Current gaming industry trajectory, less titles, infinite DLCs. Open discussion.

[Lazy sweeper]

Let's talk about the current videogame industry trajectory as a whole.

Just a few titles that comes in mind. Death Stranding. Alan Wake II. Call of Duty. Civ VI.
What all of these have in common, seems to me that all of them, invested a huge amount of time developing a game, and then
for years, they continued milking the cow, releasing more and more DLCs. Sometime some DLCs are marketed as almost complete games
on themselves. Alan Wake II DLCs. Civ VI, released DLCs for the vanilla game, for close to 10 years...

In the past, before the digital, cloud storage era revolution, 2K released either patches, downloadable on the Internet, or sell
complete DLCs on physical media. And continued working on multiple titles at the same time, on a multitude of platforms.
Civ Pirates, Civ Colonization, Civ Revolution, Civ Revolution DS, Civ Beyond Earth...

Death Stranding is part of Konami theoretically and in the old times, Konami would release basically a triple AAA game every other weekend, for years on ending.
I like Death Stranding, but as with other open world games, I got tired after playing Valhalla, or Jedi survivor, not even finishing the base storyline.
Horizon forbidden west? Same story. Too big. Some games like Stray, are smaller, and well balanced. No DLCs, the game doesn't cost a fortune even on launch it
was 29 Eurs, which for digital copy of a game that you can not resell, It will never be a collectible and even have a chance of having a value in the future just more
than maybe a Switch or PS4 physical edition, it is a lot of money. 29 Eurs today are equal to 60$ in the early 2000. It's a lot of money.

Why, companies like 2K, concentrate all of their efforts, on just one title, and the churn the milk for ten years on just this one, when it could
make one game per year, with all the available cash and resources it has got through this golden era of digital licences?

Today, people are boycotting Ubisoft for its woke* decisions. The black guy in japan AC title has stirred the worst possible outcome from the Internet.
But this not why I have decided not to buy it on Steam. It has been released on Steam, only after the massive boycott on the Playstation already happened.
They later released AC Mirage also on Steam, a title that came out before AC Shadow. Ubisoft didn't understand that the majority of MAC-PC players, value Steam
because it cares about us. It offers refunds. Even DLCs now has to give a clear indication of its content and date of release. Ubisoft is selling
the CREW 2 for 1$ on Steam, yet no one wants it. Even physical copies of a Ubisoft game now, needs a connection to Ubisoft servers, and offline gaming
is not guaranteed to last forever... everyone is fed up... but Ubisoft is a huge company, with many titles at work at the same time.



*I'm just talking about something that has been market as woke by a big margin of Internet users. The use of this word, does not reflect my sentiment toward its meaning.
It is the same as using the word pagan to describe everyone that is not a Christian by religion, basically an insult, perpetrated for hundreds of years by... Christians...
I know it, I am an adult, with a functioning brain, and I can critically evaluate the context where this word has been used and phrased. Hopefully this is not insulting to anyone
that understands the difference between a racist that uses the term woke to evoke its demons on to the rest of the world, and someone that writes about someone else that
has used the term woke, or pagan, and look at it with its third eye wide open. Thanks for listening and move on.

The old 2k Would release 3 major DLCs, and then move on the next title. How many DLCs will Civ VII have? 20? 6?

The current trajectory dictates that a Neolithic age DLC would not be possible without changing all the vanilla rules of the game.
And reject the blunt of it. It reject a DLC solely of Dictators *mods where a grim, fanatic world, that ends with Terminators and Aliens
taking control of the world the only way out is on a spaceship in order to save the human species... Wolfenstein mod civ...
Or a Waterworld DLC made all of acquatic cities, like Subnautica. Rising Sea DLC was cool, but how much cooler would have been
a completely separate game instead of just a DLC, that has also been nerfed so hard lately that it basically ceased to be?

We could have all this games separatedly. Yes we could. But they don-t fit the current trajectory. Follow the money. I am not criticizing here, please, understand this... I am stating the obvious...
These are all experiments. Civ instead in its most basic form, without variation, is a golden cow. No need to change anything and
milk will flow...


Any thoughts? What is wrong with this mindset?
What happened that made the whole of the Industry stop experimenting with new ideas?
Sure, Old World, Millenia, Humankind, all of these are new games, but in the last 10 years, we had only these four in the 4X... Stellaris...
Age of Empire is just remasters of the same game released 20 years ago. Cleopathra, or Pharaoh also. Ceasar never saw a sequel.
And every year there were at least two or more releases for every one of these 4X or RTS, civ, building games...

Is it a mindset or is it the market that leaves no room for error?
Stupid decisions that can cause the closure of a Studio, or is it something else?
Idk. What is that us as players can do to other than watch the release of games more and more expansive each time,
more and more complex, and when they fall, they fall so hard that whole Studios go belly up?
How is this unavoidable?

Instead of making a base game a requirement for a DLC, why not just attach a part of a game to a DLC, and market it as a complete game for itself?
This DLC could have its own set of rules, completely altered from the base game. When bundled, it has to obey the base game rules...
It could branch onto its own creature... utopia?

I imagine a civs where there are no firearm, where there are no wars, where people fight with just flowers and water baloons.
A game made for kids 3-6 years old.

I imagine a civ game of just druids and elves, where magic stones flies all around.

I imagine a civ game where the Nazi won, and the rebellion is the only way for to survive, and all civs have to unite against the devils
that rules the world. You are not the civ leader, but the rebels. The Barbars. The nomads with no land. The pagans, the Indians that needs to be exterminated.

I want to be able to speak about alternative worlds, parallel universes, in an Open, constructive discussion.
In the same way, I would like to be able to criticize science, history, civilizations, societies and ideas, without anyone
forcing its ideas on anyone. As a Flat earther can believe in Aliens and Dragons at the same time and also Newtonian laws of Physics.
For as long as it is not forcing anyone to agree to its creed, it is fine for me, and thus should be reflected in the gaming industry.
Complete liberty, with some basic rules, like freedom and equality*

** Religious content not included / nor 1984 Orwellian content somehow also, unless it has a white supremacy stamp linked to it, so it should definitely burn.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

For me personally I hope more studious latch on to what has happened with AoE2. That game got an expansion and then support ceased. But then like a decade or 2 later, suddenly more stuff has been released because the game is still popular.

I would happily get more civs, or expanded bonuses per civ, for Civ V if Firaxis decided to renew support. Much more happily that I would spend money on the risky prospect of a new game I may or may not like. I didn't like civ VI, and I regret spending money on it. I have several thousand hours in Civ V, and tbh I could still spend several thousand more in it.

It doesn't follow for every game, but games with replayability on the scale of civ could benefit from further DLC for the consumer and publisher. And it doesn't follow for every type of DLC too - I'd be much more wary of expansions. But more civ V would be a dead cert buy from me as long as they don't go mental like paradox and render their games broken and unplayable through untested constant churn. I loved EU4 but ever since Leviathan it's been a different game that I can't bring myself to play.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

For me personally I hope more studious latch on to what has happened with AoE2. That game got an expansion and then support ceased. But then like a decade or 2 later, suddenly more stuff has been released because the game is still popular.

I would happily get more civs, or expanded bonuses per civ, for Civ V if Firaxis decided to renew support. Much more happily that I would spend money on the risky prospect of a new game I may or may not like. I didn't like civ VI, and I regret spending money on it. I have several thousand hours in Civ V, and tbh I could still spend several thousand more in it.

It doesn't follow for every game, but games with replayability on the scale of civ could benefit from further DLC for the consumer and publisher. And it doesn't follow for every type of DLC too - I'd be much more wary of expansions. But more civ V would be a dead cert buy from me as long as they don't go mental like paradox and render their games broken and unplayable through untested constant churn. I loved EU4 but ever since Leviathan it's been a different game that I can't bring myself to play.

Also this can happen. I used to love this game, especially the 3rd title. But idk if I'd be willing to buy a new remastered version of a game I already own, plus its behind a DRM...
Make a new one, on the basis of the last good one, with minor changes, and call it a day... Why go after the old GOG versions, delisting them, and then
just repackage it and sell it again? What has these guys in their vein? They want us to really believe they have no resources for making a new title on the old engine?
Blizzard? They want to punish us because we are not buying Diablo 4?

And talking about Civ III, I own three CD copies of the base game, plus Ultimate edition collection, and the Steam digital version.
yet the Steam digital version is missing some basic Arts, and TEThurkhan test of time scenario crashes and can't be played unless
you do not download all the parts from some link on Civfanatics.
I would LOVE a remastered version of Civ III, with all the missing Art, and maybe a Steam page with a working workshop, and why not,
also a new Multiplayer option or two. I would buy it full price, 59 Eurs? You got my money.
Even if it is Steam. I don-t care at this point. The right to resell and STOPKILLINGGAMES initiative is moving on a parallel universe at this point.
I just hope 2K would not touch GOG version for everyone that still want the DRM free version, like Blizzard is doing.

 

[evonannoredars]

Instead of making a base game a requirement for a DLC, why not just attach a part of a game to a DLC, and market it as a complete game for itself?
This DLC could have its own set of rules, completely altered from the base game. When bundled, it has to obey the base game rules...
It could branch onto its own creature... utopia?

Sounds like you're kinda describing scenarios and/or game modes. It presumably makes more sense money-wise to do this much more experimental stuff as DLCs rather than full seperate games because it probably won't sell as well (compare Beyond Earth to the 'mainline' Civ games for example) and is likely less expensive to produce/market. As for regular content DLCs, it is likely easier for them to keep expanding on what they already have for longer than it is to make entirely new games more often, although I do wish we got more content in free updates rather than having loadsss of paid DLCs, especially considering how expensive it is initially before getting discounted enormously after several years.

Can't comment on the situation wrt other games, but the DLC situation with Civ is more understandable imo.

 

[fantsu]

Steam bots love not owning anything and paying to Valve instead of the developer. Its funny how they now blame others for doing the same.

 

[TreVor_ish]

I have been told few days ago on this forum that saying:
“industry is heading towards the point where gaming is always online subscription service for license to rent, with servers only running for few years”,
is a hyperbole - however there are publishers that are certainly heading towards it.

Now, any game “bought” on Steam, is just a license to rent. If one, just now, decides to play a full Europa Universalis IV and doesn’t want to pay a full price for every DLC – which is hundreds of pounds/dollars/euros, one can just subscribe to it – which is exactly what I said in that quote. Off course no one expects Steam going down in foreseeable future and there are not so many games that do it now.

Ubisoft for instance closed servers for The Crew (the first one), which in their T&C’s did not state it is a only an online service that *can end at any time* when I bought it years ago. However their EULA also stated, that it can be changed to whatever at any given time, so there it is, from legal point, it’s absolutely nothing wrong right? I did buy a game, that is mainly online and can’t play it offline, if producer decides to just shut down the servers – case closed.

Steam itself is just convenient, digital only is just convenient for gamers that have a steady broadband, but Steam is not the only service. GOG for instance has games without any DRM’s and downloaded games are Your’s.

Digital games are cheaper for the developers and producers that want to optimize profits for their shareholders and don’t want to spend additional money for a physical media, when they don’t have to. This also started the trend of pushing away disk readers from PC’s – almost all laptops don’t have a disk readers build in nowadays, even recent PlayStation upgrade, the Pro version don’t have it by default (can be purchased individually). All this to kill a second hand market to optimize profits.

I do not oppose a long term support with additional content, CDProject Red for instance with Witcher 3 – their DLC’s also had a physical content, and those additional stories, with Blood&Wine being so big, that is the level of support I am happy to back up. Even Cyberpunk became what it should be on release day, and I would recommend it nowadays.

There are companies like Larian that released Baldur’s Gate 3 in physical and still support the game without additional DLC’s or Hello Games with it’s No Man’s Sky that also has no additional fees and no DRM’s, or Wube Software with Factorio, that although released a DLC, it’s so big that could essentially be it’s own game, or Grinding Gear with it’s Path of Exile that is essentially free...etc.

Looking at CIVI – it had few small DLC’s, two expansions and what is essentially a season pass, then additional personas pack (for free if you had everything else).

This is way more then any previous iteration had, so it’s safe to assume CIVII will be having even more additional content – which in itself should be a good thing. However, their two DLC’s are already being promoted months before initial release of the game, with a version that includes them, if one can fork additional gold for it (whatever anyone's currency is). This would not be an issue for me, if I could actually know what it is. I know that there are plenty that are ok with a description saying – contains 6 DLCs, all scheduled to release in *date* (subject to change), but this doesn’t say much to me really. There is also that preorder incentive in a form of a Palace Skin or a Fog of War tiles, which means monetization of this title will be more granular then ever before. This title also ships with Denuvo Anti-Tamper for the first time.

It seems that CIVII is planned to have a long support – I suspect even a decade or more. It has a potential and probably will be the biggest CIV ever, simultaneously I feel that it is the smallest in scale gameplay wise.

Whatever it is one wants to spend money on, it should be what one’s believes in

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Steam bots love not owning anything and paying to Valve instead of the developer. Its funny how they now blame others for doing the same.

This is the backside of my Civilization V PC DVD.
It is written in Italian. Roughly translates to:

You have to open a Steam account.
You have to accept the EULA from the site 2K etc.
You have to accept the STEAM SSA agreements, which you have to check online also.
If you do not want to accept these agreements, give back this game to the reseller.
The Access (Access to what? My game?) is not transferable = AKA you can not resell your game.
Last but not least, the service could be interrupted with a 30 day warning window.

Do you think I actually read and understood all that was written there when I bought it?
I was too excited to go home and fire it up...
I put the DVD in the DVD tray... and then the magic happened... you are not connected to the Internet...
From that day I was introduced to Steam.

Never forget, never forgive.

PS: If you want a refund, take back the game to the reseller and the box must not have been opened... yeah... sure...

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Sounds like you're kinda describing scenarios and/or game modes. It presumably makes more sense money-wise to do this much more experimental stuff as DLCs rather than full seperate games because it probably won't sell as well (compare Beyond Earth to the 'mainline' Civ games for example) and is likely less expensive to produce/market. As for regular content DLCs, it is likely easier for them to keep expanding on what they already have for longer than it is to make entirely new games more often, although I do wish we got more content in free updates rather than having loadsss of paid DLCs, especially considering how expensive it is initially before getting discounted enormously after several years.

Can't comment on the situation wrt other games, but the DLC situation with Civ is more understandable imo.

For them sure, but for us?
What has been retained of the Rising Seas DLC? The coastal barriers that no-one builds because the effects of the Rising Sea has been nerfed out of existance?
We bought that DLC, but essentially we can't play it as it has been coded initially anymore. This is keen to destruction.
If it was an indipendent Spin off, with the whole game included, given it's all digital, would have been more costly for the publisher?
We players lost in this case on every possible plane on the entirety of this Universe. Every possible scenario, we lost.
We lost access to the DLC content. We could have had the full DLC, unlinked to the main game, fully functioning.
Even if we mod the game to disable all DLCs but just keep the Rising Sea, it has been patched to balance out with all other DLCs, and it will not play the same.

It should have been sold as Civ VI, The Rising Sea. That's it. Not a DLC. Modders could have built an entire different set of rules for it not affecting the base game,
because it would be indipendent. It would not need to cost the base cost of Civ VI plus a normal DLC or a Major one.

HEROES DLC, same story, slightly less unforgiving, but still, if it was sold as an indipendent spin off? Maybe it could have had its own set of DLCs, without having to
dodge all the critics about introducing fantasy elements in an historical accurate game... and be left dying off as a consequence... lost opportunity...
2k lost, we lost, everybody lost.

 

[gdr_willter]

The games are too cheap. They can't maintain the old merchandising way. We have to see the unavoidable choice between a $70 for base game with the additional price model like DLCs, or $130~ for each individual game. And even the studios choose the later one, they still can't be sure about the selling because of the backlash and lack of budget of gamers.

 

[AriochIV]

Games aren't too cheap; game studios waste too much money. The biggest game studios are going through the same difficulty that the rest of the entertainment industry is: they've become bloated and spending has got out of control, while they also lack creative vision. So the inevitable result is to depend heavily on "franchises" and to pump out uninspired sequel after uninspired DLC. Eventually the problem will correct itself as zombie studios like Blizzard eventually collapse under their own weight, but the longer that the audience keeps paying for crap, the longer the correction will take.

I think that DLC is a natural and inevitable evolution of the online distribution model, but there is a wide spectrum of quality content on the one end and cash-grab shovelware on the other. I think that so far Civ7 is looking very promising as a game, but the content release plan is troubling. The embrace of Passes and cosmetic purchases in a game like Civilization does not bode well for where Firaxis is as a studio.