DLCs/Expansions and Sequels: What do you think of them?

AlBQuirky

What brought this up for me was the game Minecraft. I (finally) bought it over a year ago and have enjoyed many hours just creating and surviving. However, I've never "beaten the game", as in killed the Ender Dragon. When I feel the urge to play, I just boot up the game and load a saved game to continue my crafting/building. When I bought the game, I think it was on version 1.10.2, possibly. Their current version is 1.16.1. That's A LOT of updates. I found the mods I like for the version I currently play (1.12.2) and wonder if players keep starting new games with each new iteration of the game.

Rimworld, GTA V, and No Man's Sky comes to mind as other examples of games that seem to be "continuously" updating. Do you mind the updates? Do they worry you? If you're done with a game, do you restart a new one to "check it out?" Some of the updates are good and needed, fixing bugs or broken parts of the game, or adding interesting content.

Along with this are DLCs and expansions (mainly found in MMOs). Most of the time, they're fun and add new things to a game. Usually, they're worth picking them up and checking out (horse armor aside, Bethesda!). How do you view these? Do they get you back into the game again after finishing it up?

Last is sequels. Sequels I have gotten wary of, myself. Many times, they are the not the same game, but rather the old game "with a twist." That's cool and all, but I find myself "expecting" the old game with updated graphics or possibly mechanics tweaks. Too often (for me) they seem to add something that may not "fit" with the original game's design or goals. Other times, they will just add pieces of another genre and mash them, up.

What are your thoughts on these items for single player games? I'm curious how "odd" I am

Wizardry

I always had a belief that developers should show respect to their customer base who make them millions,allow them to get rich.It is no different than seeing your best friend do you a bunch of favors,you respect that and try to do the same back,well developers don't care about being fair or respect,just look at what happened with Fallout 76.
The problem is GREED,developers/publishers do not care about fair or respect,they only look to the next $$$ they can make and everything is geared towards making $$$.

Sequels/DLC's take a LOT less effort than the original game for many reasons.Typically a sequel will be almost as expensive or the same as the original even though they already have the tools,systems,game engine design in place.

Animations take a lot of work,you need animations for every single thing your character will do.Some animations may take a hundred frames or more.So typically you won't see new models or characters but perhaps the exact same model with a different skin so again less effort in the DLC or sequel.
DLC's might cost as much as 1/2 price as a full game but again not nearly half the effort needed,so they are another easy cash grab for the dev/publisher.

Amathe

I enjoy new content in any form, usually. But I don't like it when new content renders my past achievements immediately obsolete.  Such as in WoW, when the first trash mob I encounter drops a green weapon better than the purple one I raided to get.

laserit

I love the idea of expanding on games that I enjoy. The only issue imho is when it is done poorly.

Sovrath

I've always enjoyed expansions to varying degrees. I suppose it depends on whether you are talking about mmorpg's or single player/smaller multi-player games.

Take lord of the Rings online, I don't like where they took the game from the start. I actually don't like what they did with Moria. I would have rather it be one huge dungeon crawl, more along the lines of the Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen dungeon.

No having the dwarves have outposts all over the place, which is also out of the time period.

Single player games; I've always enjoyed the expansions. I like keeping the adventures of my character going.

AlBQuirky

Sovrath said:

I've always enjoyed expansions to varying degrees. I suppose it depends on whether you are talking about mmorpg's or single player/smaller multi-player games.

Take lord of the Rings online, I don't like where they took the game from the start. I actually don't like what they did with Moria. I would have rather it be one huge dungeon crawl, more along the lines of the Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen dungeon.

No having the dwarves have outposts all over the place, which is also out of the time period.

Single player games; I've always enjoyed the expansions. I like keeping the adventures of my character going.

Yeah, I'm looking mainly at single player games. MMO you expect expansions to keep the games fresh and players playing. Depending on who you ask, those expansions may boost or kill an MMO

I do have to admit that DLCs are a big reason why I wait for "Game of the Year" editions, though.

Look at Civilization V, VI, and Railway Empires as examples. Civ 5 has 15(?) expansions/DLCs, VI has a bunch (9?) of expansions as does Railway Empire with 8, thus far. Sometimes it "looks" like companies look at their game and then think, "How can we break this apart to sell separately?"

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

cameltosis

AlBQuirky said:

Rimworld, GTA V, and No Man's Sky comes to mind as other examples of games that seem to be "continuously" updating. Do you mind the updates? Do they worry you? If you're done with a game, do you restart a new one to "check it out?" Some of the updates are good and needed, fixing bugs or broken parts of the game, or adding interesting content.

Along with this are DLCs and expansions (mainly found in MMOs). Most of the time, they're fun and add new things to a game. Usually, they're worth picking them up and checking out (horse armor aside, Bethesda!). How do you view these? Do they get you back into the game again after finishing it up?

Last is sequels. Sequels I have gotten wary of, myself. Many times, they are the not the same game, but rather the old game "with a twist." That's cool and all, but I find myself "expecting" the old game with updated graphics or possibly mechanics tweaks. Too often (for me) they seem to add something that may not "fit" with the original game's design or goals. Other times, they will just add pieces of another genre and mash them, up.

What are your thoughts on these items for single player games? I'm curious how "odd" I am

Some interesting questions here AIBQuirky, I've enjoyed thinking about them!

My first thought: DLCs and expansions are the exact same thing. I don't view them any differently at all as they serve the exact same purpose: to add more content to the game for a price. The only difference seems to be one of size, with xpacs being "larger". But this is not a rule, there have been loads of tiny expansions and loads of large DLCs.

Onto specific questions / thoughts.

On game updates, I don't think about these at all. In the games I play, an update only ever means bug fixes. The only game I play where updates bother me is GTAV. And thats only because I hate the multiplayer, so every update just means more harddrive space taken up for no benefit.

MMOs - Xpacs

If you are playing these games "properly", i.e. multiplayer, then xpacs / dlcs are mandatory. No other way around it, if you fail to buy them then your gaming experience is going to get much worse, because your friends will all be playing the new content.

My experience is that expansions tend to make the mmorpg progressively worse, usually by dumbing down the systems in an effort to make it more accessible. Despite being made worse, this is balanced by the excitement of having new things to learn and new content to explore. So, if fun was at 100% for the base game, 1st xpac will be at 90% fun, 2nd xpac will be at 80%....and so on.

If the base game was amazing (e.g. lotro), then I won't be too bothered by the lower quality xpacs as it'll still be fun, just not as much fun. But if the base game was mediocre (e.g. swtor) then I'll quit before bothering with an xpac.

Some MMOs do seem to be able to make their games better with an xpac, I've just never experienced it first hand.

MMOs - Sequels

I am of the opinion that part of the reason for stagnation in this genre is that we don't have enough sequels. Devs get stuck working on the same game for too many years, always restricted by the same engine and never getting the opportunity to iterate and apply any lessons learned.

So, I'd like to see more sequels, happening quicker. In LotRO's case, I think we should be on game number 3, maybe 4 by now. Game 1 would be angmar and moria, game 2 would be mirkwood and isenguard, game 3 rohan and gondor, maybe mordor too. Game 4 could be a more sandbox experience, after the war of the ring?

Devs could keep the old games running, combining access / subs, but the new games would give them an opportunity to refresh the community, update graphics, apply lessons learnt etc. Just because a game is a live service, doesn't mean it has to run forever!

Single Player - Xpacs / DLC

For the longest time, I was just flat-out against these. Games that were good didn't require any extra things, they were just good all by themselves. Games that were mediocre or bad could never convince me to waste more money on them.

In addition to that, I could never justify the price point. With never ending sales on steam, why the fuck would I spend £10 on a DLC when I could buy an entire AAA game for the same price?!?

It never made sense to me, just seemed like a scam.

My opinion was changed by Cities: Skylines. I love this game (my most played on steam). Between mods and the freedom of the base game, it was just amazing. Some (not all) of the DLCs released offered me a genuine expansion to the game. In a sandbox world, they gave me more tools to use, without removing any old tools or changing anything in the base game.

I still viewed the pricepoint as awful, but if I wait long enough for a sale, I can pick up some good new functionality for under £5.

So, in sandboxy type games, I now view DLCs / xpacs favourably and will wait until a good price point is reached. Recently bought south america pack for Planet Zoo, as despite the lack of animals or maps, the new construction pieces allow me to build more interesting things. More tools are good.

For all other types of games, I still rarely buy a DLC or xpac. I still want more tools, new ways to experience the game, but most DLCs tend to focus on story or locations. I dislike story, so I would never spend money to experience more story. Screw that. On locations, sure, sometimes it can be nice to simply have a new location to explore with a character you love (like the elder scrolls xpacs), but if there isn't a new way to experience them, i.e. new gameplay, then I just feel like I'm going through the motions.

It really is all about the price though. If a DLC dropped to £1, even in a game that is mediocre, I'd probably buy it. But once you hit £5+, then your DLC better offer me something genuinely good.

Single Player - Sequels

This one all comes down to the specific company. In my experience, most sequels are a completely different experience to the first game, with just a loose thematic link or story link. Sometimes thats a good thing, sometimes its a bad thing, but if you enjoyed the first game then the sequel is often disappointing.

So, I just treat sequels as separate games and assess them in the same way I would any other new game.

There are also trends in sequels, depending on the genre. Shooters tend to keep their mechanics very damn similar, with sequels mostly just changing locations. RPGs tend to keep their story and characters the same, but they fuck about with the gameplay a lot. Strategy games tend to keep the overall gameplay loop quite similar, whilst messing with the specifics to ensure you still have a lot to learn.

Mendel

I distinguish a DLC from an expansion thusly.  To me, a DLC only offers new content for the existing game play.  An expansion alters the fundamental game play, either offering new play options or changing the nature of existing features.  Expansions can (and often do) contain DLC.

Adamantine

Well, if it is done as in No Man's Sky or as it was done in Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, and you just get game fixes that make the game better without having to pay extra, then I'm perfectly fine with it.

If it is done as in the days of old, when you bought a main game like, say, Neverwinter Nights 2, and then there have been addons, I'm fine with that, too. NWN2 was a finished game and so are its addons. Even if I hate Mask of the Betrayer with a passion, never played it far, and shouldnt have bought it in the first place.

A whole different issue is when I first have to buy the game, then all kinds of DLCs, and then typically the game still doesnt run well anyway. This is for example the current state of Stellaris. Thanks to the AI being completely unable to manage anything efficiently, Stellaris has turned into a micromanagement hell, and the opponent AI is unbelievably dumb and inefficient, so even Grand Admiral isnt really a problem. No thank you.

Aeander

It always depends on a case by case basis.

Generally speaking, for MMOs, I like expansions that don't raise the level cap. If you raise the cap, you aren't really expanding anything. You're not increasing endgame variety for the player. You're just moving them on a linear treadmill from point A to point B.

For single player games, cap increases are more acceptable, because these games aren't typically meant to be played in perpetuity. A linear A to B is more in line with the design philosophy.

I'm also a major fan of feature-based DLC. For example, extra classes or build options actually excite me more than content. If say, Fire Emblem Three Houses released another DLC that added in equivalents to conspicuously missing classes like the halberdier/lancer, druid, griffon rider, vanguard, sage, etc., I'd buy that in a heartbeat. Because such things immensely improve replay value through versatility.

Iselin

Updates, DLC and expansions are all fine if done well but beware the sequel!

You really should think about sequels as brand new games and forget that it has anything to do with the previous one.

If you liked the previous one and they don't change too much for the sequel you'll feel ripped off by what you think should have been an update or DLC and if they change too much you might hate it if one of the things changed is what you really liked about the first one. They can't win lol.

Aeander

Iselin said:

Updates, DLC and expansions are all fine if done well but beware the sequel!

You really should think about sequels as brand new games and forget that it has anything to do with the previous one.

If you liked the previous one and they don't change too much for the sequel you'll feel ripped off by what you think should have been an update or DLC and if they change too much you might hate it if one of the things changed is what you really liked about the first one. They can't win lol.

I know a lot of franchises get flak for not changing. Sometimes it's deserved. Sometimes it isn't.

There is a delicate balance. We buy franchises so we can know what to expect. It's a form of quality assurance or expectation. But also, we should expect things to improve.

To me, a series should always make just enough changes to fix what was broken, but not change so much as to be unidentifiable.

Pokemon is a franchise that is too conservative. It actually has gaping flaws. EVs and IVs make for terrible, unintuitive, and unfun progression mechanics. They still only have one save file. They could use difficulty settings for more hardcore players to enjoy a challenge while keeping the games accessible. They could stand to greatly improve their storytelling, as they are effectively non-story RPGs. You could improve ALL of this without sacrificing a bit of the charm and simplicity that made these games popular in the first place.

On the other end of the spectrum, Final Fantasy is a franchise that doesn't have an identity anymore. They're constantly changing the combat system and progression systems, for example. FFXIII is completely different from the classics. FFXV is completely different from that. FF7R is completely different than anything (but actually bloody good this time). 

Nebless

Well I don't have any problems with updates as their just fixing stuff with those.  Might be things 'I' don't think needed fixed, but I'm not in charge.

DLC's & Expansions:  I'm for them, letting me continue to play a game I like is fine.  Pricing them the same or even higher than what I paid for the game isn't something I'm impressed with, but since I don't need to have things right when they come out I just wait until they come on sale.

Sequel's:  The only one I've ever done was with Mount & Blade.  I had the original for a number of years and picked up the next in line Warband.  While the same game underneath it was different enough with the things they added that buying it was the right thing to do.

I'm not sure you could really classify Titan Quest: Anniversary Edition a sequel, but since I got it for free when it came out, who cares.

Theocritus

Really i am not a fan of DLC and here's why: It feels like many games leave out content on purpose and then sell it later as a DLC. Instead of just adding it they feel like they should charge for just about anything they add to the game.

AlBQuirky

Nebless said:

Well I don't have any problems with updates as their just fixing stuff with those.  Might be things 'I' don't think needed fixed, but I'm not in charge.

That's the crux of it all, isn't it? We're not in charge

It basically boils down to if those changes "agree" with our opinions

AlBQuirky

Just had another thought: How about sequels that change a series' story?

I'm thinking about XCom here. In the first revival of the game, you defeat the aliens and kick them off of Earth. In XCom 2, the aliens apparently won and now we have to defeat them again.

Are there other games like that?

Ungood

AlBQuirky said:

What brought this up for me was the game Minecraft. I (finally) bought it over a year ago and have enjoyed many hours just creating and surviving. However, I've never "beaten the game", as in killed the Ender Dragon. When I feel the urge to play, I just boot up the game and load a saved game to continue my crafting/building. When I bought the game, I think it was on version 1.10.2, possibly. Their current version is 1.16.1. That's A LOT of updates. I found the mods I like for the version I currently play (1.12.2) and wonder if players keep starting new games with each new iteration of the game.

Rimworld, GTA V, and No Man's Sky comes to mind as other examples of games that seem to be "continuously" updating. Do you mind the updates? Do they worry you? If you're done with a game, do you restart a new one to "check it out?" Some of the updates are good and needed, fixing bugs or broken parts of the game, or adding interesting content.

Along with this are DLCs and expansions (mainly found in MMOs). Most of the time, they're fun and add new things to a game. Usually, they're worth picking them up and checking out (horse armor aside, Bethesda!). How do you view these? Do they get you back into the game again after finishing it up?

Last is sequels. Sequels I have gotten wary of, myself. Many times, they are the not the same game, but rather the old game "with a twist." That's cool and all, but I find myself "expecting" the old game with updated graphics or possibly mechanics tweaks. Too often (for me) they seem to add something that may not "fit" with the original game's design or goals. Other times, they will just add pieces of another genre and mash them, up.

What are your thoughts on these items for single player games? I'm curious how "odd" I am

Really depends on how well they do things.

I loved the Sims, played 1, 2, & 3, I loved the expansions for the Sims 2, bought them all, and loved the updates. However the Sims 3.. not so much.

Same with Dawn of War, I played I, II, & III, they added to II in the best way they could, I just could not get enough.. III however.. eh.