DLC vs Expansion Packs

[Jozape]

The funds raised will be used to make the game, then its time to move on. Unless you guys want Obsidian to cut stuff out and sell them as DLC.

 

Stuff is going to get cut regardless. It's inevitable. I'd bet all my money on it being a guarantee.

 

 

Why would anyone want DLC is beyond me.

 

Because quality content is quality content? I actually rarely even buy DLC, but for example I did pick up all the DLC for New Vegas because they are great and Sawyer released a mod that made them even MORE great.

 

Like I said, you are paying way too much for a DLC that only accounts for a very, very insignificant part of a game.

 

And this is a crowd funded game, once the fund is used to make the complete game, that's it. What do you want them to do, start a Kickstarter for DLC?

 

They could use the money generated from sales to finish and release DLC.

[alanschu]

Like I said, you are paying way too much for a DLC that only accounts for a very, very significant part of a game.

 

Have you actually played New Vegas' DLC? It's a bit presumptuous to tell another person that I am or am not getting value for my dollar.

 

And this is a crowd funded game, once the fund is used to make the complete game, that's it. What do you want them to do, start a Kickstarter for DLC?

 

Do you not think that they are going to sell additional copies? Who do you think will profit the most if the game sells another 100k units? The game will sell, and they'll have already invested money into ideas both content and feature wise which are sunk costs.

 

You're making the assumption that the only thing that they can do post release is do another kickstarter. Ideally, they won't even need to do a kickstarter because this game will be such a huge runaway success that they'll have made millions on profits to do with what they want.

[Rajaat the Warbringer]

Much prefer a decent expansion pack over the usually trivial addition provided by DLC.

 

As long as it's sold in a collection on disc, I'll probably buy it either way. Otherwise it doesn't matter to me because I probably wouldn't buy it.

[Luckmann]

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.

I also like to think that Expansion packs should add things to the overall mechanics or setting of the main game. Like adding new classes, or a new region, etc. Tales of the Sword Coast did this well, and Throne of Bhaal did it competently. There's any number of good examples. The last thing we need is DLCs that feel "glued on" or "modlike". Which accounts for about 100% of them.

[Poolp]

Lots of DLC makes the game inconsistent both for the player and the developers (and can get quite expensive) : you never know what the play has done already or not regarding plot and equipments, level... Expansion packs make sure every gets the same stuff.

[Karranthain]

Expansion packs please. They usually expanded the story and introduced new mechanics at a scope far bigger than what DLCs can offer.

[Entropious]

DLC's have one purpose, and one purpose only - to get as much of our money as possible with as little work as possible.

[Darth Trethon]

As long as they do not become sellouts like BioWare with false advertisement, fixed reviews, blatant lies about the game close to release and shameless moneygrabbing moves like game content tied in with insanely expensive toys and a million preorder bonuses tied to different retailers to abuse the dedication of their truest fans in hopes of coercing them to buy multiple copies I'd be happy to support them by bying both DLC and expansions.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Darth Trethon

[Kaldurenik]

Lets see... Do i want: Rushed, bad, low quality , with little to no new features, rehashed models, textures, with maybe if im lucky a few hours of content with no QA for a higher price?

Or do i want a expansion pack that have: more content, QA, Higher quality, new features, new models, new textures, more gameplay hours and its cheaper?

 

Hmm let me think about this... Oh wait no need to think... Expansions.

 

DLC in general is made to milk the consumer with as little work as possible done with no real QA or anything. While expansions tend to have higher standards.

[Aedelric]

I would rather see a fully fledged expansion, more content for a more reasonable price.

 

No doubt most gamers are sick with companies ripping them off with release day DLC and overpriced armour/weapon mini DLC's. Mass Effect and Bethesda's horse armour are fine examples. From what I understand the current trend for smaller DLC's is not because customers prefer it, but because they take less time to make and thus more money can be earned. I believe people have always preferred large expansion packs. I guess this sorry state it is another industry standard we can thank publishers for.

 

Well, as this is Kickstarter project by Obsidian with no publisher interfering, I expect expansion/DLC to be done correctly with the fans desires in mind, not just their money.

[Skie Nightfall]

DLCs mostly feel broken, not connected canonically, and most importantly, forced.

It's rare to have one with an actual good story and relevance to it.

Waste of time and money imo.

 

Cosmetic DLCs are even more stupid. Just let the modding community take care of that.

[cyberarmy]

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.

 

 

Yup, i (WE) want good'ye olde expansion packs.

[draft1983]

I really dislike DLC. I hate how within a week of a game being released they offer a DLC for 7.99, for an extra few missions. I'd rather pay £30-50 8 months later for an expansion,and get it all in one go, adding a lot of new content to the current game. DLC is such a console concept.... the first DLC i saw was for one of the call of dutys, and i first though about how previous cod games for the pc you get all of this for free download just as an update. i thought thank god i play pc but then it started for pc games too O.o it's lame.

[Jimmy T. Malice]

I see that there's no option for 'No expansion packs'. I prefer games to come feature-complete at launch, or have new features added via patches like Valve games.

[Pidesco]

I want to see a gradual expansion and development of the world through multiple games.

[Jarmo]

Despite my earlier post, I'll have to mention.

 

Many of those wanting expansion packs and not DLC:s, are pretty accurately describing what many New Vegas DLC:s where.

 

Dead Money, Old World Blues, Honest Hearts.

Continue with your old charater, new area, new weapons and equipment, a whole new plotline to go through, a small games worth of gameplay.

 

Earlier on, these would have been called Expansion Packs,

downloading gigabytes worth of adventure would have been impossible so they'd have been released on CD/DVD.

(probably all 3 for $30 on one DVD instead of $10 each, giving twenty hours of additional gameplay, or something like that)

 

There are no more expansion packs, there are just DLC:s, either big ones or small ones, but they're all downloadable.

[Syraxis]

I liked how Bioware did NWN DLC in the form of self contained Premium modules, I wouldn't mind a combination of those w/ an expansion pack or two.

[alphyna]

What about making a complete game and then perhaps a sequel, without chunks of material inbetween?

[lordgizka]

When DLC are large, they might as well be called expansion packs, really. It's selling small quests, weapons, armor and the like for questionably large amounts of cash that's bad.

[Merin]

While I think the ground between DLC and Expansion Pack is muddy...

 

and there have been some great DLC (lots of Fallout 3 stuff, for example, and overall Bethesda is actually pretty good at this post horse armor) -

 

the DLC model bothers me enough that I'll say Expansion only.

 

With the last clarification that I want large chunks of new content purchasable, preferably a sequel that continues a story, for Expansions. Which many DLC packs could be considered as qualifying for.

 

DLC is almost synonymous for Expansions in all but certain "elite" circles at this point, however, and such a poll is almost simply an exercise in grumbling.

[Bendu]

I want to see both. DLC and Expansion Packs. I think both can coexist and complement one another. But right now I haven't seen a publisher doing it right. While DLCs should take place during the main campaign like in FNV, Expansion Packs should be some kind of expanded epiloge like Thron of Baal or Mask of the Betrayer.

[Gyges]

New Vegas DLC = expansion packs by another name

 

Obsidian, here's a comparison of dlc and expansion pack.

 

DLC: Kasumi - Stolen Memories

 

Expansion pack: Mask of the Betrayer (Best Rpg expansion i have ever played, thank you for this one)

Edited September 22, 2012 by Gyges

[evdk]

I see that there's no option for 'No expansion packs'. I prefer games to come feature-complete at launch, or have new features added via patches like Valve games.

Like, say, HL2?

[Hornet85]

There was one interview posted somewhere where Obsidian have said that they hope this Kickstarter and the sale will help them make a sequel. If not, then they will start another Kickstarter.

 

So it appears to me that rather than wasting their money on DLC or whatever, they aim to move on to the next project, or the next installment once this is done, and they may use Kickstarter if the money they earn from sales of PE is not enough.

 

Here you go:

If this goes well, could you see Obsidian shifting more definitively to a Kickstarter-based development paradigm?

 

It depends. Our hope? That Kickstarter and the sales of the final product allow us to self-finance a game on our own without needing to ask for donations ever again. I’ll be honest, I have no idea how likely it’ll be that we’d raise that amount of money, but if we couldn’t, we would definitely return to Kickstarter and see where the fans would like to see the next installment go.

http://techland.time.com/2012/09/21/project-eternity-chris-avellone-interview/

 

To me, I think that's the best approach. This is a crowd funded title, just make whatever they can, put it together, and move on to the next project.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Hornet85

[True_Spike]

I really dislike the concept of DLCs. Free or not, they are not worth an update the vast majority of the time. If you are to update and enhance the game somehow, do it in a big, ToB-like fashion. Don't release single quests, big or not, because it's not worth my time to go through the entire game once again only to experience a shred of an actual expansion.