Obsidian DLC Survey

[Achilles]

TL;DR - Please make more expansions like MotB and stop making narrative-breaking DLC like White March.

 

 

So...I completed the survey, but am a little disappointed that I wasn't able to provide context for my answers.

 

I own all of the DLC that you've made, save Storm of Zehir. Based on the survey, one might assume that I love DLC. I don't.

 

Why not? Because it completely up-ends the narrative. Take FONV for instance: you're in the Mojave, trying to deal with Mojave ****...then you're plucked out of it and dropped somewhere else to deak with some other story. Once that's resolved, you're unceremoniously dumped back into the base game. Absolutely possible to go on, but it takes work to get back into the head-space you were in 10-15 hours ago. Repeat this experience 3 more times. I can only speak for myself: I'd rather not do it at all.

 

The FONV DLCs were amazing (in and of themselves). The FONV DLCs were horrible (for the base game).

 

I have similar issues with The White March...it was very good, but jarring to be pulled out of one narrative, inserted into another, then dropped back into the first. Please don't do this.

 

Now, expansions...different story. MotB is amazing. I've replayed the entire NWN2 campaign just because I've gotten the itch to experience MotB again. Separate narrative. First story was completed, then expanded upon. Please do more of this.

 

DLC can be done well. Dungeon Siege 3 had a Causeway mechanic that made additions to the story fairly seemless. Mass Effect 2 had a lot of DLC, some of it good and some of it bad. The good stuff was seamless and enhanced the main narrative rather than interrupting it (Zaheed, Kasumi, Normandy Crash Site, Arrival, arguably LofSB and Overlord). Mass Effect 3 DLC From Ashes and Leviathan are also examples of additional content done well (Omega and Citadel are examples of content done poorly).

 

I love your studio and love supporting you guys. I've bought some of your games multiple times (cross-platform). I've backed all of your kickstarters (including LoER and Scrimish here). In the interest of continuing to support you guys, I will probably continue to buy your DLC. It would make me so, so happy if it could be content I could love without reservation. If it's going to mid-campaign content, make it enhance the narrative rather than branch off on it's own. If you really want to tell another story in the same world, please use expansion packs.

 

Ok, I think that's it. I'm climbing off my soap box now. Thanks for reading.

[Revan91]

Edit: WTF? The forum has deleted my post when I pressed "post" instead of sending it correctly.

 

Edit 2: I'll write again.

Well, I agree completely with the poster above.

As much as I liked TWM (and it was really great, part 2 especially), I much prefer having expansions a la Mask of the Betrayer, that are instantly playable right from the start menu.

 

Also, I think DLCs like TWM or the New Vegas ones feel like they're made for people who just buy GOTY editions of your games, and instead are kind of a pain in the ass for your most loyal fans who buy the games at day one and then have to start a new game and replay for 15-20 hours just to gain access to the new content, or reload an old save if they still have it which comes with other problems, like the fact that you have a strong PC that will not face any challenge since the DLC is made with level 7 PCs in mind.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Revan91

[Dayen]

My response on what game categories I like only accounts for games released to date, which I think is unfair to the genre of tabletop simulation. If there were a good platform that didn't cost $400 like Fantasy Grounds, I'd find the genre far more interesting. If you're considering this as an avenue for low-overhead production, I'd encourage it. Especially if you duplicate the lightweight mechanics you use for your games.

 

Also: I don't pre-order (although I will support a handful of companies whose work I find pleasing via crowdfunding, including Obsidian, because being a patron is different than being a mark). I don't buy season passes. I rarely buy DLC (notable exception: Paradox Games' grand strategy games tend to get my money for DLC; obviously GOTYs excluded). I'm not interested in post-market capitalization schemes. I generally finish a game (or not) and then I'm done with it, so DLC holds no value to me unless it's an old school expansion to a game with a bunch of new content to promote a new story line. Which comes with the caveat that the first story line had to be worth playing through (example: Dishonored had an excellent story line; Dishonored 2 was incredibly boring by comparison).

 

An important point: if a game looks like it's being parceled out through DLC, I will not purchase it. It has to be a complete game when it ships, which is a significant factor in why I do not pre-order.

[Aargh]

I don't understand what is meant with a "Roguelike Mode" in the survey.

[ET3D]

I didn't answer the survey because I hardly play games these days, so figured my voice shouldn't count. But I agree with Achilles, in the 'good old days' we had a game and then expansions where we could take our character to another level (or start with another one) in a new story. That was a good model. I have no problem with a DLC when it's an expansion.

[Achilles]

I don't understand what is meant with a "Roguelike Mode" in the survey.

I assumed that it meant making a post-production pass to enhance an underdeveloped game mechanic. In fact I thought specifically of the director's cut for Deus Ex: Human Revolution where they added non-combat options for the boss fights after everyone complained.

[Zoraptor]

Take FONV for instance: you're in the Mojave, trying to deal with Mojave ****...then you're plucked out of it and dropped somewhere else to deak with some other story.

 

The 'Beefy' vs 'Seconds' options in the dlc preferences question does imply that difference since the two options are both for large expansions which take a lot of time but the 'Seconds' one is specifically for standalone type expansions. In context that presumably means an 'add on' MOTB type rather than an 'add in' type.

 

I don't understand what is meant with a "Roguelike Mode" in the survey.

 

Typically a roguelike would imply a randomised world (not necessarily fully randomised) and permanent death.

[injurai]

B E E F Y

[Achilles]

 

Take FONV for instance: you're in the Mojave, trying to deal with Mojave ****...then you're plucked out of it and dropped somewhere else to deak with some other story.

The 'Beefy' vs 'Seconds' options in the dlc preferences question does imply that difference since the two options are both for large expansions which take a lot of time but the 'Seconds' one is specifically for standalone type expansions. In context that presumably means an 'add on' MOTB type rather than an 'add in' type.

I get why they designed the survey this way, but I really wish that hadn't been a radio button question. I chose "Seconds", but would have also liked to have been able to select Nothing and explain why.

 

In case it wasn't clear my preference isn't "Beefy vs Seconds" (which selecting the later would have made clear), but rather "Seconds vs Nothing". I'm not opposed to well-integrated DLC, just upset that there isn't more of it.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Achilles

[Hurlshort]

I agree about stand alone expansions being vastly superior. 

[ShadySands]

I picked the mixed bag option because I like it all

 

I only play a few games a year and I'd prefer them to get as much extra content as possible

 

B E E F Y

[thosta]

To question 5, none of them would hugely factor in my decisions because if its an Obsidian game and I love it, then I'm buying it.

 

To question 9, I only play two of these genres (three if you squint), do I really have to rank all of them?

 

 

For a bonus round.

White March was awweeesssoooommmmmeeeee.

BUT I agree with the OP in that the transition b/w Main Game and White March was too abrupt and jerky. I had trouble with justifying why my character would go on such a long trek with their soul in peril (hello Maerwald) and while on an already important quest. It would have been better, imo, if the hook was something about following a trail where one could stave off the coming insanity of being Awakened to justify the time spent.

 

Like if you were doing something similar with Deadfire, I would urge a compelling hook like finding a super magical cannon that you could strap to your ship and blow Eotha's head off with it, even if it turns out said cannon doesn't exist.

I know White March tried a hook with Leaden Key agents but it was not compelling enough to prompt me to drop everything and go after them.

 

Also it bothered me that I had to be mindful of Stronghold business while being far away. Soooo annnoooyyyiiinnngggg! But I imagine this won't be so much of an issue since we have much more manageable stronghold now.

[Lexx]

Price never matters to me, unless we're talking about horse armor, or the game is getting flooded with cheap DLCs like Payday. If it's a game I really love (like, for example FNV), then I just want more content under any circumstances.

Thing is just.. this doesn't apply to any game. FNV completely hit the nail on the head for me. It's a one-in-10-years kind of game, where I'd eat anything I can get. The same would not apply to e.g. South Park, just because Obsidian made it.

 

Heck, they could release a new FNV DLC right now for 30€ and I'd buy it without wasting a thought on it. They could release a new DLC for Dungeon Siege 3 and I likely wouldn't even notice it exists.

 

PS: Shouldn't someone merge all these survey threads into one?

Edited October 4, 2017 by Lexx

[dal]

Q9 - not valid. Real answer is

RPG - 1

Shooters - 3

Strategy - 5

all other - 10

sports and casual - 11

[Zanos]

I don't think game modes or options or tiny little content packets should be DLC. They should just be in the base game. I'm only interested in expansion style DLCs. I appreciate that Obsidian has a good track record in this regard. It seems the AAA industry is going in that direction, especially with the ongoing kerfuffle with Skyrim/Fallout/Shadow of War. I've bought all of Obsidian's DLC except for the Tyranny(still playing PoE) and Dungeon Siege stuff because I don't own either of those games. I wouldn't consider anything I bought to be a poor value, but I did think that Gun Runner's Arsenal for New Vegas was on the weaker side since it was just a bunch of weapons(it was cheaper though), and I thought Honest Hearts was pretty weak from a story perspective in general other than Graham being a cool dude. But none of that even comes close to the ridiculous stuff developers are getting up to these days in single player games with lootboxes and skins and microcurrencies.

 

I liked that the FONV DLCs raised the level cap and added new perks, but I thought it was kind of moot because it didn't really change how the base game was played. There were no more difficult challenges to face with the added levels.  

 

As long as Obsidian's DLC continues to be substantial content expansions and not exploitative microtransactions, I'm quite happy to support them.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Zanos

[evilcat]

There is a thing that both Beefy and Stand-alone make sense. Standalone is user friendly and that is always valour.

 

Other than that, i dont think people want to spend a lot of time in game shop. It is stressfull to worry "i dont have every game, so i dont have perfect experience and i am missing something great". Solutions "buy once, and play" are just easier. If you spent 50$ on game it better not be half baked or part of product.

 

Lootboxes are abomination and i try to keep distance from them.

When it comes to episode games i wait for end of series (Life is Strange), when it comes to heaby dlc game i wait for GOTY.

I just dont want to think too much about buying all pieces.

The worse part is having games changed or cutted to make place for DLC.

Other aproach: make a game as focused, and perfect as you could without time soakers and escort the dwarf missions.

And then go with Expand Universe dlc which are completly unralated with main story. Each dlc is small adventure like Heart of Stone (witcher). Not all people will buy it.

Edited October 12, 2017 by evilcat

[ShadySands]

Q9 - not valid. Real answer is

RPG - 1

Shooters - 3

Strategy - 5

all other - 10

sports and casual - 11

I had a similar reaction but with different choices.

 

1. RPG

2. Strategy

3. Sports

11. Everything else

 

 

But since I had to number them all separately it's not a representative picture of my particular preferences.

[Leferd]

 

Q9 - not valid. Real answer is

RPG - 1

Shooters - 3

Strategy - 5

all other - 10

sports and casual - 11

I had a similar reaction but with different choices.

1. RPG

2. Strategy

3. Sports

11. Everything else

But since I had to number them all separately it's not a representative picture of my particular preferences.

Ditto.

[Jozape]

Q9 - not valid. Real answer is

RPG - 1

Shooters - 3

Strategy - 5

all other - 10

sports and casual - 11

The only one I was sure of was #1 which is role-playing games and is almost the only category I play. Maybe "horror" games at #11. I would have preferred to group them too.

 

Q10 is stupid. One can't recommend a new game simply because of who developed it. At least one shouldn't.

[SimeSublime]

The problem with beefy DLCs is it either pushes back the effective release date of the game, or annoys the customers.  I like to get involved in the game I'm playing.  I don't switch games at a drop of a hat - I play one game through to completion (or give up on it if it isn't good) before moving onto the next and I don't like to be forced to go back to it.  That's why if a game is 'episodic' I don't consider it released until the entire season is out.

Although I really enjoyed playing the White March and White March 2, I was very upset that I had to find a save game before the end to play through with.  Had I known it would have been like this at the start I would have just waited the year or so before it came out before starting the base game.  I just found out about the DLC to Tyranny today.  I loved that game, it fixed all the mechanical problems I felt that PoE had and had a great story and characters (Lantry and Kills-in-Shadow in particular, although the third act was very poorly handled).  I wish I had access to the DLC back when I was playing the game though - as much as I loved it reinstalling it and starting again is a time commitment I just can't make.

So please, if you have to make DLC to pay the bills, please focus on stand-alone expansions set after the main campaign a la Mask of the Betrayer.  They're easier to come back to, and (as pointed out in the OP) they're cleaner from a narrative perspective.

[FlintlockJazz]

I fricking hate it when you start a game and you immediately get swamped with 'pre-order bonuses' and dlc weapons that it immediately has to tell you about and fill your inventory with!  Every time I started Deus Ex Human Revolution I would have this overpowered crap that would unbalance my game immediately shoved into my inventory, hence I hate weapon dlcs and other small or 'nickle and dime' dlcs as a result.

[Wormerine]

I personally like when expansions expand the base game rather than adding new, short campaign. It does need to be well implemented though. A good example of base game DLC which doesn’t disrupt the flow of the game is Heart of Stone for Witcher3, which nicely fits into the base game and has a story reason to either do the expansion in one go or dip in and out.

 

I certainly don’t like it when games end on cliffhanger in order to make space for DLC (NWN2). And as I like replaying a good RPG new content is always a good excuse to jump back in.

 

I really don’t get why people who didn’t want to replay the whole game had an issue with WM. The automatic save is there, ability to rebalance WM to fit your level is there. Overall it seems like a better option being a content which can be played both by those who beat the game already and newcomers.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Main problem with DLC is just value for money. DLC should be proportionate to the game, so if the content is equivalent to 10% of the game, why is the DLC 25% of the cost of the game? Especially when it's using the same engine, same dev tools, 80% of the assets.

 

Single player games shouldn't have weapon and cosmetic pack DLC you pay for, bundle that into expansion class DLC or release it for free. Mini-expansions that are also proportionately priced are fine. Season passes are insanity, clearly anti-consumer, not only do they include bull**** DLC like weapon packs, but you're buying a future product no one has seen let alone reviewed. DLC expansions in the middle of single play campaigns are bad for pacing, frustrating for players who have already competed the main campaign, often mess up balance, and sometimes the way they are shoehorned into an already existing plot is clumsy.

 

Mutli-player games should only have cosmetic DLC, any other DLC inevitably leads to fragmentation or pay to win, even if the dev cares about balance they constantly get it wrong, then have to nerf something that often makes it unplayable, something people paid money for. The reason things like cosmetics are fine here is you're paying for the service, but without a flat rate fee, which would be an alternative to DLC.

[injurai]

If season-passes make sense if you have a lot of small dlc. They are an improvement of the older model. Small bits a trinket items/missions are just bad dlc design, and I agree anti-consumer. Also anti-reputation, but some companies seem to be impervious to that.

[Achilles]

DLC expansions in the middle of single play campaigns are bad for pacing, frustrating for players who have already competed the main campaign, often mess up balance, and sometimes the way they are shoehorned into an already existing plot is clumsy.

 

Well said.