Obsidian Entertainment Wants Your Input About DLC & Its Games - General News

SBFord · October 2017

Obsidian Entertainment Wants Your Input About DLC & Its Games - General News

Obsidian Entertainment has posted an external survey to gauge players' responses to questions about DLC.

rojoArcueid · October 2017

SedrynTyros said:

The best DLC is no DLC. Make a complete game and if you want to expand upon it then create an entire expansion and sell that, like how it was back in the days of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.

100% agree. DLC became synonym with little micro payments here and there added up together to become a massive cash grab. Unfinished "AAA" games usually abuse this practice more than the others too.

You hit it the nail in the head. Make a complete game, then add longevity by selling a full fledge expansion with fresh new content and story continuity.

I really believe most of these companies are too greedy to learn how to do "DLC" from CD Projekt Red.

Good quality and good quantity will make your expansion worth the asking price. A cash grab like Destiny 1 dlcs disguised as expansions aren't IMO.

Grimula · October 2017

i would have to agree DLC suuucks badly for all games

just make a REAL EXPANSION , and people will be way more happy

nickel and Dime everyone really sucks the life out of gaming

Real Expansions are Much Much better , people are way more happy spending money on huge expansions then tiny stupid DLC crap

TheDarkrayne · October 2017

Not a fan of DLC or expansions for very long and deep (that's what she said) RPG's. I'd rather they just work on getting a sequel out quicker. By the time the new content is out it's pretty much that I'm 100% done with the game by then and have moved on.

There are exceptions.. like The Witcher 3, Elder Scrolls, Fallout(s) or all the Borderlands. I wanted every drop from those games and was happy to go back.

Games like Diablo 3 though.. if they released a big DLC or expansion every year I would have bought it immediately. Content though. Not skins or classes. Fuck you Necromancer.

Honestly? I'm more likely to pirate a game if there's a ton of DLC that needs purchasing to get the full experience.

Ozmodan · October 2017

Rarely if ever buy DLC. It has to be really outstanding for me to purchase it of which about 99% of DLC isn't.

I will buy expansions though. Again, it has to be an expansion and not DLC disguised as one.

DLC for me is a disservice to me as a purchaser of your game. It just shows you want to nickle and dime me for some extra cash. DLC just shows to me you don't care about me as a customer.

calibek · October 2017

I normally don't get DLC for games unless I REALLY like the game. Skyrim was a no brainer for me as I played the hell out of that game. Total War: Warhammer was another one. I played the original 4 races and the freeLC one (Bretonnia) and was hooked so bought the Chaos, Beastmen, and Wood elves when they were on sale. Loved the game so much I preordered Total War: Warhammer 2 without a second thought since I had about 600 hours into the first game.

That being said i normally do not get DLC because a lot of times the story is trash. I never bothered getting the DLC for Witcher 3 because, while the main game was decent, it just didn't grab me enough that I felt the need to pay for more.

Wizardry · October 2017

Since i do not trust anyone in this industry right now and for good reason,this survey is meaningless.They could post any results,how would any o us know if they are honest?This is like the pre-cursor to something bad but using this survey as a scapegoat.

The one poster said it right,deliver the full game instead of releasing games too early,unfinished then selling the rest of the game in 3 more installments to double or triple dip on the same product.
Even expansions should not be coming out every year,it says they are rushed and likely could have been part of the original package.

ghettoceleb · October 2017

Day 1 DLC is kind of insulting. Make a game then break off a little piece to sell.

ConstantineMerus · October 2017

Like all other things in life, DLC can be a good thing or taken advantage of.

For instance, I had 140hr in DAI main game. I was more than happy when they released DLCs. What could I want more in terms of contents?

More of a good thing never hurts and more of a bad thing can be easily avoided.

Yaevindusk · October 2017

DLC and Microtransactions are a plague to most games. They are abused by large companies for a quick buck, oft deliverying a half-assed initial release in lieu of such.

Full expansions are something that are still dear to my heart. Like how P2P MMOs have and how GW2 has started to do -- and how the first GWs was. I still remember fondly the days of Baldur's Gate / Neverwinter Nights / Diablo / Warcraft / Starcraft etc. Legitimate additions that provide exceptional additions and content that rival the first. In fact, many of those games had expansions that just made the game go from great to almost perfect. Instant classic status.

Whenever I see "season passes", I just feel insulted. Like they planned -- or completed things -- before seeing the game's success with the expressed purpose to get more money than the $100 they might have sold an Elite Edition that has even more locked content behind more money. Want another $50-100 for the full story. Doesn't Destiny 2 now sell dyes when the system was free in the first? Along with this season pass and the "Full story" advertisement in the purchased box?

Krypty · October 2017

I like DLC when it comes out at a level of quality that CD Projekt Red did with Witcher 3. Blood and Wine is arguably the best bit of DLC ever produced, and was worth much more than what they charged.

Kyleran · October 2017

Torval said:

Thanks for posting the survey. That was a good one.

I don't mind DLC. I put $30 and $35 for my opinion of a season pass price for DLC. To me DLC and standalone secondaries or expansions are pretty much the same thing. The problem with most expansions compared to DLC is that my characters never seem to transition smoothly. That's what I care about, not how it's broken up and monetized. I want the game experience to be smooth.

But right now I would pay for more New Vegas content if they published some. I'd also play a New Vegas standalone expac especially if they updated and improved some QoL stuff.

Fallout New Vegas is a traaaap! 275 plus hours on my first playthrough, the dlc didn't bother me as I waited many years post launch to buy it so the ultimate addition came with all of them included in a single $19.99 purchase. (Except Operation Anxhorage)

Some were a bit weak, the Zion Tribal lands in particular and Gunrunners Arsenal which was useless.

But I enjoyed all of the others even though I didn't complete them until I had finished most of the base game.

Overall I'd prefer not to get them dribbled out as I like to "one and done" my games so were I to play at launch new DLC wouldn't bring me back but a separate but well integrated expansion would as I would view it as playing a new game.

jpedrote52 · October 2017

DLC is shit, either make a full expansion worth the 20-30€ or completely new game.

Sovrath · October 2017

I don't mind DLC if what I'm buying is either substantial (full new adventure) or doesn't cost a lot.

I do think some people don't understand development. This is not to say that their concerns about "create a game then take a part away and sell it" can't happen, but it's easy to see why there is confusion.

When a bit of software is created there is there is a plan that is made, the "scope/project scope".

At the start they most likely know what is going into the game and what type of dlc they want as well as when that work will occur.

It takes longer to finish a game but less longer to finish the dlc because they already have a good bit of the work done when developing the game.

So then the DLC is finished and people shout "no fair you are robbing us".

Avarix · October 2017

I liked what they did with PoE. No DLC and the expansion was broken up into two parts.

Alomar · October 2017

gameguy369 said:

I like DLC when it comes out at a level of quality that CD Projekt Red did with Witcher 3. Blood and Wine is arguably the best bit of DLC ever produced, and was worth much more than what they charged.

That's the distinction people are trying to make here, that wasn't a dlc that was a full fledged expansion, one of two. The only dlc's TW3 had were free. CD Projekt Red is love, CD Projekt Red is life. Screw the rest.

Panther2103 · October 2017

SedrynTyros said:

The best DLC is no DLC. Make a complete game and if you want to expand upon it then create an entire expansion and sell that, like how it was back in the days of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.

But then how do you end up knowing content wasn't cut to make for an expansion? What makes the difference between a DLC and Expansion as well? You could change the names out and it would mean the same thing. You buy an Expansion after the game launches, you buy DLC after the game launches. The names could be changed out and you wouldn't know the difference. There have been plenty of games that have really large DLC that comes out that would be incredibly similar or the same as an expansion from back in the day with games like Baldurs Gate or Icewind.

Grunty · October 2017

I took it but with no way to say why I do things I do, I don't find the survey to be a reliable one.

Iselin · October 2017

Panther2103 said:

SedrynTyros said:

The best DLC is no DLC. Make a complete game and if you want to expand upon it then create an entire expansion and sell that, like how it was back in the days of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.

But then how do you end up knowing content wasn't cut to make for an expansion? What makes the difference between a DLC and Expansion as well? You could change the names out and it would mean the same thing. You buy an Expansion after the game launches, you buy DLC after the game launches. The names could be changed out and you wouldn't know the difference. There have been plenty of games that have really large DLC that comes out that would be incredibly similar or the same as an expansion from back in the day with games like Baldurs Gate or Icewind.

I think you know when you play them.

The DLC as a business model is calculated and you often see gaps in the initial offering as well as teasers for what's already either fully developed and withheld or well along in development. The whole concept of having a "season pass" indicates that what they're trying to sell is a mini-series, not a stand-alone.

20 years ago expansions were not usually part of the initial development formula - especially since distribution was mostly analog boxes. Those games stood on their own and felt complete. Expansions for them felt like something new that took stories and character development new places. They were also somewhat rare: not every game had expansions and DLC just did not exist until digital distribution became the main way of doing business.

These days it's more rare to find honest to goodness expansions and DLCs are almost 100% adopted by all games as part of their business formula. That's not to say that all DLC is worthless but there is just so much of it and it's often so pathetic and overpriced that it's not a surprise to me at all that there is a lot of push back from fans for whom DLC has become almost synonymous with "cash grab."

Panther2103 · October 2017

SedrynTyros said:

Panther2103 said:

SedrynTyros said:

The best DLC is no DLC. Make a complete game and if you want to expand upon it then create an entire expansion and sell that, like how it was back in the days of Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.

But then how do you end up knowing content wasn't cut to make for an expansion? What makes the difference between a DLC and Expansion as well? You could change the names out and it would mean the same thing. You buy an Expansion after the game launches, you buy DLC after the game launches. The names could be changed out and you wouldn't know the difference. There have been plenty of games that have really large DLC that comes out that would be incredibly similar or the same as an expansion from back in the day with games like Baldurs Gate or Icewind.

I see your point, but to me the difference is this; in Baldur's Gate I didn't have to pay $1.99 for a set of cool-looking armor. The cool-looking armor was something I found in the game, as it should be. Now, I'm fine with the developers adding that armor in a patch after the release of the game, but that patch should be free for owners of the game, not something that I'm charged for.

Yes, technically, an expansion is a form of DLC these days, but what I think of as an expansion is additional content that extends the game experience further along. To some, it may sound like I'm splitting hairs here, but I think the difference is easy to spot if you're a gaming veteran.

An example of how things used to be: when the Icewind Dale expansion "Heart of Winter" released it was heavily criticized for being too sparse for an expansion. There was an expectation in those days of what you received when you purchased an expansion. Sure, it wasn't going to be as much content as the full game, but it should be around 50% game length worth, give or take, of additional content. And "Heart of Winter" fell short of that mark by several hours. So what Black Isle Studios (now Obsidian Entertainment, coincidentally enough) did was create a new adventure called "Trials of the Luremaster" and inserted it into the expansion as a free download for all expansion owners. Can you imagine any developer doing that nowadays? DLC value is so all over the place that there is no standard expectation for what you'll receive; one of the reasons why DLC sucks. With no standard, you're basically shit out of luck if what you paid $4.99 in one game ends up being half as valuable as what you received for that same price in another game.

As Jim Sterling might say, the whole DLC paradigm is bollocks! Screw the nickle and dime DLC crap, I want expansions instead.

I agree with the sentiment that DLC / Expansions should be held to the same standard they used to. In some situations I can see smaller DLC being acceptable like in fighting games adding a new fighter every couple of months for a few dollars seems alright with me. I absolutely HATE DLC that is a set of armor or cool looking mounts in single player games. But I do think there are still some companies that are doing it alright. Look at the way The Witcher 3 did it. They released a full fledged expansion. Or Diablo 3 with their expansion which was quite large.

It seems relatively random with whether or not companies go with actual game expansions or little tiny nickle and dime dlc, but usually you can get an idea of when a seasons pass / DLC pass will be actual content as opposed to stupid gimmicks. Like in the case of Destiny, they released two smaller DLC's that were actually pretty dang good in their own right.

I can see not liking it when it feels like a game was stripped of content prior to release, but I don't know of any actual situations in which that has ever happened. I know there have been many times in which there is a GIANT team working on a game, the game goes gold, and is sent out for release. Then they keep working on some additional content that comes out shortly after release because they have to keep doing something with that specific game and not sitting around doing nothing.

I remember the days when expansions were large pieces of content, or even content made by another developer for someone elses game like the Diablo 1 expansion Hellfire, or Quake mission packs. It still exists just not nearly as often.

Howdy, Stranger!

Obsidian Entertainment Wants Your Input About DLC & Its Games - General News

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Obsidian Entertainment Wants Your Input About DLC & Its Games - General News

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV