maybe is time to rethink DLC policy

[R'hllor]

I think, like some of the latest dlcs in CK2 and EU4 show, the current development policy is looking bad from a game development perspective. If we look at most CK2 dlc's, especially the earlier ones, they merely added a new religion with some new mechanics to play around, or expanded the timeline a bit further back. There were some new gameplay features as well, but mostly everything was really modular.

Then enter the Conclave, the newest dlc which for multiple reasons I rate to be the worst thing ever added in CK2 along with the 2.5. patch, and we start to see problems. That dlc didn't just add new mechanics, but it replaces many old ones. I think maintaining two versions of the same mechanics is a bad idea, and will likely screw over someone eventually. EU4 is likely a lot worse for non-dlc owners, which is partly why I have pretty much quit the game at this point.

Instead of having a massive amount of dlc for each game, I'd prefer to get a new game every few years, and a few dlc's that don't dramatically change the entire game. That's a problem with this development model as well, like we can see with the horrible, horrible changes in CK2 2.5, like the disgusting automatic calls to arms. Eventually devs will have to change things just to justify making a new dlc again. Sure, the current dlc model looks pretty good on paper, but eventually it becomes unsustainable.

 

[loup99]

I think, like some of the latest dlcs in CK2 and EU4 show, the current development policy is looking bad from a game development perspective. If we look at most CK2 dlc's, especially the earlier ones, they merely added a new religion with some new mechanics to play around, or expanded the timeline a bit further back. There were some new gameplay features as well, but mostly everything was really modular.

Then enter the Conclave, the newest dlc which for multiple reasons I rate to be the worst thing ever added in CK2 along with the 2.5. patch, and we start to see problems. That dlc didn't just add new mechanics, but it replaces many old ones. I think maintaining two versions of the same mechanics is a bad idea, and will likely screw over someone eventually. EU4 is likely a lot worse for non-dlc owners, which is partly why I have pretty much quit the game at this point.

Instead of having a massive amount of dlc for each game, I'd prefer to get a new game every few years, and a few dlc's that don't dramatically change the entire game. That's a problem with this development model as well, like we can see with the horrible, horrible changes in CK2 2.5, like the disgusting automatic calls to arms. Eventually devs will have to change things just to justify making a new dlc again. Sure, the current dlc model looks pretty good on paper, but eventually it becomes unsustainable.

How come more people play and buy the expansions then? I don't think PDS will redo a model with which they continue getting records at each DLC release. Individual features can always be controversial or dividing ( I don't like everything either), but it doesn't have anything to do with the development model.

 

[P-51]

Their approach with Victoria II and Hearts of Iron III worked much better as a consumer, and I feel like it should be better for developers and testers when there is more time between expansions to really understand how the game works and how each expansion can affect it. Rather than paying $10 for a couple of new features I would rather pay $20 for something that would dramatically improve the experience of the game.

Some of the CKII expansions could have been combined and still maintained a consistency in terms of the content. Sons of Abraham should have come out with Sword of Islam, The Republic should have come out with Legacy of Rome, Charlemagne should have come out with Old Gods, Rajas of India should have never existed, etc. If these came out as three expansions, one per year, instead of six expansions every four to six months, the players would have more of a chance to interact with the features and really understand what these expansions have done to the game, and they would have felt more complete upon release. When some of these expansions came out they didn't feel like as big of a chance as there should have been.

 

[loup99]

The patches don`t include the content included into the expansions.

I just drew a comparison with Blizzard`s model, they give previous expansions as part of the base game.

Free patches ? Patches are for fixing the game and rebalancing the game with the new expansions added, I wouldn`t compare patches with free content.
True, they include some content with the patch that is linked with an expansion.

I think that making use of Blizzard`s model will bring far more players and with that far more revenue. Also, the customers can choose what they want to buy.

Trying to sort through Paradox`s titles like EU 4 or CK 2 with all their expansions and dlcs can scare people away.

No, and the expansions are a part of the model that has been a success. They have offered free content in every major EU4 and CK2 patch. In addition to the free content that is provided, there is optional paid content in the form of the expansions. The model used in the games of Blizzard (large MMO games) isn't at all adapted or adequate for Grand Strategy in my opinion. With that model, the players would only be getting a major patches and no expanded content. PDS would also gain less money.

Their approach with Victoria II and Hearts of Iron III worked much better as a consumer, and I feel like it should be better for developers and testers when there is more time between expansions to really understand how the game works and how each expansion can affect it. Rather than paying $10 for a couple of new features I would rather pay $20 for something that would dramatically improve the experience of the game.

While I don't know if it was better or worse, there is data that proves that the current model is popular.

Some of the CKII expansions could have been combined and still maintained a consistency in terms of the content. Sons of Abraham should have come out with Sword of Islam, The Republic should have come out with Legacy of Rome, Charlemagne should have come out with Old Gods, Rajas of India should have never existed, etc. If these came out as three expansions, one per year, instead of six expansions every four to six months, the players would have more of a chance to interact with the features and really understand what these expansions have done to the game, and they would have felt more complete upon release. When some of these expansions came out they didn't feel like as big of a chance as there should have been.

Which is why Johan said there will only be big expansions in the future. However, you have to keep in mind that players asked and paid for these expansions. And that these players, according to PDS themselves, supported that model and wanted continuous instead of sporadic development.

 

[Spartanlemur]

I used to support the DLC model, but now all I see are small changes for the price of a full game.

I'd like to see fewer, bigger expansions.

 

[Skjold89]

They need to slow down the DLC releases and make them have more content, thats all.

 

[P-51]

Which is why Johan said there will only be big expansions in the future. However, you have to keep in mind that players asked and paid for these expansions. And that these players, according to PDS themselves, supported that model and wanted continuous instead of sporadic development.

You can ask for something and still be disappointed after it comes out. I was willing to give the new approach a chance when CKII expansions were first being released. I was unimpressed by the immediate difference that Sword of Islam made so after that I decided I would only buy expansions on sale. And eventually it got to a point where I decided that none of these are worth buying anymore because they don't do enough to justifying being purchased. And now with EUIV, I was on the fence about buying it on release and decided not to. The large number of expansions that have been released for it has been discouraging to the point where now I won't even consider looking at it. If PI has a large enough base who unconditionally buys everything on release then I guess this isn't a problem, but I don't see it as a sustainable procedure if more people continue to decide that these expansions don't do enough to be worth an immediate purchase.

 

[WSnova]

I don´t mind that they are releasing DLCs over a long time, that was the point of DLC in the 1st place.

I do mind the frequency. It feels like an endless keeping up with the Joneses, with me barely getting to know one expansion before I am seeing info on another. But my gaming time is limited so I guess I am in the minority. Its especially annoying that we get a few days or weeks of bugs for every expansion.

I wouldn´t mind a yearly major expansion though. But I am one of those fools that buys yearly releases like AC and football manager. I don´t think 1 a year is too long. But then again in games like the division that seem to be designed to last for years people get all content done so quickly and I guess devs don´t want to lose them so I can see the argument for continuos content released constantly

 

[yourworstnightm]

A yearly bigger expansion instead of the current DLC policy would be nice.

 

[Atlantians]

They could also itemize DLC features as in-game purchasable unlocks.

That way if you don't want all the features of a DLC you can buy them piecemeal.

This would be a huge boon for Paradox with poeple buying features from previous DLC that those persons did not like or want in their entirety.

 

[P-51]

How is that different from what they are doing now? I can already not buy the DLC that I don't want.

 

[brifbates]

How is that different from what they are doing now? I can already not buy the DLC that I don't want.

He is suggesting breaking each DLC down even further and selling each unlock separately. For example, instead of buying Mare Nostrum entirely he would let you pay 5 for Condotierri, 5 for Merchant Republic stuff, 5 for Berber raids, and so on...

 

[Johan]

He is suggesting breaking each DLC down even further and selling each unlock separately. For example, instead of buying Mare Nostrum entirely he would let you pay 5 for Condotierri, 5 for Merchant Republic stuff, 5 for Berber raids, and so on...

That would not be good for the consumer though.. Its a small step from 'reroll new ruler' for 0,5$.

 

[Jak9090]

Idk what the problem is, using old model, we'd only get a few, linear expansions...

What i'm seeing here, is that some people cannot afford to buy the DLC so they feel left out and upset, and that's understandable.

However no matter what model they adopt I hope you understand that you'd not be able to afford it?

all we're seeing here is more DLC being made, because more people are playing, and more people are buying the DLC, if this model didn't work they simple wouldn't use it...

I'm sorry but i'm not a rich man, yet I manage to get every single DLC they release, how? rob bank? hold world hostage with freeze ray?

nope, i just refrain from getting a bigmac or a coffee every now and then and lookie here i've got 10 bucks!

 

[Jak9090]

HOWEVER!, what would be a cool move in the right direction IMO would be..

a price discount depending on how long/what dlc you brought the game at, say if you brought the base game,but didn't have enough money for sword of islam when it came out? well you've enjoyed the game for a good year or two, and now YOU can buy it for the same discount rate at which others get it in "Collection packs" that way everyone wins.

old players can simply wait if they don't like the price, whilst new players can get a collection pack.

 

[Lys91]

My main problem with the current scheme is that DLC feature are rarely revisited and when unsatisfying it is a pain. I think they are more conscious of the issue now as we see some substantial change being put in the patch rather than the DLC. However, some area of EU4 or CK2 will be better of with some consolidation and improvement.

 

[Lys91]

Idk what the problem is, using old model, we'd only get a few, linear expansions...

What i'm seeing here, is that some people cannot afford to buy the DLC so they feel left out and upset, and that's understandable.

However no matter what model they adopt I hope you understand that you'd not be able to afford it?

all we're seeing here is more DLC being made, because more people are playing, and more people are buying the DLC, if this model didn't work they simple wouldn't use it...

I'm sorry but i'm not a rich man, yet I manage to get every single DLC they release, how? rob bank? hold world hostage with freeze ray?

nope, i just refrain from getting a bigmac or a coffee every now and then and lookie here i've got 10 bucks!

Not the case, I can happily pay all expansions and more. However, I am not too happy with features not being iterated uppon because it was within a DLC and now it will never be touched uppon again or fit quite badly with the new DLC. While if the DLC where incremental rather than modular they could update feature from previous DLC (for example estate, faction + parlment could have been nicely tight together in a more well rounded thing). I may be in the minority that actually buy all DLC, and find the current model not so appealing as I would continue to buy everything either way.

Note that I was originally all for the new model and it worked pretty well with CK2 at the beginning, but it seems hard to support the current modular design.

 

[Togee]

I think the only problem now is that there's 4 games instead of 2

 

[Panzerschiffe]

A lot of games have a Season Pass. It's a fancy way of saying "preorder" most if not all future DLC.

I can't really afford to pay 10-20$ 4 times or so a year for DLC that triples my amount of clicks or adds some spiffy new feature. I think the DLCs need to be fewer and more meaningful but then again, I think people are buying them full price anyways so there's no reason for PI to change anything. They're making money which allows them to survive and make more games/DLC. It's a business after all.

 

[LordPavel]

Old players buy the new DLC, and paradox earn lot of money for that. Keep this policies.
First time I come and see CK2, I was very scare by the 40 DLC (today 58 ! ! !).

One simple solution : After 2 years, one DLC is ''disappear'' and become free in the base game.

New gamer will see 10-20 DLC only and will not be scare. Old gamers will see 1-2 big DLC by year and will buy (nobody will wait 2 years for have a DLC).