DLC vs Expansion Packs

[Gurkog]

I use the term 'content pack' for individual items, units, quests, etc. that sold seperately. I break out expansion pack for the ones that include a substantial volume of content and gameplay additions and/or changes. The distinction for me is the selling of an individual bit or a collection of stuff.

[Wintersong]

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?
  

I prefer expansion packs.

 

The problems with DLC include ridiculous pricing/content ratios, the feeling that the content of that DLC has been taken away from the core (especially day 1 DLC), etc. The good news about it is that you can pay just for the stuff that you want in your game. An expansion pack forces all its content so if there is something that you were not interested in (like they add a class and a companion you have no interest in), you are out of luck.

 

Vanity DLC are totally ok for me tough. No need to wait for expansion packs for some visual candy only stuff. Just price it right, ok? About companions, classes, races, new quests and such? Pack them all in the expansion pack! And give me a link to pre-purchase it!!!!

Edited September 16, 2012 by Wintersong

[Gorgon]

It's a bit like saying steam trains vs electrics. Proper game expansions harldy exist anymore, there's more money in DLCs and they don't necesarilly require a full developer team.

[Stun]

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

But isn't that the whole point of Project Eternity? To trigger that Nostalgia - to do things the way they used to be done?

 

Anyway, sure, the term "expansion pack" is meaningless since nowadays you can't go to the store and purchase a $30 add-on to an RPG. Instead, you have to Download it from an online site, thus even if it's an expansion pack, it's still DLC. But this semantics argument doesn't change the spirit of the entity. If They do make DLC for Project Eternity, then I want it to be exceptionally meaty. None of this "item packs", Horse Armor, downloadable companion crap. I want a big campaign that adds stuff to the original game while also doubling as a stand alone. Think: Neverwinter Nights 2's level of expansion packs. or at the very least, FO:NV's DLCs

Edited September 16, 2012 by Stun

[aVENGER]

If They do make DLC for Project Eternity, then I want it to be exceptionally meaty. None of this "item packs", Horse Armor, downloadable companion crap. I want a big campaign that adds stuff to the original game while also doubling as a stand alone. Think: Neverwinter Nights 2's level of expansion packs. or at the very least, FO:NV's DLCs

 

^This. A lot of crap passes for DLC nowadays, and even worse, people are actually buying it.

 

While I'd gladly pay good money for a full scale expansion pack (something like Tales of the Sword Coast for BG1), I have absolutely no interest in "horse armor" and similar nonsense.

Edited September 16, 2012 by aVENGER

[alanschu]

XPacks are also more transparent, in that you know that they constitute something separate from the original product's development phase.

 

Many expansion packs are in fact made of content that was considered and/or cut from the main release though.

[Humanoid]

I say go for the sequel immediately with the same tech. Sure an expansion that adds, what, 25% more to the game may be interesting when there's commercial pressure to make the official sequel sexier and shinier, but in the absence of that, why not go for 100% more off the bat?

[BSoda]

Expansion packs favor the player (a lot of content for a reasonable amount of money)

(small) DLC favors the developer (little new content for a _relatively_ high amount of money).

 

The results of this poll are no surprise. However, the recent rise of DLC is hardly happening because developers don't understand what their playerbase wants, it happens because it's been proven to be a good way to increase revenue.

[Highwinter]

DLC done right is fine and New Vegas was a pretty good example of doing it right. It needs to add a significant amount of new content, essentially being an expansion pack. It shouldn't cost

[ComradeGoby]

DLC is the worst thing ever created.

 

And the New Vegas dlc's were like **** expansion packs

 

Go back to expansion packs! Or better yet make the actual game longer

[Badmojo]

Depends on the game, honestly, if it is a fantasy game with elves/dwarves I would rather them go ahead and put up a new kickstarter for a new original IP that is NOT a tolkein fantasy. If its something trully original or they change the fantasy to something really interesting than I would like a full on expansions pack. DLC can die a horrible death, DLC is the worst thing that has come out of the gaming community in a long time.

[Troller]

Take this DLC word out of here hahah

Seriously, it's so loaded with corporate greedy that they just have to do away with it, and create some other word for DLC

Now expansion packs are a different deal.

[Lostbrain]

Only expansions pack. 'cause all DLC I have play are just parts of a potential full expansion.

[Lysen]

Neither of them. Make a new game instead! Like Icewind Dale, for example. Actually, it was just a big expansion pack.

[TechnoPallidin]

I think a mixture of both is in order. The thought of tying in special events with the game would allow for micro DLC and expansion packs for larger items.

 

For example a special Halloween event or Christmas type event could provide special armour, weapons, etc. Maybe a spell that turns enemies into reindeer or something, who knows. For these I think most should be free, maybe a couple of premium items. Just little things to help keep things going between expansion packs.

 

The bigger thing that would be awesome though would be some sort of world toolkit similar to what they provide for Skyrim, Fallout, etc. To allow people to extend the game as well.

 

I look at DLC for a PC game as things like, enhanced graphics packs, additional game audio, armour, weapons, maybe an NPC or two. Where the Expansion packs are more like the game add-ons of old, adding additional gameplay, new quests, equipment, areas, etc.

 

My two cents.

[GrayCodex]

For an RPG, dlc's are most certainly a let down. Remember most of the DLC's of ME(except for Lair of Shadow Broker) and DA:O. They were a mission of couple of hours length and couple of extra items, rarely adding to the lore or grandeur of the story. Its not a FPS, where couple of map/weapon pack can justify a $10 fee. Those small lore based missions should be given to modding community and devs might work on larger scheme of things, patching and expansion.

[RogueBurger]

I don't want to see anything less than 10 hours of content released for money. I don't care what you call it, just make sure there's actual meat there. And the main game should not suffer due to lacking it. Only complete stories all around.

[JWestfall]

A mixture of both, because why not?

 

Personally, I am more apt to buy a larger set of content for more money ("expansion pack" in the traditional sense) than cosmetic DLC. But if smallish DLC packs net the developers more revenue to make Eternity 2.0, than I say go for it.

[Shadow501]

I think a mixture of both would be good. Definitely focus more on expansion packs that add new areas or stoyrlines, but still have minor DLC (i.e. cosmetics, weapons, armor, etc.) available for those who want it. Basically make DLC more on the optional side.

[veryblackraven]

Expansion packs are great. DLC is a bit controversial thing. But if you remember Trials of the Luremaster you'll understand what kind of DLC I would like.

[GhostofAnakin]

Expansion packs. I hate DLC with a passion.

[LordCrash]

None of both. I would prefer good support of the game and bugfixing and then - if the game was sucessful and runs smooth - a real successor. I would rather wait two years for a successor of great scale than consuming DLCs every two months or expansion packs every 6 months.

[Terror K]

I'd like a mix personally. Some good-sized expansion packs, and perhaps a few extra smaller pieces of content now and then. Usually stuff that wouldn't warrant an entire expansion pack, but isn't just more of the same than we already have. Stuff that's small, but significant and original, and adds to the game world. For example, if running a guild or business wasn't in the base game, then perhaps a DLC could add such things.

[Badmojo]

The vast majority of DLC in games always made me feel like I was paying too much and getting ripped off for content that should have been in the game(most EA DLC). It was rare that there was something actually worth the DLC and felt like it added something new and not taken away something to be sold later (fallout and borderlands expansion for example). I choose full on expansions, I would rather they spend resources making full on expansions than waste time making small stuff.

[Gurkog]

its a little early to be discussing DLC... the game is barely in pre-production, I think.