DLC survey

[Katarack21]

You either make games for normal people who enjoy playing games or you make games for (those who are self-defined as) gamers.

I don't think the line between those two groups is nearly as sharp and defined as it once was.

[Fardragon]

 

You either make games for normal people who enjoy playing games or you make games for (those who are self-defined as) gamers.

I don't think the line between those two groups is nearly as sharp and defined as it once was.

 

 

I don't think there ever was a line.

[Varana]

"Gamers" are those who take themselves way too seriously.

 

---

 

"I like good expansion packs but I dislike bad mini-DLC" is kind of a no-brainer. What about a big expansion pack that's kinda 'meh' in contrast to fun and not-too-expensive little add-ons?

 

---

 

Heh. Honestly, the general trend of "we've got to pump out add-on content at very regular intervals" has been a terrible one for game content.

I'd really like to know how much of that development is driven by changes in the market itself. Video games are a much bigger industry than a few decades past, technology has marched on at a breathtaking pace, games are supposed to be supported extensively post-launch, many more people play than ever before, they have an infinite ocean of games to choose from.

 

Let's take XCom2. They recently launched a gigantic expansion pack with loads of content (and it's f***ing expensive) - 19 months or so after the game's release. In between came two small mission DLCs and a few cosmetic ones. Were those necessary - to keep the game in the news, to show players that it isn't dead, to get a bit more cash flow? I don't know. But I wouldn't rule it out, either. The world is different now.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Varana

[Wormerine]

Let's take XCom2. They recently launched a gigantic expansion pack with loads of content (and it's f***ing expensive) - 19 months or so after the game's release. In between came two small mission DLCs and a few cosmetic ones. Were those necessary - to keep the game in the news, to show players that it isn't dead, to get a bit more cash flow? I don't know. But I wouldn't rule it out, either. The world is different now.

Absolutely. As much as we perceive small DLC as predatory they do seem to keep the game in people’s mind. Dedicated fans have a reason to return to the game and new people can be brought in as new DLCs a release and the game is mentioned by an outlet. This way by the time you release the big DLC or expansion you still have an audience for it. If your DLC is gonna be very small though and if you want it just to keep players attention... why not be like a CD Project Red and release small DLC for free?

 

XCOM2 is a fun example and shows why I dislike smaller DLC. Their content was solid, but I didn’t feel like it implemented well with the base game. However, I love it now when the big expansion was released, game is rebalanced and smaller DLC integrated into the core experience. The issue is that either you tack something to a complete title or you leave some aspect of the base game lacking (like weird in the air Liara story quest in Mass Effect 2) so you can patch it in later for a price. With bigger DLC they have more space and money to tie it with the core experience.

[DigitalCrack]

Xcom2 war of the chosen is awesome though so it was worth the price. I think with the small dlc you tend to feel ripped off more on averagr than you feel it was worth it. you drop 10 or 15 bucks for like 1 mission and some cosmetic stuff every 2 months just isnt as fun as a big game changing expansion with loads of depth and new features galore. Its way easier for small consistent dlc drops to be crappy then it is for a full on expansion. And maybe thats just a result of most everyone doing small dlc anymore instead of expansions, so more opportunities for dlc to be done wrong so perception isnt great concerning small dlc format.

[Lephys]

I'll play the tenth dentist and disagree with everyone because I like all kinds. Big or small as long it's well done (who likes bad DLC?) I'll open my wallet. Like I mentioned in those other threads about the same thing, I don't play many games new games each year so I'd prefer to get as much as I can out of the few games that I do like.

 

The thing is... it's about that whole "as long as it's done well" part. Imagine if someone was like "Sure, I'll handcraft you a new rocking chair every single day!". Well, you can say "As long as it's a good rocking chair, I'm cool with that!". But, are you really betting that a daily-made good was lovingly hand-crafted?

 

That's kind of our point. I'm not saying there's a specific amount of time, necessarily, that HAS to be spent on some DLC stuff. But, most of the time the really quick/tiny stuff isn't very well thought-out.

 

So, if you want to get the most out of your $60 (or whatever the price of the full game you purchase may be), then you probably want to get the BEST most out of it, and not just maximize the quantity of stuff you arbitrarily get, correct? Like, what if they just kept releasing thousands of weapons every week? Eventually, (very quickly, actually), your need for new weapons would diminish, and you wouldn't really be getting much out of the new stuff.

[Lephys]

Let's take XCom2. They recently launched a gigantic expansion pack with loads of content (and it's f***ing expensive) - 19 months or so after the game's release. In between came two small mission DLCs and a few cosmetic ones. Were those necessary - to keep the game in the news, to show players that it isn't dead, to get a bit more cash flow? I don't know. But I wouldn't rule it out, either. The world is different now.

 

I agree that this is true, but the problem with the "this is kind of necessary now" argument is that it started out as unnecessary, then became "necessary" due to someone changing it to that. "The market" is just what everyone habitually adjusts to. If all game developers, tomorrow, stopped making anything but pixel-graphics fighting games, do you think tens of millions of gamers would just stop playing games for several years until something different came out again? Nope. The majority of folks would just play whatever's available, and complain about it all the while. Same with anything. If all music decided "we're only going to produce death metal," then people would just pick the death metal they liked the most out of the sea of death metal, because SOMEthing is better than nothing.

 

So... I dare say that the reasoning behind these little DLCs is flawed. It's like advertising wars. "Well, WE'VE got to put out a new commercial because our competitor did!". Great, now X% of people are going to remember YOUR commercial, and Y% of people are going to remember THEIR commercial. If 700 different competitors all have commercials out for their competing products, then it's almost the same as if NO ONE has a commercial out. If you're churning out DLC just to put SOMEthing out for the market, and everyone else is doing the same thing, then no one's actually putting out content because they feel like it's purposeful content that's necessary and dedicated to the core game design. So, everyone loses. You're just getting the masses used to something they hate. "I don't want to play this crappy DLC, but I don't want to go a year without something new to do, so I'll just roll the dice on what I deem the best possible crappy DLC to buy."

 

If everyone just started making quality DLC, you think people would miss all the tiny stuff? Nope. They'd get used to it, REALLY fast. Just like they were back when big expansions were how it was done. It's like we got huge bandwidth increases and could push more stuff out more quickly, and someone one day just said "Hey, I bet we COULD add some new random crap to the game every week, if we wanted to." And they started doing it, and based on a bunch of skewed number-crunching interpretations, everyone said "Oh wow, that got results! We'd better all do the same exact thing or they'll win!" Kind of like "Crazy Steve sawed his own leg off last week, and he won the lottery today! Better grab your saws and get sawin'!"

[ShadySands]

You're relying on some of assumptions that I don't necessarily agree with

 

Which is why I have "(who likes bad DLC)" there because I feel it's a little silly to argue on that level. So how about this, everything else being equal do I want (mmm) beefy DLC, small DLC, or a mix.... I'd still say a mix

[Lephys]

I would like to know which assumptions those might be, if you don't mind. I honestly don't know to what you're referring.

[ShadySands]

Your first paragraph you set up an analogy that assumes DLC or rocking chairs will be cranked out at lower quality. Not sure where your basis for this is and I reject this assumption. To steal a line from the promancers, just because some other companies have done a poor job doesn't mean that Obs will.
  
Second paragraph, you lead with there not being a time to quality but then follow with the quick and small stuff being not very well thought out. Again, I've already stated assuming it's good stuff, because who likes crap, and you've started from a default of assuming it's bad.

 

Third paragraph, more of the same, assuming big DLC will be of better quality than smaller and assuming the smaller stuff will be arbitrary weapons packs or whatever else. Why? Is this something Obsidian is known for that I don't recall?

 

Off the top of my head I can think of several different types of smaller DLC that Obsidian could do that aren't horse armor or weapon packs/reskins. I don't think we will see eye to eye on this so shall we just agree to disagree.

[Katarack21]

Your first paragraph you set up an analogy that assumes DLC or rocking chairs will be cranked out at lower quality. Not sure where your basis for this is and I reject this assumption. To steal a line from the promancers, just because some other companies have done a poor job doesn't mean that Obs will.

  

Second paragraph, you lead with there not being a time to quality but then follow with the quick and small stuff being not very well thought out. Again, I've already stated assuming it's good stuff, because who likes crap, and you've started from a default of assuming it's bad.

 

Third paragraph, more of the same, assuming big DLC will be of better quality than smaller and assuming the smaller stuff will be arbitrary weapons packs or whatever else. Why? Is this something Obsidian is known for that I don't recall?

 

Off the top of my head I can think of several different types of smaller DLC that Obsidian could do that aren't horse armor or weapon packs/reskins. I don't think we will see eye to eye on this so shall we just agree to disagree.

1) "Well, you can say "As long as it's a good rocking chair, I'm cool with that!". But, are you really betting that a daily-made good was lovingly hand-crafted?" It's not an assumption of his. It's a statement that something being cranked out very quickly and repeatedly is of lesser quality, which is a known effect of mass production on the market.

 

2) The second paragraph leads from the first, with the assumption that the prior paragraphs statement of quickly and repeatdly=low quality having already been accepted. Again, the common drop in individual quality when regards mass manufacturing is a known quantity is economics.

 

3) The assumption that smaller DLC's will be cosmetic things such as weapon packs etc. is an assumption, but it's one based on a general knowledge of the industry, not Obsidian. Small DLCs=take less time=easier things to do=weapon packs, recolors, etc. That's purely logical and almost always true. It's like saying that smaller pieces of candy generally contain more corn starch and less chocolate.

[ShadySands]

Again, if that's your assumption of what small DLC from Obsidian is going to be like then so be it. I prefaced my entire argument on mixed DLC being comprised of all "good" DLC, dunno why he's changing the argument to make it a small = bad issue. I took issue with his assumptions because they all ran counter to my initial argument not that there is no historical precedent of DLC of any size that is bad.

 

Again, let's just agree to disagree.

 

 

 

*edited slightly now that I'm sober.

Edited October 13, 2017 by ShadySands

[Katarack21]

I also voted for mixed DLC, to be clear.

[ShadySands]

Apologies for assuming

[Lephys]

Your first paragraph you set up an analogy that assumes DLC or rocking chairs will be cranked out at lower quality. Not sure where your basis for this is and I reject this assumption. To steal a line from the promancers, just because some other companies have done a poor job doesn't mean that Obs will.

 

Nope. You're not processing my words a step at a time. You're skipping like 5 steps ahead and trying to correlate too many things at once. The rocking chair example wasn't directly speaking to the general competency of companies. It was speaking directly to my "assumption" that the creation of anything takes time and effort. I don't assume that objects falling from a greater height can reach greater speeds than those falling from a lesser height. It's simply true. You can't really assume something that's observably true is true, unless I guess you just don't know it's true but suspect it is, technically...

 

That's getting away from the point, though. What you don't realize, I think, is that you seem to be making the assumption that my point is "anything less than a huge expansion will be crap" or something. Which is strange, considering that I haven't even given any specific measurements or timeframes, so I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be assuming makes DLC bad. The relationship between the amount of time and effort spent on the content and the quality of the content is a real, measurable thing. Go back in time and undo my birth, and it remains so. My saying it doesn't make it true. I'm observing that it is true, then saying that to you, who doesn't seem to be observing the same thing.

 

They can make lesser DLCs. These can be good. However, the lesser they are, the less chance they have of being significant. Sure, plenty of folks like a fun weapon pack or something. Getting new stuff is always novel and exciting, to some extent. But we're comparing two options. I'd rather see new weapons AND a new area and chunk of story in which to utilize these new weapons. And I think pretty much anyone would agree with that. Between playing the entire same game over with just a couple of new weapons, or getting, say, new weapon TYPES (new weapons that are also not weapon-types that existed in the base game), with their own new mechanics/proficiencies, etc., which would you choose? You can't have both. If it takes them 1 month to just slap new weapons in, and 3 months to make the new weapon types, then doing the first would delay the second by 3 months.

 

So, I'm not saying that there's no possible little content that can be cool. But, the smaller you go, the less significant it becomes, and the less warranting of actual purchasable DLC it becomes. If it cost the dev team no time and manpower, then by all means, put all the fun DLC nibbles in that you want. However, if they're at all planning on doing a full expansion, or any piece of relatively MORE-substantial content, then tossing out little snacks here and there is pretty moot, as the time is better spent simply incorporating those snacks into the bigger chunk. It almost always works better when the DLC is larger and more substantial, due in large part to the fact that the teams are able to spend more time both designing AND implementing it. If you give them 3 days to make some DLC, you can't sincerely tell me it's going to be good, much less better than something that the same team could make in a whole month.

 

EDIT (forgot to touch on the rest of your rebuttal):

 

Second paragraph, you lead with there not being a time to quality but then follow with the quick and small stuff being not very well thought out. Again, I've already stated assuming it's good stuff, because who likes crap, and you've started from a default of assuming it's bad.

You're missing details. I lead with there not being a specific time below which quality is bad, and above which quality is good. Too little time always reduces quality. Obviously 1 second is not long enough to produce quality DLC. Two days is probably still not, but would at least be better than nothing. A month would allow for much higher quality. Now... would 73 years just result in an EQUAL improvement in quality? No. At some point, the quality gain drops off. Also, it depends on what it is, specifically, the DLC is supposed to be. However, the timeframe they have inherently constrains the scope of what the DLC can be. Does that make sense? If they have 1 week, then it HAS to be something piddly. It can't be a whole new companion, or an entire robust questline, because those things take longer than that. OR, it could be one of those things, but just REALLY crappy.

 

 

Third paragraph, more of the same, assuming big DLC will be of better quality than smaller and assuming the smaller stuff will be arbitrary weapons packs or whatever else. Why? Is this something Obsidian is known for that I don't recall?

 

 

Nowhere did I assume any of that. Since we're starting to get into super-technicalities of word choice here, the idea I attempted to state (whether or not it came across as this) is that big DLC CAN be of better quality than smaller DLC, and that the smaller you go, the less signficant or robust the content CAN be. All other factors remaining the same (same team, same amount of effort per-resource-unit of time and manpower), a DLC designed for 3 months is going to be better than one designed for only 2 weeks. It can be more significant within the scope of the game, more iterated upon and polished before it's deployed, etc. Time is basically a multiplier, up to an extent. That's just how human brains work in designing, and how pretty much anything works in terms of human craftsmanship.

 

You're acting as though there's no evidence or reasoning behind anything that I'm suggesting. And I'm sorry, but in this case, I cannot agree to disagree. I disagree with your disagreement. If someone says to me "If I walk across traffic here with my eyes closed, surely no harm will come to me," I'm not just going to say "Meh, I guess we can agree to disagree." That's just not who I am. I'm going to try to point out to them the things they're failing to observe.

 

I'm not telling you to think what I think, exactly. I'm encouraging you to consider the same factors that I'm considering. If you can deliver a response that takes into account observable factors and relationships, and STILL points out how it's entirely possible that what I'm saying is completely untrue, then I will gladly alter my current thinking on the matter in favor of your presented reasoning. 

Edited October 13, 2017 by Lephys

[Fardragon]

They could add a an anime themed DLC pack, with glasses, short skirts and ridiculously large swords for everyone. For added authenticity they could add repetitive giant monsters to grind xp against, and add a load of huge-eyed portraits.

[Varana]

Quoted for context:

I agree that this is true, but the problem with the "this is kind of necessary now" argument is that it started out as unnecessary, then became "necessary" due to someone changing it to that...

But it became that way because of reasons, and therefore just stopping doing it won't turn the clock back. Just like not all music is death metal - you can't force bands to play only one thing, just like you can't force companies to produce only certain kinds of stuff even though others might give them an advantage.

Everyone ridiculed Oblivion's horse armour DLC, but enough people bought it to justify the investment and even the ridicule. It sold continuously for years.

Now, that's an unequivocally sh***y example. But not all small DLC are as bad as that, and we're getting into the area where small DLC make a lot of sense, economically. Sure, if everyone would just stop buying them, that would change, but that's not going to happen. Sure, you can survive without doing them, but in most cases, that's just forgoing revenue. And if you have people at the end of a project that don't work that much on it any more (like artists in the final stages before release, and I'm probably oversimplifying here), why not let them do something useful that will pay off a bit later?

Another point that is important, imho, is that it didn't just change because people got into bad habits. It also changed because some things simply couldn't be done in earlier days. For instance, when every patch and add-on had to be distributed by physical media like floppy disks or CDs, small DLCs weren't feasible. With the advent of good internet connections in many households, small, art-heavy DLC became possible for the first time, and that's when they took off.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Varana

[Gliese581]

I also voted for meaty expansions, and for more companions! I was a bit sad we didn't get our 8th companion (and yes I didn't back the game since I don't like prepurchase so I'm not going to complain about it) but I hope for more of them in future DLCs, especially as someone that exclusively use pregenerated characters for my parties and never hirelings it really helps me differentiate my playthroughs.

 

Good examples of recent DLCs that immediately springs to mind is The Witcher 3 Hos and B&W and XCOM 2 War of The Chosen (I would have payed $60 for this one).

Edited October 14, 2017 by Gliese581

[daven]

Never purchased a season pass, not entirely sure what it even is. A lot of games seem to advertise it on Steam.

 

All I know is when you get a season ticket for a football team you get to go to every home game for 1 season. Do you only get the DLC released for 1 year after buying the pass?

[Wormerine]

Never purchased a season pass, not entirely sure what it even is. A lot of games seem to advertise it on Steam.

 

All I know is when you get a season ticket for a football team you get to go to every home game for 1 season. Do you only get the DLC released for 1 year after buying the pass?

It depends what season pass contains. Usually you simply preorder all the DLC for the game. I rarely get them as they are a bad deal - after all you pay for a content you dont know if you will like for a game you didn't play yet. Usually it gives you all post release content, unless game has a very lengthy support or releases a big meaty expansion (like War of the Chosen for XCOM2).

 

[daven]

 

Never purchased a season pass, not entirely sure what it even is. A lot of games seem to advertise it on Steam.

 

All I know is when you get a season ticket for a football team you get to go to every home game for 1 season. Do you only get the DLC released for 1 year after buying the pass?

It depends what season pass contains. Usually you simply preorder all the DLC for the game. I rarely get them as they are a bad deal - after all you pay for a content you dont know if you will like for a game you didn't play yet. Usually it gives you all post release content, unless game has a very lengthy support or releases a big meaty expansion (like War of the Chosen for XCOM2).

 

 

Isn't it possible there will be no DLC at all?

 

Seems a bit dodgy to me.

[Messier-31]

Isn't it possible there will be no DLC at all?

 

Seems a bit dodgy to me.

 

Well, Obsidian claims that there *will be* some post-release content. Hence the season pass.

 

It is also supposedly cheaper than buying all the expansion/dlc stuff after the release and/or seperately.

[Gliese581]

I only got a season pass once, for XCOM2 and it promised at least 3 DLC packages as part of the deal, which is what you got. So you knew beforehand roughly what it would contain. It's a rare exception for me to get something like that, just as rare as getting a Steam-only game, but I knew I was going to buy everything and anything from Firaxis that is part of XCOM anyway.

[Lephys]

@Varana:

 

Everything happens for reasons. A crazy person could stab someone, because pengins. That doesn't mean things happen for GOOD reasons.

 

Simply put, the fact that people partake in something does not mean that thing is THE thing that people want, unfortunately. That would be great if the market worked that way, but it doesn't. Much like small children, you could give them the option between a bowl of sugar and gourmet food of any variety imaginable, and they'd just go "YEAH, SUGAR!". It's not even necessarily that they enjoy the sugar more. It's just that they know exactly what to expect, and it's a sweet treat, even if the enjoyment lasts 10 seconds and they feel horrible later because they don't get any nutrients whatsoever. On this same note, you could ask a child "Would you like 1 cookie per day for the rest of your life, or a box of cookies right now?", and they'd probably go with the box of cookies.

 

This is similar with DLC. People nowadays are addicted to convenience. It's not that so many people have done all their homework and have extraordinarily refined conclusions that state that wee bits of off-handed DLC are meeting their every need and maximizing their enjoyment of a game. It's that they just want another bowl of game sugar. It's obviously a bit more complex than that, but, largely, that is the effect in place. This is why there are even games on Steam, for example, with an INCREDIBLE amount of problems and such, and/or they're just terrible, and people will still just go purchase them because they were on-sale and were well-marketed, THEN complain about how they didn't get their money's worth and it's unfair that they paid X dollars for this horrible game. Why? Because it's too much work to actually determine whether or not a game is likely not horrible BEFORE buying it.

 

Don't get me wrong... lots of people DO make good decisions and do their homework. I'm not saying 100% of the populous is dumb and "wants" bad DLC. But, essentially, there's a large group of gamers out there with very low standards/lazy-decision-making. So, they want new "stuff," and they don't really care what it is, before they buy it. They're willing to shell out X dollars per day/week/month just to keep getting new doses of game, purely because it's new. Games such as MMOs are built around this, so at least it works for them. However, when a game that isn't really designed for that just says "Hey, let's try to get in on these low-standards!," it usually doesn't end well. Sure, the game company gets a new source of revenue, but at what cost? Also, by the very nature of how this type of DLC content fits with the gamers who play games like PoE, it results in lower-quality DLC. It's all about context. Again, one could point out that the game is made out of story, mechanics, combat scenarios, loot, characters, dialogue, quests, etc. These are the sources of enjoyment in the game, and they all work together to bring that enjoyment. Well, when you release a DLC that JUST tosses in 3 new combat scenarios, for example, you're just not getting very much. It's not as efficient a use of development time than, say, a DLC that adds a little of ALL of those categories. And you can't really have a super tiny DLC that does that. That's just how things work.

 

So, am I saying that PoE cannot have any smaller DLCs that are effective or worth it? Not at all. But, it's less likely. There are very limited options for small DLCs that wouldn't be piddly. And, even with something feasible like a weapon/equipment pack, the vast majority of PoE's gamerbase would rather see that stuff introduced in a new area, with new characters, new quests, and new mechanics and story, than just tossed into the game all willy-nilly.

 

It's just probability, and that's just how things work. Small DLCs that are frequent only work with certain types of games, and even then they only are so effective. They started being done so much because they COULD, not because there was a need for them. MMOs did the same thing about 10 years ago. "Oh, WoW is super popular! Everyone make an MMO!" You can't tell me all those MMOs that came out were super quality games. A lot of them just wanted to cash in on the trend that was occurring. That happened for a reason, and that reason was simply "People are willing to pay monthly for a fun, social progression/fashion experience, so I COULD make a game like that and people would probably buy it enough for me to make some money, so I'll do it." That isn't to say that if companies had just made other types of games at that time, everyone would've bought nothing but MMOs. A lot of companies just have lazy shareholders who care more about not-risking any loss than they do about their products actually being well-designed.

[Abel]

 

And yes it is sarcasm, don’t loose all the faith in the humanity in spite of Blade Runner 2049 poor box office performance.

 

 

Really? Weird. I've seen it with a friend. The cinema was almost full of people (seems to do well in France at least). Probably the only AAA US film i've seen in years that is actually worth it. Better than the original in some ways. While Hollywod only sell crap usually. Good surprise.

 

Regarding the survey. Wanted meaty ones too. I had a problem with the question where you had to list your genres by order, since i only play RPGs and strategy (1 & 2)... i just made sure to put shooters last place, rest was random.