.

I bought spider-man ps4 dlc because I like the ip, but I don't like short dlc like that.

Games are long enough as it is. Add on another 10 to 20 hours even for games I liked, I just don't have the time. There is always another game waiting.

Always get story DLC for games I like. Only DLC I get.

I will buy them for games i like, but usually wait to play them until all of the story dlc is available to play

It's the only type of DLC I'm happy to buy, so an emphatic 'yes' from me. I'm not picky either, as longs as it is story-based I don't really care about price, time of release and so on. I prefer a continuation or side-story stuff, but an off-shoot can be really good as well.

I've always bought story DLC/standalone content for games I love like GTA4, Red Dead Redemption, TLoU, Dying Light, HZD, Uncharted 4, etc. That's why I really wanted a story DLC for GTA5😢

Probably because it's extra money to spend.
Or people are aware of industry practices so they wait for the special or full editions.

Even for games I like I'm iffy about getting extra story DLC. It's just more money out of my pocket that I could put to another game.

Hard to believe these DLCs don‘t sell well. As DLCs like HZD Frozen Wild is in the top ten in US/Europe charts of PS store almost every month. That makes me wonder, is it really not selling well or is it not hitting their absurd expectations.

DLC done right is wonderful. If a game I like a lot ends up offering new content later on, I'll most likely support it. I don't buy DLC to fix a game though, or offer a more complete experience.

I think by now it should be easy for most people to spot the difference.

Once I've beaten the campaign I've usually had enough and move onto something else.

Even games I love like Bloodborne, I downloaded the DLC and haven't bothered going back...