Expansion v DLC

[MIS]

Guys, Firaxis follows the Expansion method (with some DLC), whereas Crusader Kings 2 has DLC (a lot of them!). What are the advantages/ disadvantages of both?

 

[comatosedragon]

Civilization games since (well, V and VI) anyway have both DLC and expansions. V had 13 DLCs and 2 expansions.
Advantageous / Disadvantages are up to each individual to decide.

For me, the advantage of piecemeal DLC is I can change up my game (albeit slightly) every few months or so.

 

[UWHabs]

Whichever gets me the most content and the best game for the cheapest price is what I like best.

 

[conorbebe]

DLC usually means a small package of content, usually a new civ in this case, which is faster to develop and can satisfy demand new stuff whilst larger expansions are produced.

Expansions are bigger and take more time to develop, but often add new or rework features and mechanics and are usually marketed more extensively, attracting players that might not have been satisfied with the game's original release state back to the game.

 

[MooFreaky]

It all depends on what you consider expansion backs and what you consider DLC. Paradox and their games are all a combination of DLC and Expansions.
CK2 has Charlemagne, Horse Lords, The Reaper's Due, etc. Stellaris recently got Utopia. These are all significant expansions beyond simply a DLC. Meanwhile they also have countless amounts of DLC to go with it, whether it is extra soldier models, leader art etc. Paradox DLC isn't essential it is simply flavour. The expansions are also not required as any key gameplay changes are introduced for everyone regardless of purchase, you just won't be able to access any extras put in. (EG Sons of Abraham changed gameplay aspects for everyone, but without the expansion you couldn't play as a Muslim faction)

I am a big fan of Paradox's method which is called "long tail". Their games are constantly updated and kept fresh, while there are lots of extra DLCs to pick up. It is expensive if you choose to buy it all, but you don't have to get much of it. Plus the amount of updates with the bigger ones are so significant you get good value. Plus it means you aren't buying remakes every few years as the games have a very long shelf life. The key to it, however, is that Paradox has very high standards with it's stuff. If you look at their major expansions they only have one in the CK2 range that isn't "overwhelmingly positive". That is the difference between developers that do it right and those that try to fleece you with cheap, poorly done crap. If you give customers value for money they will be happy.

 

[Amrunril]

Another important difference between the Paradox and Firaxis models is that Paradox DLC are intended to be modular. This makes it easier to pick and choose only some of the DLCs, but it also means that mechanics from different DLCs rarely interact with one another, even if it would make sense for them to do so.

Paradox also does generally release more content for its games, but I don't think this is an inherent feature of the DLC/expansion models. There's no theoretical reason a civ game couldn't have 3 or 4 large expansions.

 

[stealth_nsk]

DLC normally doesn't have new universal gameplay (available to all civs). There were some exceptions (wonders DLC), but they are generally bad practice. The advantage of DLC model is what players could combine any number of them in any combination without creating bizarre combinations.

Expansions, in contrast, provide new gameplay and developers can't provide a lot of them, since combining them could be a pain. To solve this, in Civ5, for example, second expansion included all gameplay features of the first one to simplify things. Only civilizations weren't included.

So,civilization games could have any number of DLC, but only 1-2 expansions normally.

Speaking about Paradox games - most of them are more historical simulators than strategic games and not care so much about things like balance. They could easily mix different gameplay-expanding DLC without caring too much about results of their combinations (similar to Sims games).

 

[God of Kings]

Paradox also does Cities: Skylines, which is not a strategy game, but an urban management simulation game.

We can also take a look at Sega's Amplitude Studio's Endless games as well.

I often praise Frontier for releasing significant amounts of free content DLC for Planet Coaster (and even free increased gameplay mechanic depth). It even has paid DLC (though they're for licensed scenery items, as well as licensed skins for Go-Karts).

 

[MooFreaky]

I think people are all touching on the biggest point and that is both models can work, but both models can fail horribly. It has less to do with the model being used and the manner in which they are implemented.

If you are going to release a large DLC/expansion the quality of the product and the quantity of it needs to fit the cost. People are usually more than happy to pay for DLC/expansions if they are getting good value for it. Or if you release purely aesthetic additions for those that want them (as long as the original quality is solid).
If you release poor value or quality or (IMO the worst thing that can be done) "pay to win" style benefits then you are walking a dangerous road.

So it has much more to do with the quality of what is being sold than the method.

 

[Zuizgond]

I prefer free patches that should have been included at release to fix that mess of a game.

 

[MooFreaky]

I prefer free patches that should have been included at release to fix that mess of a game.

Which mess of a game?

 

[Spectrum]

I'm completely againts DLCs. Wasting time in DLCs to earn money before fixing the game AI is a disastrous decision Firaxis is going to regret in the future. Old players will not forget the next time.
Expansions are OK, but I don't like to pay full price again for an expansion.

 

[CPWimmer]

DLC and "Free Patches" are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, in regards to Civ 6 - they have been simultaneous. Each DLC release has coincided with a Free Patch that has improved the base game for everyone. A lot of the work that goes into their DLC's (such as the art and design work) has no impact on their man-power to fix bugs.

 

[MooFreaky]

I'm completely againts DLCs. Wasting time in DLCs to earn money before fixing the game AI is a disastrous decision Firaxis is going to regret in the future. Old players will not forget the next time.
Expansions are OK, but I don't like to pay full price again for an expansion.

You do understand that making games is more expensive and riskier than ever? With a low return for that risk. Which is why game development is in the hole it's been in for years now (few developers, few risks, recycling of series, etc). One of the most successful ways to make money (and thus make the industry appealing for investment) is DLCs. It also allows for continued development of games well beyond what would happen without them, as the game can continue to support itself and give a ROI to their bankroller.

Firaxis have been working on improvements for everyone alongside their DLC, so they aren't simply gouging. And saying that Firaxis will regret it is a bit laughable considering DLCs are a core part of the game market now (and are actually one of the reasons we are seeing a way of improving the gaming industry as a whole), especially as it's been well established that the vast majority of players aren't bothered by the AI. Most players play on lower difficulties and find that challenging enough. The better players may get annoyed, but they are also not the big money spinners as we are the minority.
Civ5 has DLC, so it looks like people either did forget or just weren't bothered.

Finally, the people working on the DLC aren't the same people who are working on the other issues. They just help produce products which fund the guys who are working on the fixes.

People seem to forget that in the "good old days" games were regularly released completely broken and unbalanced and never got fixed. Even the classic games that people still compare to (despite the fact these games were vastly smaller and simpler products).

 

[Kissamies]

Yeah, the line between them is very blurred in these days. The delivery method is same. The expansions hardly come in disks any more. One could say that expansions are merely large DLC, and there are also medium and small DLC. Personally as a periodic and somewhat old fashioned player I still prefer few large expansions to many smaller DLCs. I don't like to frequently browse new content and wonder which bits I should purchase unless I'm super into the game and consistently play it for a large part of the year. My new strategy to cope with this is to wait a few years and then buy the collection edition.

 

[Spectrum]

You do understand that making games is more expensive and riskier than ever? With a low return for that risk. Which is why game development is in the hole it's been in for years now (few developers, few risks, recycling of series, etc). One of the most successful ways to make money (and thus make the industry appealing for investment) is DLCs. It also allows for continued development of games well beyond what would happen without them, as the game can continue to support itself and give a ROI to their bankroller.

Firaxis have been working on improvements for everyone alongside their DLC, so they aren't simply gouging. And saying that Firaxis will regret it is a bit laughable considering DLCs are a core part of the game market now (and are actually one of the reasons we are seeing a way of improving the gaming industry as a whole), especially as it's been well established that the vast majority of players aren't bothered by the AI. Most players play on lower difficulties and find that challenging enough. The better players may get annoyed, but they are also not the big money spinners as we are the minority.
Civ5 has DLC, so it looks like people either did forget or just weren't bothered.

Finally, the people working on the DLC aren't the same people who are working on the other issues. They just help produce products which fund the guys who are working on the fixes.

People seem to forget that in the "good old days" games were regularly released completely broken and unbalanced and never got fixed. Even the classic games that people still compare to (despite the fact these games were vastly smaller and simpler products).

Making games today is riskier because they spent alot of money in graphics, not playability. Players like me don't care so much about graphics. I want good playability even at the cost of the graphics, and I think It's a shame that games like Civ4 or Alpha Centauri are gone forever. These games were not more simple. They were better games with correct graphics. Today Firaxis only care about casual gamers, not Civfanatics.
About "people working in DLC aren't the same people working on the rest of the game": They are a big part of the resources of the company not assigned to fix the game. I want Firaxis to earn a lot of money, but not this way. Make good game first, and then earn money, not the contrary. It is frustrating to pay full price for an unplayable game, to be fixed 5 years later (if fixed) an be sold for a fraction of the original price. I will not buy at release again.

 

[God of Kings]

Making games today is riskier because they spent alot of money in graphics, not playability. Players like me don't care so much about graphics. I want good playability even at the cost of the graphics, and I think It's a shame that games like Civ4 or Alpha Centauri are gone forever. These games were not more simple. They were better games with correct graphics. Today Firaxis only care about casual gamers, not Civfanatics.
About "people working in DLC aren't the same people working on the rest of the game": They are a big part of the resources of the company not assigned to fix the game. I want Firaxis to earn a lot of money, but not this way. Make good game first, and then earn money, not the contrary. It is frustrating to pay full price for an unplayable game, to be fixed 5 years later (if fixed) an be sold for a fraction of the original price. I will not buy at release again.

Good thing about indie developers; they have to focus more on gameplay than graphics in most cases due to budget constraints.

 

[MooFreaky]

Making games today is riskier because they spent alot of money in graphics, not playability. Players like me don't care so much about graphics. I want good playability even at the cost of the graphics, and I think It's a shame that games like Civ4 or Alpha Centauri are gone forever. These games were not more simple. They were better games with correct graphics. Today Firaxis only care about casual gamers, not Civfanatics.
About "people working in DLC aren't the same people working on the rest of the game": They are a big part of the resources of the company not assigned to fix the game. I want Firaxis to earn a lot of money, but not this way. Make good game first, and then earn money, not the contrary. It is frustrating to pay full price for an unplayable game, to be fixed 5 years later (if fixed) an be sold for a fraction of the original price. I will not buy at release again.

Civ6 has far more depth to it than any other vanilla release. In fact it has far more to it than most of the games by the time of their final expansion. The biggest issue is with the AI, which is an issue that hampers virtually all strategy games.
Graphics are a part of the issue but Civ6 hardly has amazing graphics. They are simple (which has actually caused considerable criticism because they are too simply and not advanced enough). And saying that it's all about the graphics in modern games is totally missing the point. The cost of any kind of development has skyrocketed since games came out. Games now are vastly larger and more complicated than before, just look at the sheer number of mechanics in Civ6 compared to AC or Civ4. If you released a game with those level of mechanics now they would be panned for not moving forward (and you seem to forget how panned Civ4 was on release for being bland and lacking content. It wasn't until BtS that people really got behind Civ4 and remember it the way they do now.
So games are incredibly more expensive than they were in the past while still retailing for virtually the same amount . Yes, you have a bigger market, but you also have far more competition, far more chunks of the profit are taken elsewhere etc. Games are a high risk / low reward industry and one failed game can send a developer bankrupt (as we have seen lots of in recent years) as such a game will only get the green light if it can be profitable which means deadlines and money constraints. That means you need ways of generating more money (pre-orders and DLC).

In a vacuum you are totally right. Games should be released 100% perfect. But that just cannot happen with the constraints and restrictions. Hell, how many games have ever been released perfectly? Products of all types from cars to buildings have imperfections and issues (Alfa Romeo have had issues with their electronics for decades) it's not as easy or as simple as people outside of the business world think. Otherwise every game would be perfect because they would make far more money if it was that easy.

And no the DLC team are NOT part of the resources for fixing or developing the game. There is a limit to how many people can do something before it is cost inefficient. And, again, if the game can't continue being profitable then it gets cut and that means no development. That's not Firaxis, that it the people they rely on for financing.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

I wonder how much money Firaxis saved by not having a build queue in the UI....

Seriously, it's not just about the money. It's about having a few competent testers. Firaxis, I completely volunteer my time to test your next Civ product so that it will be much more successful upon release. I also know something about the coding. Call me.

 

[God of Kings]

Sukritact makes mods that can compete with official DLC!

Even his custom UI is much superior to what Firaxis made.

Firaxis would pay a king's ransom to hire Sukritact (and pay for his accommodations as well, since Maryland and Thailand are almost on the opposite sides of the Northern Hemisphere).