Will Paradox consider streamlining their DLC business model for future games?

[Darkrenown]

DLC is universally infamous in the industry.

It's not though? Bad DLC being bad doesn't mean all DLC is bad. Yes, there's a subset of people who complain, but when I finished, say, Shadow of Mordor I thought to myself "Damn, that was a good game, I hope they make some more content for it soon!". When I played Fall of Cybertron I happily bought the retro weapons pack because it had a gun that made the "Pew pew!" laser sound from the original cartoon. When I got Tomb raider (the reboot), after playing for a while I scanned the DLC list, saw there was a bunch of stuff I wasn't interesting in but one additional Tomb to raid, and so I got only that. I didn't actually like the Daud DLCs for Dishonored, but they seem to be widely regarded as just as good if not better than the main campaign.

More content for games you enjoy is an entirely good thing, although not all DLC is good and even good DLC is not for everyone. The key thing is to be in informed consumer and not blindly reject, or indeed accept, all DLC. People who hates all DLCs will miss out on good DLCs, much as people who hate Steam will miss out on Steam games, but this doesn't mean it's bad to make DLCs or put your games on Steam - in fact they can be great moves for both game developers and game players.

For now people watching the unupdated CK2 store page would think : why would I pay 40€ for a 3 year old game and then have to buy 100€ worth of DLC for the "full game" ?

Why would anyone do this, except to be an outraged hypothetical? It would seem far more reasonable, and this is what I do when buying games, to first check where it's cheapest to buy it then evaluate if I want it enough to spend $X on it. If so: Buy. If not: Add to wishlist and get it on sale. Once I have the game, if I enjoy it I'll check out what the DLCs add and follow a similar process. If the game has been recommended to me by a friend/reviewer/guy on an interwebs forum then they might have mentioned which DLCs are nice to have and what they do, so they might be included in the initial buying evaluation, but it seems pretty strange to stumble upon a game you have never heard of and conclude "WELL I EITHER BUY THIS NOW, FULL PRICE, AND EVERY BIT OF DLC IT HAS OR I IGNORE IT FOREVER!".

Well i guess traditional rules of the market doesn't apply to PDS

I'm fairly sure it's a normal market rule that people are more likely to buy something that's on sale than they are to buy something that is just cheap normally. A $40 game at 75% off screams "Bargain! Buy me!", but a $10 game says "I am probably cheap because I am low quality".

 

[Darkath]

It's not though? Bad DLC being bad doesn't mean all DLC is bad. Yes, there's a subset of people who complain, but when I finished, say, Shadow of Mordor I thought to myself "Damn, that was a good game, I hope they make some more content for it soon!". When I played Fall of Cybertron I happily bought the retro weapons pack because it had a gun that made the "Pew pew!" laser sound from the original cartoon. When I got Tomb raider (the reboot), after playing for a while I scanned the DLC list, saw there was a bunch of stuff I wasn't interesting in but one additional Tomb to raid, and so I got only that. I didn't actually like the Daud DLCs for Dishonored, but they seem to be widely regarded as just as good if not better than the main campaign.

More content for games you enjoy is an entirely good thing, although not all DLC is good and even good DLC is not for everyone. The key thing is to be in informed consumer and not blindly reject, or indeed accept, all DLC. People who hates all DLCs will miss out on good DLCs, much as people who hate Steam will miss out on Steam games, but this doesn't mean it's bad to make DLCs or put your games on Steam - in fact they can be great moves for both game developers and game players.

I didn't mean to imply that DLC was bad per se. I just meant that the general attitude towards DLC, especially micro-transactional DLC (<3€), is usually negative because it has been abused so much by various publishers. So this could affect the perception of the game at first glance, before an informed opinion can be formed.

 

[DanJonMin]

Except it would put pressure on Paradox to release those DLC in the next 18 months, and set them in a strict schedule. If, for some reason - and there can be various reasons - Paradox can't keep up with that schedule, people will complain, and rightfully so.

Also, such a season pass is just a bad habit, for a customer, because you are giving money for the promise of a product. I often think a publisher is somewhat like a dog : great as long as they behave, but as soon as you become too permissive, they make your life a hell. And we wouldn't want PI to take up any bad habit, would we ?

I don't think that's really a good idea. Full disclosure, I've purchased every DLC that isn't an e-book for EU4 and CK2, even Sunset invasion, and I purchased them all on or shortly after launch (except Sunset Invasion, that was a 75% off thing) and I don't think I'd feel comfortable buying a product timeline. Instead, it may be more fruitful to bundle items AFTER the fact, as people above have suggested. So, basically, bundle the first year's (or whatever cycle works) worth of content as a single content bundle once you've started publishing year two's content. That way you're not making an implicit or explicit promise to your consumers about several mini-projects (besides, what's to stop all the DLCs from being Sunset Invasions rather than an appropriate mix of Res Publicas, AoWs, and CoPs?) and aren't bound to anything.

That being said, in addition to the way content is handled on the Steam store, it'd be nice to see content grouped within the launcher as well; doubly so if this could be extended to the mod page. Actual game-changing content, music, and visual fluff should not just get dumped together in a giant list.

Ultimately it all comes down what sort of customer you are trying to appeal to by 'streamlining' your DLC. If you want to sell more to the people who are willing to pre-order the game, then offering a pre-order for a set number of DLC is going to sell to that demographic. If you want to attract new players 2 years after the game has been released, or convince people who bought the base game to buy up sections of the backlog of DLC then you want to take a different approach.

Those of you that as a point of principle will not pre-order or buy season passes are not going to be convinced. However, the sort of people that are willing to pre-order the game are probably the same people willing to consider a season pass of some description. The question of whether PDS will turn into Ubisoft overnight is purely hypothetical. I'm a firm believer of voting with my wallet and have not so far been given any reason not to believe that they can't produce the goods. Granted tagging a timeline to it isn't s great idea given the timeliness of HoI4 and some select EU4 DLC, but a promise of 4 major and 20 minor DLC for, say, £40 (which might be 15-25% off individual purchase price) is something I would be willing to consider on the proviso that if it goes wrong I will revert to what Student me did and buy at 75% off 6 months after release, if at all.

 

[vyshan]

It would be much easier if steam allowed us to stay on the same page when we buy dlc, as I often have to backtrack to the DLC page for the various PI games to get the dlc that I want.

 

[Teije]

Alternatively, just roll all the DLC for older games up to a certain point in to a purchase of the base game. For CK2 say all DLC pre-TOG. A la World of Warcraft and their new Xpack.

+1 to this idea. Then new people buying CKII/EUIV would feel they are getting a fairly up-to-date product without having to figure out which DLCs are "required" for full enjoyment. Not a fan of the season pass/subscription - even though I buy pretty much everything (except the songs), I don't like feeling locked in or committed to anything.

 

[Phibs]

Granted tagging a timeline to it isn't s great idea given the timeliness of HoI4 and some select EU4 DLC, but a promise of 4 major and 20 minor DLC for, say, £40 (which might be 15-25% off individual purchase price) is something I would be willing to consider on the proviso that if it goes wrong I will revert to what Student me did and buy at 75% off 6 months after release, if at all.

Well if the 'season pass' comes with a set amount of major and minor dlc, it's not so very different from a auto-buy subscription really.

In which case I would be on-board. Though given the release time-line of pdox, the discount would have to be sufficient.

 

[Fintilgin]

It would be much easier if steam allowed us to stay on the same page when we buy dlc, as I often have to backtrack to the DLC page for the various PI games to get the dlc that I want.

Yeah, I'd love a right-click menu which let me add a DLC to my cart and STAY ON THE STORE PAGE FOR THAT PRODUCT!

Do people feel this is a problem that we need to fix - or Steam? I mean sure we can go about creating smart ways of presenting dozens of DLC - but ultimately it's a presentation issue on Steams end.

/shams

I do think this is a big issue. But yeah, it's more Steam then you. There really should be a way to have them pre-sorted by type 'cosmetic', expansion, whatever.

I belong to the club who'd show up, see 200$ worth of unsorted DLC and have a high chance of wandering away muttering "LOL, f@%$ no." Part of it is the sense that with a lot of games I've never heard of I'm not willing to launch into a research project to figure out what DLC is what, and part of it is the sense that I won't get a 'complete' product unless I spend the $240. Spending 200$ over three years to get a 'complete' game is vastly different psychologically then dropping it all at once!

I'm in a weird place where having experienced the Paradox DLC style and seeing how much it actually improves the game and results in real continued development I'm 100% on board with it. But at the same time if I didn't know and trust Paradox already, and were judging them by the standards I judge most of the rest of the gaming industry, I'd be really, really turned off by the CKII DLC page.

Not sure what the solution would be. The big thing I guess is trying to get Steam to enhance the DLC display, so you could have collapsible and custom lists of different 'types' of DLC. Themed bundles with a discount might help too. Like Old Gods, Sons of Abraham, and thematically appropriate cosmetic DLC all packaged together into a 'Warring Gods - 2012 season' pack or something with a X% off the total.

I'd probably be willing to buy a 'season' or even 'lifetime' pass for certain Paradox favorite/flagship titles too.

 

[Lys91]

Season passes sound like a great idea.

Would people prefer a subscription. Just sign up and don't be bothered with the hassle of having to manually buy each DLC - for those that know they'll be getting every single one? subscribing might give you a discount or other special bonus?

/shams

Proposed this 6 months ago, happy to see you are changing your mind on this.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?784593-Season-pass&highlight=

It may not attract all the demographic that buys your game, but for the old timer it will probably be perfect. Steam as improved recently (you can finally see clearly which DLC you already own), but I will still be happy to pay for bundles of DLC.

I am curious to know what the total price of DLC + game per year for someone who owns all PD grand strategy game. You may propose something like an MMO, I give you £15 a month and you give me anything you release (£180 a year, that maybe a bit high, don't know). As long as you don't release new Aztec DLC I will be happy with that .

Edit: may be throw in beta access and/or special forum with exciting news etc...

 

[Wagonlitz]

As long as you don't release new Aztec DLC I will be happy with that .

Edit: may be throw in beta access and/or special forum with exciting news etc...

You have seen what the new EU4 expansion is, right?

 

[duhsveti]

"Oh hey, I heard this game is good, I sure hope there's little or no additional content for it! I really hate being able to get more of a game I enjoy!".

I think it's more in the lines of "goddamn this list if huge. I'll just wait for the complete edition in a year or two".

 

[Wagonlitz]

I think it's more in the lines of "goddamn this list if huge. I'll just wait for the complete edition in a year or two".

But the complete edition won't actually be complete...

 

[Lys91]

You have seen what the new EU4 expansion is, right?

Well, in EU4 it makes more sense (though maybe a bit of a waste of time as they are supposed to die of dicease within 60 years of game start...). The other changes in the DLC sounds good though. I would certainly have preferred* a China-East Asia focused DLC, but it will come at some point (I have no idea why new-world civilizations are more popular...).

* are internal politic management focused DLC, but Paradox does not seem keen on it.

 

[Delta107]

Simply so that you don't end up buying so many pieces of individual DLC, what options have been considered?

I'd rather like if Paradox would stop bundling DLCs with features that don't belong to the same category. But marketing is marketing...

 

[Wagonlitz]

Well, in EU4 it makes more sense (though maybe a bit of a waste of time as they are supposed to die of dicease within 60 years of game start...). The other changes in the DLC sounds good though. I would certainly have preferred* a China-East Asia focused DLC, but it will come at some point (I have no idea why new-world civilizations are more popular...).

* are internal politic management focused DLC, but Paradox does not seem keen on it.

[nitpick]The Incas lasted for ~100 years from game start.[/nitpick]

 

[Aardvark Bellay]

I only like to add that the "DLC Collection"s should either get different names or numbers added to them by each release,
as i see and saw quite some threads (here and on Steam discussion) with people complaining about an alledgedly missing DLC, while at the time they had bought the Collection it wasn't part of it.

Numbering them could prevent that kind of confusion, as it seems to be especially a problem with sales on Amazon (my impression), where old collections get sold,
while a new Collection is up already.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Season passes sound like a great idea.

Would people prefer a subscription. Just sign up and don't be bothered with the hassle of having to manually buy each DLC - for those that know they'll be getting every single one? subscribing might give you a discount or other special bonus?

/shams

How big of a discount are we talking? I'd buy one for, say, a 20% discount across a guaranteed 10 DLC (or something like that).

 

[wolfing]

The problem I see is the huge list of DLCs, with most of them being cosmetic. It does scare away potential new customers. I keep recommending the games (CK2 and EU4) to my friends and in every game forum I visit, but almost immediately the response is something like 'Hell no! I'm not buying a game that has so many DLCs'.

I think an option, and in this I am reversing my previous opinion on the subject, is to stop separating each expansion into 4 or 5 DLCs. Yes, previously I defended that saying I'd rather pay $10 for the main DLC and $2 for the face pack than $15 for those and music and banners and what not (talking CK2 here), but now my opinion is that, like it or not, it is affecting potential customers. It'd be much better for a new customer to see 4 big DLCs than a list of 20+ DLCs to have to go through.

A subscription or 'Season pass' won't work I don't think, as it wouldn't replace the current system, so it'll add yet another line to the big lists.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

I think a good option would be to categorize DLC.

Like "Core DLC" which are the big gameplay expanding packs.

"Cosmetic DLC" facepacks, unit packs etc.

So when people look at the DLC list they don't just go "OH FFS" and close the page thinking that to experience the full game they gotta get it all.

 

[Mauer]

Were the free week and weekend for CK2 and EU4 succesful in terms of sales? If they were, IMO that's probably a better solution to get newcomers to the games than offering 'complete' bundles which aren't going to be complete.

 

[Groogy]

SNIP

I agree, my personal shopping behavior always looked at the base game and didn't consider any expansions/DLC until I was done with the game. For instance I did not consider that in order for me to have a complete game of Diablo II, I also had to buy the expansion known as "Lord of Destruction". I bought the expansion because I wanted more of that game I just played but for all intents and purposes I was paying for an extension of the already base game already there(also because I wanted the latest patches which was behind this paywall but that's a separate issue). But then I am not every person in existence and if people want to view it as "You won't have a full game unless you buy everything available", then its their loss. I want more content for the games I play and I will pay to get more content so I hope the games I love do get more DLC's and Expansions. I actually know that at several occasions I have looked if a game that I am very interested in (tested friends copy) had more content before I actually bought the base and it actually motivated me to buy the game knowing there was an extension of the story that I could purchase to increase my play hours with that specific game.

Now I do not like the Steam interface when it comes to DLC's its not only an issue with Crusader Kings II but a lot of other games. It becomes a bit difficult and harder when I want to buy expansions and skim through to see what I want to add to my cart. But it would never stop me from actually buying a game. People who do are essentially handicapping themselves because the increased availability of games and with this new way of handling expansions which doesn't block updates behind a paywall gives much more power to the consumer himself. So by setting up a justification to yourself that you shouldn't buy games with a lot of expansions and DLC is only hurting you as a consumer instead of actually utilizing this new way of expanding your gameplay and fun in a much cheaper and dynamic way.

Edit: As a way to compare, buying the "full" Europa Universalis 3 would have cost you about ~120 bucks and all together would have provided about as much features as CK2 + Sword of Islam, The Republic, The Old Gods for what? 60 bucks? Without even counting the free patches as well. I'm sorry but I am having problems understanding the logic behind "There's too many DLC's so I won't buy this game". Because if I saw more companies go with this model I would be much much happier gamer.