DLC vs. Expansion

Nody

Ok, this risk becoming a rant but why can't we have proper expansions anymore? Everything is DLC this or DLC that; oh and here's a season pass for you to buy stuff you don't know if you want it in advance. It used to be you bought a game, a year later you'd have an expansion and the expansion was basically ~50% of the original game in added scope with further items for Multiplayer. The expansion would usually cost around 60% of the original price of the full price game or in a bundle at the price of the original game.

So why does everything has to be DLCs these days? Every DLC tends to cost a ton for the actual content provided; if you're lucky it is 5h long but usually it's a lot shorter. And the worst part is half the DLCs are utter and complete waste of space. At least in something like DoW 2 the expansions were skins and similar which I'm all for as DLCs (i.e. intended use) but it's an exception to the rule.

Which brings up the third annoyance; take something like XCom and you'll find that the DLCs cost more than the core game! To add insult to injury only 1 of the DLCs adds something significant (Enemy within) with one adding two missions and the third being purely cosmetic (shoulder pads etc.). How ever without being up to speed on the game you're likely to simply buy them all because you don't know which one you need anyway or none because you don't know what's good (esp. true for the 10+ DLC games with 50 costumes, 30 weapon packs and 3 missions; good luck knowing what's what or caring enough to pick them out!).

So why did this practice of expansions go away? Should we blame Valve for their episode developments to HL2 (it's faster, we promise!) or are gamemakers to afraid/lazy to bet their game will be a success and roll out expansion (throwing out a few reskin DLCs and a 2h pack don't take that much time after all)?

Retr0gamer

Blame horse armour.

Skerries

they got their asses handed to them for the horse armour but then they brought out proper dlc like Knights of the nine

Retr0gamer

Skerries wrote: »

they got their asses handed to them for the horse armour but then they brought out proper dlc like Knights of the nine

Horse Armour was put out there to test the water on how gullible people were when it came to DLC. There was huge controversy but it also sold quite well.

I much prefer my DLC to be either proper expansion type or mini expansions. As long as it's priced right I don't mind. Stuff like extra characters are fine as well again as long as the price is right and they significantly change the gameplay. I find sometimes expansion DLC can be better than anything in the main game and the short length also helps pace them better. Bioshock 2 was an absolute slog but the shorter play length of Minerva's Den and the more concise story made it far better than the base game. The Pitt in Fallout 3 is also a far better quest than anything in the base game.

johnny_ultimate

'At least 5 hours' seems like a very arbitrary way to judge content's worth or quality. I like that DLC allows games to expand with smaller episodes rather than full-on extra campaigns. Left Behind for the Last of Us is an exemplary example of DLC - can be played through in an hour or two, but it's a tightly paced and superbly written episode that doesn't get weighed down with the filler that is apparent in the core game. In some ways, when done right, I almost prefer those smaller, focused narratives over a sprawling retail release.

I downloaded two DLC packs yesterday, two of the first I've bought in a long time TBH, and they're both excellent examples of the form and potential. The Mario Kart new content is an excellent way of supplementing the original content with enough new tracks to give the lineup a boost. And Monument Valley's new content expands on the original game's mechanics and mood in a wholly satisfying way.

Aesthetic extras and the like I have no time for, but as long as they're completely optional and have no impact on the core game let them exist for those who are happy to pay. There is obviously a market for them, and that's fine as long as the game doesn't constantly remind me of their existence.

gizmo

A combination of two reasons from what I can see.

Firstly, this happened*.

Secondly, people bought them. Lots of them. It's been repeated time and time again but if people didn't buy the poor ones, we'd see a move away from the substandard and relatively high priced DLC packs we've had over the last generation or so. The same goes for Season Passes, if you don't know what the expansions are going to be, why on earth would you buy them?

The price thing is a bit of a misnomer though. In the case of X:Com, the price of the base price has fallen over time yet the DLC price hasn't. That's not really an argument against DLC or the price of it in general, it's an argument against the price of DLC remaining the same price regardless of how old it is. Not that I disagree with your point, I find such a strategy to be rather counter-intuitive and would certainly put me off picking up DLC for older games when I get around to playing them.

On the subject of pricing arguments though, johnny_ultimate mentioned the new Monument Valley DLC released the day before yesterday. Even with that fantastic game priced at $3.99 and the DLC at a paltry $1.99, this still happened.

*In case you're wondering why I'm linking an image of three character models from three iterations of the Unreal Engine, I find it to be an amusing visualization of how games have become more expensive to develop over time.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Its a bit mad buying a game and a season pass together, before you've ever played it unless you're 100% sure that you're going to like the game that much. At least wait until the first set of DLC is announced / released to make that decision. generally the price difference is only a fiver or so anyway.

Last actual expansions that I remember are GTA IV: TLATD & TBOGT

Sonics2k

I can get over DLC quite easily, as long as it actually adds something decent to the game, almost like an Expansion pack, eg Warcraft 2 Beyond the Dark Portal. That actually added a nice chunk onto the main story line, added more classes and even a few game modes.

Day One DLC though. Jesus that just pisses me off to no end. I go and spend money on a game, I expect to get the full game. I don't want to have to spend an additional €20 on a DLC story line pack that was ready on release. Just add it to the game you absolute bastards.

COYVB

Nody wrote: »

So why did this practice of expansions go away? Should we blame Valve for their episode developments to HL2 (it's faster, we promise!) or are gamemakers to afraid/lazy to bet their game will be a success and roll out expansion (throwing out a few reskin DLCs and a 2h pack don't take that much time after all)?

The blame isn't with developers or publishers. They're businesses who will do whatever they can to make money. The blame lies squarely at the feet of the punters who pay over their hard earned money for poor DLC, season passes and whatever else. If nobody bought it, developers wouldn't be pushed to make it by publishers, that's the bottom line

nesf

Who should we blame? Digital distribution becoming a thing. Big expansions were the rule in the disc days simply because it wasn't economical to release smaller batches of content for most games. Being able to toss up whatever for download with a price tag attached removed this barrier to more aggressive milking of games for cash so, ergo, DLC (and also patching and "it'll be fixed in the patches" crap). There's no mystery to this, if people bought different font packs for their FPS games EA and Activision would have dozens for you to choose from I'm sure.

Generic Dreadhead

I lost a modicum of respect for a mate when I heard he used MS Points to buy a skin for a gun in BLOPS 2

FWIW I hold C&C The Covert Ops up there as what I remember being the 1st ever "expansion" i was exposed to

Retr0gamer

I just ignore the ****ty stuff and buy the good stuff. After a rocky start to the whole DLC thing it's nicely settled down now and I've no real problem with it. Sure there's games that launch with lots of silly guns and reskins but you don't have to buy them.

Now how about the real terror. Full retail games that play like F2P games with dreadful grind mechanics... I'm looking at you Destiny.

Sephiroth_dude

I remember the days of expansion packs , loaded with hours of new content ,they were the days .

Generic Dreadhead

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Now how about the real terror. Full retail games that play like F2P games with dreadful grind mechanics... I'm looking at you Destiny.

Destinys Content, while i play it LOTs, was fed to the ravenous dogs that are Activision, they pulled it to pieces and served them to us as instalments. It wasn't meant to be like that from the start. Someone high up screwed the pooch on it and I'd be eyeing up the publisher in this instance. Ever since it's like Bungie are on damage control to avoid peeing off the community any more. It's sickening really, the game was 100% finished (let's assume) and they packaged 60% of the content into the retail version.

Grind mechanics, and game mechanics in general have no bearing on the subject matter of this thread. Far Cry 3 and Fall Out 3 had me hunting Boars or for decent ammo respectively, granted though they weren't directly related to levelling up though

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

I remember the days of expansion packs , loaded with hours of new content ,they were the days .

Printed to a disk, that game in a glass case, that game in a massive cardboard box, memories

Retr0gamer

Cormac... wrote: »

Destinys Content, while i play it LOTs, was fed to the ravenous dogs that are Activision, they pulled it to pieces and served them to us as instalments. It wasn't meant to be like that from the start. Someone high up screwed the pooch on it and I'd be eyeing up the publisher in this instance. Ever since it's like Bungie are on damage control to avoid peeing off the community any more. It's sickening really, the game was 100% finished (let's assume) and they packaged 60% of the content into the retail version.

I've nothing wrong with the content in Destiny. The problem is the grind once you reach level 20. It feels like a F2P MMO but you can't even pay to speed it up (which isn't a good idea either but why the hell is the grind so bad and content locked behind tht grind wall?).

Sephiroth_dude

Cormac... wrote: »

Printed to a disk, that game in a glass case, that game in a massive cardboard box, memories

And a big fat manual

Skerries

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

And a big fat manual

with some kind of anti piracy sheet or you had to enter a word from a certain page

Generic Dreadhead

Skerries wrote: »

with some kind of anti piracy sheet or you had to enter a word from a certain page

And an A2 Tech Tree

Retr0gamer

Skerries wrote: »

with some kind of anti piracy sheet or you had to enter a word from a certain page

On black paper so you couldn't photocopy it and give it to a mate.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

On black paper so you couldn't photocopy it and give it to a mate.

And then when you gave it to said mate you'd get the game back without that sheet.

Prick....

WeleaseWoderick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

On black paper so you couldn't photocopy it and give it to a mate.

Jesus, that brings back memories!!

I remember having Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on tape for the Amstrad 6128, and trying to read the codes on that dark paper was a nightmare!

ShadowHearth

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I just ignore the ****ty stuff and buy the good stuff. After a rocky start to the whole DLC thing it's nicely settled down now and I've no real problem with it. Sure there's games that launch with lots of silly guns and reskins but you don't have to buy them.

Now how about the real terror. Full retail games that play like F2P games with dreadful grind mechanics... I'm looking at you Destiny.

Well, reskins are all crapy DLC that you can avoid, but something like MS and Forza took day one DLC to a next level, where you pretty much have to buy 100eu package to get all content. If what car game lovers get shafted the most when it comes to abusing day one DLCs. Cutting out a car or a track is a lot bigger inpact then cutting out a reskin or a level outside of main story.
I love Blizzards expansions and they still manage to add a lot of content between expansions.

Kxiii

If the expansion pack adds new stories or extends game play then it can be worth it like gta or elder scrolls.

Forza 5 and the VIP dowloadable pack and season pass ruin the game if you dont buy them. As most of the fastest cars in each class are DLC, so no chance of ever getting near the top of the leaderboards unless I spend another €60.

ShadowHearth

Kxiii wrote: »

If the expansion pack adds new stories or extends game play then it can be worth it like gta or elder scrolls.

Forza 5 and the VIP dowloadable pack and season pass ruin the game if you dont buy them. As most of the fastest cars in each class are DLC, so no chance of ever getting near the top of the leaderboards unless I spend another €60.

And Car enthusiast can be really "loyal" to cars they like. Add one of the more Legendary or just a good car in enthusiast circles in to a DLC pack and you got them by the balls. Forza 5 is the very worst example of DLC money grabing. VIP and Season passes... The biggest reason I still dont own Xbox one.

RoyalCelt

The worst had to be Activision charging €2 for a wolf skin for your pet dog. And it had over a thousand ratings on the EU store so obviously a lot bought it. WTF

C14N

The way I see it, AAA games are moving more toward the "whale" model that F2P and mobile games are using. That being that they will have tons of players who buy the base game but make most of their money off the 10% or so who invest heavily in DLC. It seems like base games have become kind of unwieldy and unprofitable. They cost tons to make in both time and money and then when they're sold their are all kinds of problems. They have to pay to print up the discs, they have to pay for the logistics of getting them out there, they have to gauge the amount they need so as not to under or over-supply, the retailers get their own cut out of the game and after all of that, they go down to half the price within a year.

But then they can release DLC and it costs them almost nothing to make (in fact, they usually have teams left idle while a game is in launch mode so they can now get some more work out of them) on top of what they've already got. Then they sell it at an absurd price (going rate seems to be €10-15 for most DLC) and they can repeat this a few times. There's no shipping, no manufacturing, all they have to pay is for the servers and best of all, there's no middleman so the €15 you send to Activision for the map pack is almost pure profit and the price never goes down, even when the price of the game itself does.

It's a trend I really am not that keen on quite frankly. The excessive shilling with microtransactions and the like, as well as the seemingly bottomless pit of money to be spent is very irritating. I would much prefer if they could just keep their costs under control. I really feel like my biggest issue with DLC is the disproportionate cost to the consumer, especially with microtransactions which are just irredeemable in my eyes. If you can put together a decent sized amount of content in a package that is reasonably price as Nintendo seem to be doing with Mario Kart, I can at least apprehensively get on board with it.

gizmo

C14N wrote: »

But then they can release DLC and it costs them almost nothing to make (in fact, they usually have teams left idle while a game is in launch mode so they can now get some more work out of them) on top of what they've already got. Then they sell it at an absurd price (going rate seems to be €10-15 for most DLC) and they can repeat this a few times. There's no shipping, no manufacturing, all they have to pay is for the servers and best of all, there's no middleman so the €15 you send to Activision for the map pack is almost pure profit and the price never goes down, even when the price of the game itself does.

Generally speaking, a lot of this isn't correct, C14N. The kind of DLC that costs €10-15 is, more often than not, not the kind of DLC that costs almost nothing to make. Lower priced, more straight forward reskins could be argued to offer a fairly substantial return given the amount it'll sell relative to its cost to produce but once it gets more complex than that, you'll have multiple team members working on it, whether it's directly or indirectly, at various points throughout development. Even then, all content has a cost associated with it simply because you're paying staff to make it that would otherwise have been working on something profitable or simply not employed at all.

As for the developer or publisher take from DLC, well given the fact that it's sold digitally, in the majority of cases there will be a middle man involved. If you sell on the consoles, the platform holder gets a cut and if you're selling on the PC via Steam then Valve will get a cut. We saw what happened when EA tried to offer such content directly to customers when the title was available via Steam and Valve had and continue not to have, any of it.

No disagreement from me on the rest of your points though but as has been said repeatedly, the power in this case is in consumer hands and so far they seem to be mishandling it greatly.

K.O.Kiki

I bought all the non-multiplayer DLC for the Mass Effect trilogy...

magick

Coming from the Generation where pc mags used to have CDs on them for extra content, personally ill never pay for DLC. Add ons with pc mags were a way to keep the community alive and promote the game even further, Operation Flashpoint was great at this (granted that game was buggy) new maps weapons, all free.

Canis Lupus

I'm from the age of real expansions and definitely hate the move to DLC. Soon pc games are going to be like mobile gaming..... I have aquaintances that have spent literally thousands on Clash of Clans. Makes me cringe.

Personally I blame the world economy.. Stuff like DLC, The X Factor and The Hunger Games movies are all the result of tweenagers with disposable income.