DLC vs Expansion Packs

[Shevek]

I will not be shelling out 5 bucks a pop for a bunch of mini-expansions meant to bleed me dry. I would have raged back in the day if I had to pay extra for Trials of the Luremaster. I will shell out cash for meaningful expansions like Throne of Bhaal.

[Umberlin]

Let's put it this way: If the DLC were as big as I expect an expansion to be, by measure of the old school expansions we used to get to games, I wouldn't have a problem with DLC at all.

[DarkWanderer]

Mix would be awsome:

DLC - with some additional classes, companions, equipment, spells/abilities, missions

Expansion Pack - with some new story

[PrimeJunta]

Definitely expansions. Preferably big ones, and far between. DLC just tends to mess with the flow of the game, and I really don't want to start a new playthrough every time.

 

Come to think of it, I don't recall playing much DLC worth playing, in a cRPG anyway. Expansions can be rad though.

[Azgramir]

I hope they  put only expansion packs.

[Lychnidos]

What if the game is released as a DLC? 

[Marceror]

I'm mostly interested in "old school" expansion packs, but I'm not opposed to an occasional DLC if it's high quality and well-worth the price being charged. It would depend on what it included.

[Silent Winter]

Ok, but what if the expansion packs will be released as an DLC?

Then it's merely semantics.

Those opposed to what we call 'DLC' are referring to trickles of content of the 'add a single class' / 'add a single companion' / 'piglet armour' variety.

If the expansion pack is released as a large amount of content at a fair price, then all's good.

 

Or are you referring to releasing the expansion pack piecemeal?  In which case, no thanks.

[Marceror]

An expansion in the "old school" sense of the word is likely to contain as much content as 4 or 5 DLCs in today's world, or in other words, perhaps all the DLC that gets released for a game these days might have all been bundled into a single expansion pack.

 

You would usually have several significant new quests, perhaps a new class/race, lots of new items, enemies, and monsters in an expansion.

 

DLCs tend to give you new weapons in one DLC, new armors in another, and a new quest in yet another. They are small bites, rather than a full meal.

[Bryy]

This is a purely commercial decision, not a developer/designer one

I love how you think there's a difference.

[Zeckul]

Certainly would not be happy about small content packs that don't change the game in any major way. I'd rather have the team focused on making new, even better RPGs, possibly an expansion to PoE but mainly its sequel. PoE is only the beginning.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Zeckul

[Marceror]

There are already plans to create an expansion for PoE.

[Zeckul]

There are already plans to create an expansion for PoE.

Good, I wasn't sure.

[CameraLuv]

Prefer full expansions. I will never pay for DLC.

[Quantics]

It's probably already been said, but I think while DLCs make sense in a heavily multiplayer game (like Diablo), they are completely inadequate for a single player game such as PoE. 

 

When you start a new single player game, you don't want to have new stuff added to the game before you're finished. 

 

Conversely, imagine a new class is added as a DLC, you don't want to have to restart a whole new game in order to benefit from it. 

Edited September 23, 2014 by Quantics

[Ink Blot]

Ex[ansion packs. Pretty much agree with what Quantics said.

[rjshae]

In my mind DLC often seems to equate to side quests--I much prefer content with a broader scope, so I'd rather see an expansion pack with a longer story arc and new features. Not that I have an issue with DLC per say, but I typically wait until all of the DLC is available in a single release. For that reason, the continuing release of DLC has caused me to hold off on game purchases.

[Ink Blot]

For that reason, the continuing release of DLC has caused me to hold off on game purchases.

Exactly the same here. Which works out fine for me, as usually the complete/ultimate edition is much cheaper, since it generally appears many months down the road. But doesn't work out so great for the devs, as they get less money for the product.

[Matt516]

No weapon/item DLC. That stuff is exploitative ****, ruins balance, breaks immersion. Just no.

 

Expansion pack with new story and missions are wonderful.

[Monte Carlo]

I would pay extra for a special PATRIARCH edition EXPANSION PACK. This is a manly-man version that includes chainmail bikinis, killing-stuff XP, no emo NPCs or story-tyme and spiky armour for evil characters.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Monte Carlo

[IndiraLightfoot]

True story: I didn't know what DLC meant until I played Dragon Age: Origins and ran into a grove and found a dead body with a weird UI message on it. Then my DLC virginity was lost. 

 

 

For this very game, Id like to pretend I still have it, so only expansions, please.

[Monte Carlo]

Dragon Age's DLC strategy...

 

Here is an artist's impression of the Bioware marketing and online team's meeting shortly before the game released:

 

[IndiraLightfoot]

This is what they should have said when the evil plans had been summoned sacrificially on that vile altar:

 

[bronzepoem]

A system where you pay a larger fee for an expansion pack which can start from the end or the middle of the game, like Tales of the Sword coast for BG1.

[NikoBolas]

I'd rather shell out for an expansion pack then shell a little for nickel and dime DLC. To me, DLC always feels like things that could have (should have?) been including in the main game experience but someone decided they could make some extra money by charging extra. On the other hand, expansions typically feel like a moderate amount of work that is done to refine game systems and further the experience, usually with ideas that could not have been included in the main game (D3:RoS is a notable exception as they intentionally held back the Jeweler artisan for expansions despite coming up with and iterating on the idea in the beta).