Does DLC Make Games Too Long?

DLC is fine as long as it isnt just part of the unfinished game they charged separately because they never finished the game.

Artificial length is not a problem unless there are specific items you can only get in the dlc that are so overpowered you would skip the main game to get the dlc items. DLC that adds nothing but some reskins should not be added except in dlc packs of multiple skins, there are too many games where you can only buy cosmetics for 1 character and there are 20+.

Something similar happened to me with some games like Metal Gear Rising and Dishonored. I ended the main story and when I tried to start the dlcs, I got bored (but ended up finishing Metal Gear dlcs, not the same with Dishonored tho)

And what about DLCs that "upgrade" the gameplay along with a patch?

I often find that games that I once finished, gets updated (often with the release of a new DLC) and the changes are so substancial that feels like a completely different game. Sometimes is for the better, but sometimes it ruins the game.

If I enjoy every bit of the main game, i probably won't lose my interest during the dlc-s. Or if i get bored, I return later. But in case of the Witcher 3 or AC origins I would be happy if there are more quests more things to do when i finished all the questlines.

It's very subjective I think. Not all DLCs are like that, but yes I do get the similar feeling from most DLCs. I think is the DLCs is incoperated well enough with the main game, or are short and scattered around the playthrough, then they usually work better. DLCs that add a complete separate story line spanning a few hours are the ones that I usually end up skipping. However, I still almost always prefer getting the all DLCs when possible.

Doesnt come to mind when I have disliked DLC.. If I love the game I'm going to wish as much as possible from it. I was a bit overwhelmed by borderlands DLCs.. But still I got through them and they where fun.

What I do hate about DLCs is - publishers putting content that should be in the main game but wanted to earn some more so they put it in 100 useless DLCs so they can ask 10 eur for the base game but all the DLCs cost small fortune. I hate DLCs for that reason, but if I get more game I am happy. When some big update comes after some time game has been out, I dont mind if it gets put in DLC.... but if there are already 3 DLCs that cost the same as the game at launch - thats just middle finger to players..

I grew up in the '90s playing mainly SNES games. Often they didn't even have internal save storages, so you had to restart them all from scratch every single time. I remember a nice Batman game, and of course all the Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct etc. kind of ones, there was also a Bruce Lee great one and well, tons of compact games. I loved a Power Rangers one.. well, they were compact as I said, you had to stay there hours and there was no complex things to spend hours upon, you had to do the same things each time and me and my friends used to play all these games every day basically. I played tons of JRPGs too which has always been my favourite genres and with the coming of PS1 and PS2, like, Final Fantasy 7 onwards, no DLC had ever been invented. And it was great. I don't like expansions or such, I started dealing with them with Warcraft I think.. as DingDong2 wrote, often DLCs are released after I played a game and so I'm like "I've already finished it, why should I restart it and relearn controls and everything else for additional contents?" and, again, often they are there only to make the game too long without adding interesting things. I often tend to play GOTY or full editions of the games and I'm fine with that, I like DLCs if they contain soundtracks and bonus things but usually if they are just there to make you pay more and to uselessly make the game longer I don't like them. I don't want an useless dungeon or bonus area when I've already played the main story. Everything important in my games should be in the main one =P I really don't wanna pay for bonus skins or useless heroes or whatever else a DLC may contain.. there are exceptions though of course!

that question/poll is so loaded, overlooking the whole "pay more or have less" factor

I've been spoiled by indies, but I'm really fond of the continually free updates they can get... Even minecraft still does free updates, and all the paid content is totally optional skins and themed maps.

Then there's stuff like crypt of the necrodancer, where the zone 5 dlc was just flipping amazing. I generally liked the dlc for Fractured But Whole too. Back in the day, Rollercoaster Tycoon did it pretty well too.

The models that Cities Skylines and The Sims uses drive me up the wall. Continuous new content but it's always like, 20 bucks a pop. It's ridiculous and outdated.

I think it depends. I loved everything about Hollow Knight, but Godmaster was simply too much. I'm not really into boss rush modes.

Story DLC only make games long if you decide to play too much at once.
Also you can uninstall the DLC and install it when you are through with the main game / story arc

As for cosmetics...They don't matter

Some games like Witcher 3 i finished twice and then when the dlc's came out... oh my joy...i finished them all and i wished i had more...
Some games like Darkest Dungeon add certain variety and flavor to an already very good base game.
For some games like fallout 4 dlc's (official and non official from community) make the game sooo much better.
And finally for some games like card games DLC's are necessary for the survival of the game itself.
But that just me saying...

I think many DLC (and game) focuses too much on length instead of variety and depth - and this is made even worse by the number of games trying to capitalize on that people like to have full collections by instinct. This equals more DLC and more "content" that is shallow, often making games feel to be even longer than they are.

If you are getting bored with games, then they just arent fun.
You like the idea of the game so you play it, but it doesent hold your interest because you didnt actually like it enough.

Games like Prince of Persia for example had a DLC that added epologue to the story, which was good.
Age of Empires has DLC with more campaign, which I loved.
Age of mythology was my favourite with the titans DLC.
Witcher 3 has DLC which most people liked.

The story based DLC or Expansions like they were called before simply give you another reasonto play the game longer. Its only good if you liked the game in the first place.

I totally agree.

To summarize: not only what you said, but sometimes DLC actually screws the balance of the base game, ruining a potentially good experience.

(Yes, there are exceptions, those rare DLC which are carefully designed to EXPAND the game instead of just screwing around with it. Like, The Witcher 3 DLCs.)

I would say it really is a case-by-case sort of thing but then I am not a fan of sweeping generalities or "rules of wrist" as other Boondock Saints fans might say.

For me, a lot of it t comes down to DLC-quality and type of game. I voted potato because there wasn't a choice for "mixed feelings". If it's a story-driven game and the DLC quality adds to the game in a way that makes it worthwhile, it doesn't feel "too long" to me. Half-assed and rushed DLCs or DLCs that don't really add much story depth, I will tend to agree with you more that it makes it "too long". In other cases, I don't think DLC really makes a difference; especially in games that aren't very plot heavy. I guess what I am trying to say is that "too long" for me means "when it stops making the game interesting" rather than fitting into some arbitrary time block.

In the case of Borderlands 2, I tend to agree with you in that they made the game "too long". Especially the overly long length of some of the areas, the lack of teleporters through some of the areas that you had to frequently traverse, and how the fetch quests made you go back and forth through them like crazy. That was just a dick move on the part of the devs. If some of those issues had been addressed better, I think it could have been a lot more enjoyable and thus not "too long".

Haven't played POE DLCs yet so no comment there. I remember some Bethesda DLCs being decent and some being utter garbage.

In ARK: Survival Evolved, you got entire new maps and more items/dinos. It definitely made the game "longer" in the sense that there were more places to explore. But I was a strictly PVE player, played only on an extremely low population dedicated server, and played primarily on the default map. My issue was that I would just sink too much time into that game regardless of DLC or not. Partly that was mods. Partly that was grind. Partly it was me being too dumb to stop lol.

Sometimes. Depends on the game and on the DLC, I think.

Shadow of Mordor, for instance. Great game, loved playing through it, but once I beat it and moved on to the DLC, I quickly dropped it. It just didn't feel like the extra stuff was giving me anything substantially different enough to justify keeping on with it at that point. I'll probably go back and pick 'em up later and enjoy the heck out of 'em, but all in one go was just too much.

The Witcher 3, on the other hand, I seriously thought that wasn't going to be able to get into Blood & Wine, that it was going to burn me out in a similar fashion. But the setting by itself is just so starkly different from the main setting (and Hearts of Stone) that I almost immediately felt refreshed. As much as I enjoyed the main storyline, everything in it was war-torn and dirty. Going to the bright and vibrant countryside of Toussaint was a much needed vacation from all that doom and gloom, so even though it was pretty much a whole other game in itself in length, I happily played through it then and there.

Really depend of the game, sometimes the DLC are used to give you the full game experience that have been vut from the base game. Other times is just pointless.

I think if you add a bunch of DLC before you even start a game that doesn't need them, then yes. It's different for strategy games where DLCs add more opions. But, if you played the main story of, for example, an RPG and wish there was more, then that's a good reason to add extra DLCs.