DLC vs Expansion Packs

[Intoxicated_Ant]

Regardless of what will happen, what would you personally prefer to see in terms of content being added post launch?

• A system of DLC, such as in Mass Effect, where you pay a small fee for extra characters, armour, missions, etc
  
• A system where you pay a larger fee for an expansion pack which adds onto the end of the game, like Throne of Bhaal for BG2
  
• Or a system incorporating both together?
  

[Sammael]

This is a purely commercial decision, not a developer/designer one, so, Feargus, if you're reading this: PLEASE. NO. DLC. WHATSOEVER.

 

Expansion packs, OTOH, are fine.

[Darji]

Regardless of what will happen, what would you personally prefer to see in terms of content being added post launch?

• A system of DLC, such as in Mass Effect, where you pay a small fee for extra characters, armour, missions, etc
  
• A system where you pay a larger fee for an expansion pack which adds onto the end of the game, like Throne of Bhaal for BG2
  
• Or a system incorporating both together?
  

 

 

Personally I think they should work on the next game or on the toolset and than let the community do the rest.XD

 

but if DLC than like they did in New Vegas. That was actually really worth the money.

[Infinitron]

New Vegas DLC = expansion packs by another name

[Intoxicated_Ant]

Personally, I'm 100% for XPacks. I would also buy DLC, but mostly just cosmetic things. I'm never happy when a new character is introduced via DLC, I always feel like it's ruining my version of 'cannon' If that makes sense.

[The Sharmat]

Given modern distribution methods blurs the difference between the two, I guess we're primarily measuring DLC vs. Expansion Pack by amount of content? If that's the case I greatly prefer expansion pack levels of content to dozens of microtransactions.

[mkreku]

Both. Why not? The more, the better.

 

Just make sure that it feels like additions to the game after the fact instead of cut out content that should have been included in the game to begin with. This is the only thing I dislike about DLC today.

[Sarog]

Just from a narrative point of view alone, I much prefer XPacks. A handful of episodic DLC adventures aren't nearly as satisfying as a singly lengthy chapter added to the primary storyline.

[Seagloom]

I voted for the third option to express indifference toward either approach. Obsidian has been very good with DLC. Treasures of the Sun and the four New Vegas DLCs all added a nice amount of new content. As long as they maintain that standard of quality, DLC is fine by me. Ditto with expansion packs. Mask of the Betrayer was awesome stuff. Storm of Zehir, not as much, but it wasn't as if I felt ripped off paying full price for it.

[Tamerlane]

Expansion packs!

 

In the name of almighty Brood War!

[Shades]

I say expansion packs all the way, and only expansion packs. The problem with DLC is that, as we've seen with Dragon Age: Origins, keeping track of all those DLC decisions and getting them to transfer over properly into the next game seems to be a serious pain. Often DLC seems to be very small and because they're sold apart from the game they don't really mesh well with main storylines. Expansion packs fit together well, continue the story, and have a lot of content in them that doesn't seem stuck on.

 

But mostly I'm just old fashioned and love to have something that I can actually buy and put on my shelf.

[nikolokolus]

DLC like F:NV is fine because that added more actual playable content and entirely new story lines to explore, which are always fun, but if it's like the horrific crap Bethesda put in with Oblivion (3 dollars for non-fucntional horse armor for instance) then I want no part of it.

 

When it feels like a developer is just withholding something from the original release so they can chisel it out of you later because they know that people aren't going to want to feel like they're missing something, that's somewhat distasteful.

[Labadal]

I'd prefer expansion packs everyday of the week. Release the original game and see how it goes. If you're happy with sales, then you start working on an expansion pack that continues the story of the original game or is a separate adventure. DLC packs can work for some games, and I have bought more DLC than I probably should have, but I don't see DLC working for this type of game.

[Reddie]

I hate DLCs with a passion. Not for what content they individually offer, but what they represent as a whole: tiny chunks of game with totally inadequate price.

 

Even if Project Eternity's DLC would not be like that, it would still be an endorsment of this practice. So, even if it gets down simply to naming decision: big no-no to DLC.

[Intoxicated_Ant]

 

When it feels like a developer is just withholding something from the original release so they can chisel it out of you later because they know that people aren't going to want to feel like they're missing something, that's somewhat distasteful.

 

A very valid point!

[Sarog]

XPacks are also more transparent, in that you know that they constitute something separate from the original product's development phase. Companies that make use of DLC are more and more getting into murkey waters where they sell you content that is already on the disc you bought with the original product, justified with vague assurances of how the content that is already on your disc would never have existed if they hadn't allocated post-disc development time to it.

[gandalf.nho]

Expansions packs without doubt

[Enoch]

This question is silly. It's purely a dog-whistle for traditionalists who want to vent about the way certain games publishers have used post-launch content over the last decade or so. The term "expansion pack" is meaningless, apart from the nostalgia-trigger-- do you think that you're going to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a box with a disc in it for $35? The only game that still works like that anymore is WoW.

 

 

It's way to early to be talking about this kind of thing, but the core principle for post-launch content remains the same as it was in 1997: Fans will be happy if you make good content and offer it at a fair price.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Enoch

[Tychoxi]

I voted both, yeah expansion packs are great, but DLC is not necessarily bad. I would believe in Obsidian to produce decent DLC (it adds to the game and is priced fairly), besides sometimes the distinction between DLC and EXPACK is so contrived! Technically expacks are DLC! where do you draw the line with between small expacks and large DLC? As long as it's not some crap made to cash-in I don't see any harm.

[Intoxicated_Ant]

This question is silly. It's purely a dog-whistle for traditionalists who want to vent about the way certain games publishers have used post-launch content over the last decade or so. The term "expansion pack" is meaningless, apart from the nostalgia-trigger-- do you think that you're going to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a box with a disc in it for $35? The only game that still works like that anymore is WoW.

 

 

It's way to early to be talking about this kind of thing, but the core principle for post-launch content remains the same as it was in 1997: Fans will be happy if you make good content and offer it at a fair price.

 

I would disagree, In my view DLC are *usually* smaller content that has a single focus, for example a cosmetic pack, a single new side mission, new character, etc,

 

On the other hand XPacks tend to expand onto the end of the game. The distribution is irrelevent. An XPack can still be downloaded. But it contains more content then a single DLC pack.

[Covnam]

I prefer the traditional expansion pack to the more common dlc that is seen today. Especially since most dlc tends to add to the existing game, but is useless if you've already finished the game. New weapons, another companion, a new bar? Great, that would have been fun months ago when I was going through the game, but now it's not a reason to replay the whole game. With an expansion pack I know that it takes place after finished game and contains a whole new storyline (along with other content) to follow.

[elfbarf]

I'd rather wait the extra time for a full expansion pack which expands upon the game as opposed to just offering random sidequests as DLC.

[LadySpace]

Not a single "DLC only" vote. And publishers wonder why their fanbases are drifting away from their business practices.

[Seagloom]

I would disagree, In my view DLC are *usually* smaller content that has a single focus, for example a cosmetic pack, a single new side mission, new character, etc,

 

On the other hand XPacks tend to expand onto the end of the game. The distribution is irrelevent. An XPack can still be downloaded. But it contains more content then a single DLC pack.

 

That has not been the case with Obsidian, however. Fallout: New Vegas had a few preorder item packs that were eventually bundled as DLC and the Gun Runners' Arsenal that added more items and some challenges, but the majority of that game's DLC was meaty story content. Treasures of the Sun not only added a new area and quests to Dungeon Siege III, but an item crafting mechanic that retroactively affected the entire game. Given their track record so far, I'm not too worried about Obsidian's DLC.

 

As for expansion packs adding on to the end of a game, that is not always the case. Tales of the Sword Coast added side missions to Baldur's Gate. Shadows of Undrentide and Hordes of the Underdark were entirely new campaigns with tangential connections to the OC at best. Ditto with Storm of Zehir. If Obsidian released a DLC beefier than their usual already substantial past offerings and increased the price, it would pretty much already be an expansion pack in everything except name.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Seagloom

[Monte Carlo]

DLC is here to stay we might as well rail against online delivery systems like Steam (yes, I had to give in too eventually).

 

In fact, I think the difference is semantic... and I'd rather have regular smallish updates when possible in DLC form and then bigger DLC too (which, in old money, is an XP as far as i'm concerned).

 

So I voted for both. If there is some DLC to keep things fresh whilst waiting for a big XP-type of DLC then I'm cool with that. Because I want to give my money to these guys if this thing is as cool as I suspect it will be.