Expansion vs DLC?

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Expansion vs DLC?

This topic contains 46 replies, has 27 voices, and was last updated by  Draxynnic 8 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 47 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #57244

    Jayuk
    Member

    Hi, first of all I have been playing AOW since the demo was released and was hooked ever since. I especially liked the way heroes were a force to be reckoned with (OP you could say). I also sank hundreds of hours into AOW2 and SM and while they were amazing games they failed to capture quite the same charm as 1, but that could be purely down to nostalgia. I have been eagerly anticipating the release of 3 since it was announced and preordered as soon as it was possible.

    I thought I would join the forum to see what other long time players thought of the concept of DLC. It takes a lot more money to make games these days and I was astounded that we even got a new game after all this time and for that we should be in awe of Triumph and their investors. AOW through to SM had enough content without requiring an expansion, but once many years have passed since then.

    I was thinking how great it would be to have the first expansion in the AOW series (although you could argue SM was a standalone expansion of 2) which would add a bulk of content to the game rather than the possibly negligible of addition of content in the form of DLC. That being said I will be thankful for any new content being added to the game and I will probably buy it no matter what, I was wondering if the development time would be better spent on one culminated package instead of lots of unconnected smaller updates being available.

    However once again time have changed and I would guess DLC is a lot easier for the company being able to make a small pieces of content, releasing them and then getting income straight away rather than having to hold out for an expansion release. Once again I must reiterate that I will be happy for any new content which is released. It may be that it is not possible to create an expansion nowadays without similar funding to AAA games but this is all conjecture on my part.

    I am also a little unsure of the response to the game, although I appreciate the funding going towards making a great game instead of towards advertising. I am just hoping more sites will cover it and bring more players to the game because I would really love the game and Triumph to be successful to increase the chance of more games being made and introducing other people to the best (IMO) strategy game series out there. Looking forward to playing with you all (even though I have many hours invested I am still a noob!). Sorry for my inane rambling and anyone who took the time to read this!

    tl;dr Would you prefer DLC or Expansion? Is an Expansion even viable in current times? What would you like to see implemented in any future paid content? Which features would you like to see return from previous iterations?

    #57250

    Sugar Rush
    Member

    I see games doing both. Skyrim for example released small changes (DLC) and whole new worlds (expansion).

    For AoW:3 I would think DLC would be the way to go – similar to Civ5 with its new Historic Figures, as opposed to the introduction of a new system (faith in Civ5) within the game. Simply because I have a hard time imaging what that could be!

    #57253

    b0rsuk
    Member

    DLC is a good way to fracture community in multiplayer games.

    #57262

    FrankA
    Member

    What does DLC mean?

    #57263

    Sugar Rush
    Member

    Down loadable content.

    #57269

    FrankA
    Member

    AOW SM had a bunch of nice patches. 1.4 almost made it like a new game. Would you consider the Brave New World upgrade SM a DLC even though it was free. Thanks for your answer.

    Frank

    #57287

    Kuranes
    Member

    Well I dislike DLC mainly because it makes the game feel unfinished. “Here is the product, along with this 3-4 minor other purchases”. Where as an expansion acknowledges the base game as complete. And as b0rsuk wrote, a single large expansion makes for a less fractured community. If a single expansion is released, then there are two “versions” of the game out there, one with and one without. But with a group of DLC they could’ve been bought or left alone in any combination.

    I am all for large chunky expansions.

    As for future content… I’d like to see a senario/campaign designer (in the case that it isn’t included within the map editors possibilities), I’d also like to see leader alignment have a larger effect on asthetics of your units/spells. As for a new race / leader class – sure. But I’d prefer them to not just stand alone, and rather be a campaign, new race(s) and leader class in one package.

    Speaking of campaigns, releasing new campaigns as DLC would be a way to avoid fracturing the multiplayer community, so long as the base content is still the same.

    #57306

    xenotashin
    Member

    I’d rather see two nice sized expansions. If preferable each adding three races, and some new mechanics into the game. Perhaps an extended class system, and extended alignment system with larger effects on gameplay.

    In the end though I’d be happy with 6 more races and some cool but mediocre mechanics. (Not saying they will do that, just keeping all possibilities in mind.)

    Either way this is still going to be a game I’m looking forward to playing and spending way too many hours on.

    #57326

    Sugar Rush
    Member

    It would be interesting if they turned alignment into a currency that could be spent on spells/empire passives etc.

    #57336

    Kubera
    Member

    There is another way (the third way!)
    2-5 DLC released (Class: Necromancer + ***, Race: frostlings + ***). Release Expansion (all DLC) with the story of history “new” races\classes. Provide big discount whom who bought the DLC.

    #57341

    eSmokefish
    Member

    I am personally fine with both meatier DLC(think less “10 new random items to find”, and more “a fully fleshed out class or race with possibly a campaign to go with it”), and wholesale expansions(mixture of new races+classes and campaigns).

    For a game with potentially a strong multiplayer side to it such as AoW3 though, Expansions might be the better option as far as Classes/Races go. I wouldn’t mind some DLC on the side that add some purely cosmetic options though; such as additional flair for your leader or even the ability to slightly customize the looks of your racial and/or class units… As long as such cosmetic DLC wouldn’t split the multiplayer side of things, which I’m sure there are solutions for.

    And of course that smaller DLC are reasonably priced, and not 10 bucks for 5 scenarios or somesuch.

    #57373

    Wredniak
    Member

    Technically every expansion nowadays is a DLC in someway. Especially if the game is on steam. The only way expansion wouldn’t be a DLC if it came out in a separate box, but even then it would be “downloadable” in some way.

    That said not all DLC can be called proper expansion. I’d take a guess and said most people are not opposed to small dlc but mostly to the prices companies like EA charges for them. I personally am perfectly fine with one scenario dlc costing $1.99 if it’s well made. That said I’d love to see new races/classes added to the base game but even then I’m not sure is I’d be happy paying $10+ for just one race. So for me it’s not really about the amount of content (assuming it is good quality) but the amount/price ratio.

    #57437

    Jayuk
    Member

    AOW SM had a bunch of nice patches. 1.4 almost made it like a new game. Would you consider the Brave New World upgrade SM a DLC even though it was free. Thanks for your answer.

    Frank

    I would consider these User Made Modifications. I’ve played Brave New World and felt it added some nice new content to the game, Warlocks for AOW1 is also nice if you don’t like the overpowered heroes. It amazes me the time and effort which fans put into the game with their hard, unpaid work on modifications and hope there will be some for 3 and Triumph will support mod toools.

    #57446

    v8man
    Member

    I prefer expansions that add a good amount of content (like races and campaigns) to a game. I refuse to be nickeled and dimed by a developer to buy small-scale changes like a few new maps or a few random units. I would buy DLC that offers an entire race or some other substantial content. Anything short of that can be made for free by modders and mappers.

    #57454

    Cannonball
    Member

    Ultimately, there is no difference between a commercially sold expansion pack and DLC. There’s no difference in quality – there’s good DLC, bad DLC, good expansions and bad expansions. They’re both additional content delivery mechanisms. Expansion packs are just larger – with all the incumbent production delay that entails.

    I would argue that, overall, DLC makes more sense for the majority of producible content. Additional classes, races, and specialisations are ideal items for a DLC strategy. Likewise additional scenarios.

    The larger ‘expansion style’ content packs, however, ARE still viable. Civilization V and X-Com have proved as much. And they’re actually good examples of what I would say is proper ‘expansion pack’ worthy content. Things that fundamentally CHANGE the game’s base mechanics don’t fit well into small DLC packets, and are more suited to larger overhauls that contain a lot of supporting elements.

    #57468

    quinn
    Member

    in my personal opinion I would say that there should be some small dlc which adds races, specialization, dwellings, or little cosmetic things.

    And then have major dlc that would be expanding how specialization works, another campaign, with what ever would need to be added to make it work namely races or what ever, or a new class.

    incase any of you didn’t see it there was a dev. post on this subject here

    #57478

    quinn
    Member

    #57489

    stormkwick
    Member

    In this day and age with digital distribution being the norm I think DLC is the way to go (assuming the price point is right). It also allows for content to be added more frequently in smaller doses, but yeah, as long as there is a respectable content-to-price ratio (and we’re not being asked paying $10 for a single scenario with no other new content) then i think DLC is a fine choice.

    #57493

    Tahlyn
    Member

    I am personally fine with both meatier DLC(think less “10 new random items to find”, and more “a fully fleshed out class or race with possibly a campaign to go with it”), and wholesale expansions(mixture of new races+classes and campaigns).

    For a game with potentially a strong multiplayer side to it such as AoW3 though, Expansions might be the better option as far as Classes/Races go. I wouldn’t mind some DLC on the side that add some purely cosmetic options though; such as additional flair for your leader or even the ability to slightly customize the looks of your racial and/or class units… As long as such cosmetic DLC wouldn’t split the multiplayer side of things, which I’m sure there are solutions for.

    And of course that smaller DLC are reasonably priced, and not 10 bucks for 5 scenarios or somesuch.

    I am personally fine with both meatier DLC(think less “10 new random items to find”, and more “a fully fleshed out class or race with possibly a campaign to go with it”), and wholesale expansions(mixture of new races+classes and campaigns).

    For a game with potentially a strong multiplayer side to it such as AoW3 though, Expansions might be the better option as far as Classes/Races go. I wouldn’t mind some DLC on the side that add some purely cosmetic options though; such as additional flair for your leader or even the ability to slightly customize the looks of your racial and/or class units… As long as such cosmetic DLC wouldn’t split the multiplayer side of things, which I’m sure there are solutions for.

    And of course that smaller DLC are reasonably priced, and not 10 bucks for 5 scenarios or somesuch.

    I am personally fine with both meatier DLC(think less “10 new random items to find”, and more “a fully fleshed out class or race with possibly a campaign to go with it”), and wholesale expansions(mixture of new races+classes and campaigns).

    For a game with potentially a strong multiplayer side to it such as AoW3 though, Expansions might be the better option as far as Classes/Races go. I wouldn’t mind some DLC on the side that add some purely cosmetic options though; such as additional flair for your leader or even the ability to slightly customize the looks of your racial and/or class units… As long as such cosmetic DLC wouldn’t split the multiplayer side of things, which I’m sure there are solutions for.

    And of course that smaller DLC are reasonably priced, and not 10 bucks for 5 scenarios or somesuch.

    This right here. Wish more people read the whole thread before adding their $0.02

    #57496

    CrazyElf
    Member

    I’d prefer a greater emphasis on expansions, which have much greater potential to make real changes.

    #57543

    b0rsuk
    Member

    What does DLC mean?

    DLC is a new map, new unit or horse armor priced at 60% of the full game. Often comprised of content deliberately cut from release to milk money.
    See also: ripoff

    #57551

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>FrankA wrote:</div>
    What does DLC mean?

    DLC is a new map, new unit or horse armor priced at 60% of the full game. Often comprised of content deliberately cut from release to milk money.<br>
    <em class=”d4pbbc-italic”>See also: ripoff

    Really? If you are not going to explain, then I suppose I shall. DLC is a small(ish) addon for a game. In this particular case it could be new races, scenarios or campaigns. The difference between a dlc a expansion is that an expansion aims to overhaul the entire game, and often costs as much as a full priced game (looking at you Civ). In some cases (e.g shogun: fall of the samurai) an expansion can be a standalone game. Although I must say, I greatly disapprove of day one dlc (in this game too). It’s the devs cutting content from the full game, just so people buy a game that may be unfinished or full of bugs… (notice may, I am not hating on triumph)

    #57570

    Biowraith
    Member

    I generally prefer expansions over DLC, but in this case I’m in favour of whichever route gets me the most extra races, classes, spells, heroes, sites, etc.

    So if the more immediately generated profits from DLC funded the production of even more content – both free and paid – and that content came out more quickly, I’d be happy for it to come in that form instead of (or ideally as well as) full blown expansions.

    On the other hand if it just meant we got the same amount of content in the space of a year, but some of it a little sooner and more expensive overall, I’d be less enthusiastic.

    I’ve seen both scenarios play out in other games.

    #57575

    Thariorn
    Member

    I suppose the deciding factor whether we’ll see lots of DLC or some good expansions is how wel the vanilla game sells.
    If Triumph has swell profits, it’s more likely we’ll see an expansion, as there is no need to cash out as soon as they would ahve to if the vanilla game sold subpar/bad.

    #57580

    b0rsuk
    Member

    One totally awful aspect of DLC is that they fracture multiplayer community. There are fewer combinations if you just have base game, expansion1, and expansion2. Assuming neither is standalone and expansions can be combined, that’s 4 groups of players. (base, base+1, base+2, base+1+2).

    But if there’s DLC half the size of an expansion (and that’s optimistic!), you’d have base game and 4 potential DLC. Combinations: (base, base+1, base+2, base+3, base+4, base+1+2, base+1+3, base+1+4, base+2+3, base+2+4, base+3+4, base+1+2+3, base+1+2+4, base+1+3+4, base+2+3+4, base+1+2+3+4). 16 combinations! That’s really awkward. Most likely someone will not be using the whole potential of his custom game in a multiplayer match.

    This makes me really appreciate board games. You buy the thing once, and play with as many people as you want, it doesn’t matter how many expansions you have. Except for degenerate games like collectible card games.

    To make a good impression on me, Triumph would have to make DLC in such way that in multiplayer only ONE player needs to have it. But I very much doubt they will try something like that, because they refused more progressive methods of funding like Kickstarter.

    #57589

    Biowraith
    Member

    They’ve already done that with scenarios – only the host needs to have the bonus scenarios for pre-order and deluxe, and players without it can still connect to their game and play on that scenario.

    I don’t see any reason the same couldn’t be true for most other content. In the case of e.g. Class or Specialisations you can still restrict it in the same way as an MMO – only those who own the content can select it at character creation, but you can still play alongside/against people who don’t have it.

    #57590

    Edi
    Member

    DLC as a term covers both expansions and lesser content additions. Expansions can be DLC, but not all DLC are expansions. Expansions can also be standalone, a good example of this is Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic.

    DLC as a term just happens to have a worse reputation due to how it has been abused by some game companies, charging high prices for minor additions.

    When Triumph talks about DLC, we’re not talking about adding one magic item or a single unit. They mean expansions that include new races or classes or other significant additions.

    #57595

    Biowraith
    Member

    Technically DLC could be considered to even cover full games these days. When players use the term though – especially in discussions like this – it’s usually referring to content being sold piecemeal, distinct from expansions (even downloadable ones).

    #57601

    b0rsuk
    Member

    So DLC lends itself much better to abuse, but it’s really not fault of DLC ? 90% of lawyers give the rest bad reputation…

    #57609

    Sorax
    Keymaster

    Hi b0rsuk,

    DLC is a good way to fracture community in multiplayer games.

    DLC is a new map, new unit or horse armor priced at 60% of the full game. Often comprised of content deliberately cut from release to milk money. See also: ripoff

    One totally awful aspect of DLC is that they fracture multiplayer community.

    So DLC lends itself much better to abuse, but it’s really not fault of DLC ? 90% of lawyers give the rest bad reputation…

    You’ve made your point. No need to repeat yourself. Please have a look on our forum terms of use: http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/please-follow-our-terms-of-use/
    * Don’t keep repeating the same arguments.

    Consider this post your first reminder. 3rd one will come with consequences.

    And now let me quickly take off my Mod-hat and put on my player-hat:
    I really think it’s a pity to see a bias towards Triumph Studios. I know there are plenty examples of DLC’s out there where you get hardly any content, but have to pay quite something. Some companies are even well-known for this policy. On the other hand, also good examples of DLC’s can be found within the market. I think each company, no matter if it’s Triumph or somebody else deserves the trust to wait for their first DLC. If it’s crap or is considered as a “rip-off” by a huge part of the community -> Start dem flames! Judging before even one DLC by Triumph has been released, is just wrong.

    Wait for it, wait for the content, wait for the price. Thenk think whether or not worth flaming.

    Regards,
    Sorax

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 47 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.