#1 Posted by slyely (154 posts) -

This might of been said before, but I am tired of what dlc has become. Lately, I have come to the point where I refuse to buy dlc. If I want to come back to a game I would like to play it more than just an hour or two. I want to revisit the world for a good chunk of time. So what happened to full expansions? Borderlands did it, Oblivion did it, Dragon Age Origins did it...and all were successful. I can't see why game developers keep feeding us crumbs when they could make us much happier by just handing us the whole sandwich (well I understand why I just do not agree with it). Are you thirsty? Give me $10-15 and have a sip of Coke...but that is it, next week I'll sell ya another sip for $10-15. Just give me the damn Coke would ya! I'm thirsty here! I'm sure there are some people that enjoy having bits of dlc to keep incrementally adding to their games and at first I thought it was a good idea. But now...I find it annoying.

Please developers I want full expansions back! Tease me with trailers of expansions that will be out in six months time, but give me something more substantial!

/end rant

#2 Posted by N7 (3595 posts) -

Nowadays we call them sequels.

#3 Posted by ajamafalous (12039 posts) -

Nowadays we call them DLC.

#4 Posted by Zippedbinders (1017 posts) -

Dragon Age: Origins's Awakening is the only actual expansion you mentioned. If you're heralding Oblivion's and Borderland's executions of lengthy DLC, then Fallout 3, New Vegas, Enslaved, Deus Ex: HR, Mass Effect 2, and a multitude of other games do that.

If you're talking about honest to god expansions, Blizzard does a lot of those (Warcraft, Starcraft), as does Creative Assembly's Total War franchise, and Relic supported Dawn of War 2 the same way. They certainly exist, but I honestly don't think expansions are that big of a loss as they've more or less become sequels, only a tad bit pricier.

#5 Posted by Brodehouse (10078 posts) -

They weren't profitable compared to other directions.

Online
#6 Posted by slyely (154 posts) -

@Zippedbinders said:

Dragon Age: Origins's Awakening is the only actual expansion you mentioned. If you're heralding Oblivion's and Borderland's executions of lengthy DLC, then Fallout 3, New Vegas, Enslaved, Deus Ex: HR, Mass Effect 2, and a multitude of other games do that.

If you're talking about honest to god expansions, Blizzard does a lot of those (Warcraft, Starcraft), as does Creative Assembly's Total War franchise, and Relic supported Dawn of War 2 the same way. They certainly exist, but I honestly don't think expansions are that big of a loss as they've more or less become sequels, only a tad bit pricier.

I think of expansions as something that comes out within a year of the original release and is going to last me approx. 20 hours of gameplay if not more. And yeah now everything is called dlc, but I'm more in the mindset of before the popularization of dlc. When any content added to a game was larger because it could not be downloaded but had to be bought from an electronics/game store. Though I have to admit if you were not an old pc gamer this idea may not stick because old consoles never did this. Think of Baulder's Gate I & II and their add-on content. That is what I would like to see again.

For example, from the ones you mentioned above...Fallout 3 and Borderlands provided "dlc" that lasted me each around the 20 hour mark, but Mass Effect 2's dlc I bought as it came out and each only lasted me say around five hours. Now all together after months of them throwing out five hour chunks it may have equaled up to an expansion in my mind, but instead they slowly released bits and pieces. I agree there are games that provide us consumers with quality dlc (or expansion worthy dlc), but the trend for the majority of games anymore is just to nickle and dime us over a period of time with a new map or a new outfit or a single questline.

That is my problem with dlc now. I would rather wait a bit and have good chunks of gameplay than have dlc that comes out ever month that can be finished in one evening. Call me nostalgic, but it depresses me when I enjoy a game and would like to play it more, but dlc or add-on content has become so small that it just never seems to satisfy.

#7 Posted by NickLott (793 posts) -

I believe Bethesda said Skyrim's expansions will be meatier and more substantial than the DLC released for Fallout. Maybe not quite Shivering Isles scale but somewhere in between.

#8 Posted by laserbolts (5331 posts) -

I agree but all you can do is not buy it at this point. Companies see that releasing it in little chunks or making a sequel just makes them more money. Don't blame the companies but blame the consumers for the sad state the industry is in at this point.

#9 Posted by Gamer_152 (14091 posts) -
@laserbolts said:
I agree but all you can do is not buy it at this point. Companies see that releasing it in little chunks or making a sequel just makes them more money. Don't blame the companies but blame the consumers for the sad state the industry is in at this point.
I blame both. Consumers are giving them money for this rubbish, but I don't think you can say that the people who actually make and put out the rubbish at extortionate prices aren't also accountable
 
 On the topic of expansions in general though I hear Human Revolution has some good DLC and WoW seems to be still going strong the expansion side. I reckon Bethesda are likely to do some very good things with the Skyrim DLC as well.
Moderator
#10 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2695 posts) -

Plenty of games still have expansions.

#11 Edited by gosukiller (2324 posts) -

The internet happened.

And then they invented DLC to replace big expansion packs.

Also semi-sequals, such as the new Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm, Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 and Dead Rising 2: Of the Record.

#12 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

Expansions have turned into smaller and more expensive "pieces" of downloadable content.

#13 Posted by hawkinson76 (374 posts) -

"Expansion" sized DLC probably doesn't make financial sense for most games, for the same reason "Episodic" game releases never flourished. Expensive to develop (relative to the oringal game dev cost, as compared to quickie dlc or multiplayer maps), and it only sells to the fraction of people who bought the first game and haven't sold it back or uninstalled it. Skyrim is a very rare exception, I expect people will still be actively playing it when the first DLC hits, and Bethesda could risk investing a in a large piece of content. But even Mass Effect and Dragon Age probably can't hold on to players long enough to warrant development of another 8+ hours of single player content (I haven't waited around to play a bioware expansion since Throne of Bhaal, and I never finished it because I was tired of the gameplay by then).

#14 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

it's because of the customers who bought into the stuff. i don't buy DLC because i think that they are a rip off. they should put more work into what the DLC should be. i'll buy maps for call of duty, but i won't buy like costumes,  cheat codes and things like that. i bought fable 2 DLC i was disappointed with what the game ended up being. it took me an hour to beat some of the quest.

#15 Posted by Winternet (8025 posts) -

Downloadable Content happened. DLC, you might heard of it.

#16 Posted by kratos (208 posts) -

I'd rather have more LA Noire style DLC and less The Sims style expansion packs.

#17 Posted by zudthespud (3283 posts) -

More money is up for grabs if they flesh out the "Expansion pack" and sell it as a full price sequel. 

#18 Edited by Djratchet (669 posts) -

If the Borderlands DLC took you 80+ hours to complete in total... that doesn't seem right. Still damn good DLC with the exception of Moxxi, which I beat anyway.

#19 Posted by artgarcrunkle (970 posts) -

Companies will do whatever they want to make as much money as possible so long as consumers are stupid enough to buy first and complain later.

#20 Posted by laserbolts (5331 posts) -
@Gamer_152 True the companies should share some of the blame but at the same time they are a business so making money is the top priority. If they weren't making good profit they would certainly stop doing it. It's like anything though in the sense that there are some DLC that is actually pretty great and gives you good value but then you have the bad apples like gears weapon skins that just makes me shake my head. I have played a load of gears online and it's crazy and sad how many paid weapon skins I see. It's weird how that game has one of the best uses of dlc with the season pass and then one of the worse with the skins.
#21 Posted by Hizang (8532 posts) -

The Sims games still do them, one of my favourites.

#22 Posted by Dany (7887 posts) -

They're called DLC and is smaller.

#23 Posted by PenguinDust (12557 posts) -

As noted above, it's called DLC now and it comes in many sizes. There's small single storyline adventures and then there's huge add-ons like GTA4's "The Ballad of Gay Tony", "The Lost and the Damned", and Burnout Paradise's "Big Island Surf". In the old days, you waited 6 months to a year for an expansion. Today, you get a little something every few months. Personally, I kind of prefer the old way because doling new content out in drips and drabs makes me lose interest in the game. Gamers who do purchase the follow-ups, buy the first and maybe second pack but by the time the third, fourth, etc...is out, people have had their fill. It's good that people can pick-and-choose now, but I like getting everything, so I tend to wait for the "Game of the Year" editions with all the content included.

#24 Posted by kindgineer (2771 posts) -

Sorry, but full-fledged expansions are a little out-dated when it comes to consoles. The idea of having to go buy an entirely new set of discs just to play more content instead of downloading it in the convenience of my home doesn't sound enticing. PC games still have tons of expansions, so my guess is you're directly talking about consoles.

#25 Posted by slyely (154 posts) -

@ccampb89 said:

Sorry, but full-fledged expansions are a little out-dated when it comes to consoles. The idea of having to go buy an entirely new set of discs just to play more content instead of downloading it in the convenience of my home doesn't sound enticing. PC games still have tons of expansions, so my guess is you're directly talking about consoles.

No not directly talking about consoles. Let me put it another way. In the good ole' days, add-ons, which were always larger, were sold as expansions on discs, then came digital downloads...so now we are able to access these add-ons digitally and now they are called dlc. Somewhere in the mix of the change from disc to digital downloads the add-on content has become significantly smaller. Some game companies still seem to believe in this old style of add-ons that are still dlc but in the same vein as the old school expansions. Companies that come to mind are Rockstar, Bethesda, 2k, and even now questionable Bioware which still provide dlc with significant content in-line with the old expansions. I love the idea of accessing game content digitally, I just do not feel that way dlc is presented in small doses helps me enjoy the game more.

I think it was Assassin's Creed 2 that actually sold part of the main storyline (that was a middle part) as dlc. This is one major instance I remember. That drove me nuts. And now there are so many games, a large majority, that sell add-on game content that is so small, to me is not even worth playing.

From many of these comments I have seen that it has become the norm to believe that dlc (addon content, expansions, etc.) has taken on a new form. I just feel if we as gamers keep accepting under par dlc, soon that is all we may have and this is why I believe expansions should become the true accepted norm for dlc. :)

And some say it may not be profitable for a company to do expansion style dlc, but as the companies stated above they have proved again and again that it can be profitable. People look forward to those releases, and they become more memorable because they add something of significance to their respective games.

#26 Posted by JoeyRavn (4994 posts) -

@gosukiller said:

Also semi-sequals, such as the new Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm, Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 and Dead Rising 2: Of the Record.

None of these is a "semi-sequel". Heart of the Swarm could be considered a stand-alone expansion, but UMvC3 and DR2: OtR are definitely enhanced rereleases. Capcom has been doing this for decades, since the days of Street Fighter II, so no big surprise there.

#27 Posted by dudeglove (8020 posts) -

But it's so much more fun to monetize content in bitesize chunks, doncha think?

#28 Posted by gosukiller (2324 posts) -

@JoeyRavn said:

@gosukiller said:

Also semi-sequals, such as the new Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm, Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 and Dead Rising 2: Of the Record.

None of these is a "semi-sequel". Heart of the Swarm could be considered a stand-alone expansion, but UMvC3 and DR2: OtR are definitely enhanced rereleases. Capcom has been doing this for decades, since the days of Street Fighter II, so no big surprise there.

I'll admit that the Capcom games are just a resurgance of old Capcom re-releases and bad examples to my point. However, the Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm would definitely have been an expansion pack 10 years ago, like Brood Wars or The Frozen Throne.

#29 Posted by Vercinger (48 posts) -

You can definitely add me to the list of gamers who are annoyed by the present state of DLC. The first time I really noticed this new trend was with Civilization V, which ditched worthwhile expansions for bits and pieces of content. The result being that I lost interest in the game and probably won't buy it until it's been out for a few years, with all the content in a bundle at a significantly reduced price. And that's if I bother with it at all.

Another example is the Total War series, which added small DLC from Empire onward, thus reducing my desire to play those games. I recently bought Empire and Napoleon in a pack at a good price, but I regret doing it, as I don't want to support developers who do this.

And yesterday I saw a Cities in Motion complete pack at a low price and was tempted to get it. Now, transport management is one of my favorite genres, and I've been itching to play something similar to Traffic Giant for years, so this really was a tempting offer. Still, I was hesitant, as the developers of the game had decided to release extra content in 6 small pieces of DLC rather than proper expansions. So I decided to check their website to see if this was really a complete bundle... And it isn't. They plan to release even more bits and pieces of overpriced content. Needless to say, I didn't buy the game and now I doubt I ever will.

#30 Posted by mariokart64fan (366 posts) -

this is depending on which your talking about , pc-- - i dont follow that but i think dlc replaced that

and for consoles we never got expansions instead we got full games with alot of content , or fun to play through

now adays ---- dlc also replaced that

now we get short games ---- at 60 bucks , instead of asking where the expansions are im gonna start wondering where the full games are cause it seams lately we're getting beta versions or near complete versions rather then --- full fledged versions

looks at map packs for cod and horse armor for oblivion , ugh so pointless and how about 5 cars for 800 ms points -forza but your not done there you still gotta spend in game money to get the cars and whats the point in b uying /additional cars when you finished the 10 seasons ,

and what the heck is the point wih 3 maps if hardly any one plays the game any more ---

you see what happened is microsoft showed everyone dlc as soon as that happened , developers hey now we can rush games out ( good examples are call of duty now being a yearly thing ) and activision is the main culprit aside from their 007 franchise-have never seen any dlc from them and their not a 1 a yr product --- cod and what used to be guitar hero - - im glad thats done, hope call of duty goes under next! im getting rather sick of paying 60 dollars for a 4 hour campaigne

#31 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -

Expansion packs sucked. You paid for more than you actually wanted.

And to those cynics saying "well these days they package them as sequels" I'd like to point out that expansions usually cost as much a standard alone game. That isn't the case with DLC.

#32 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -

DLC is a scourge that must be eliminated. I think one of the low points for the entire industry was when Dragon Age: Origins asked you in-game to pay them some money for a quest that was already in the game.

#33 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

$10 DLC is usually more than a sip. If you don't like it, don't pay for it and they will have to do more for your money. But to be honest, in terms of value, 10 dollars for an hour-2 hours of content is usually the right ratio to the value of the full package.

@slyely: 20 hours of gameplay in an industry of increasingly shorter games? An expansion is an addition to the original game using the original technology that gives a fraction of the original's content (for example, a 30 hour game would get an expansion that is anywhere from 10-20 hours generally speaking, but a much shorter game say like HL2, would get "expansions" that were just a few hours, but still compared to the original about the same ratio). By your expectation, only a failing genre would be able to deliver a true expansion. There aren't a lot of 60 hour RPGs these days dude. And most of them come out with "expansions". Back in the day, expansions were pretty big on occasion, but mostly were just like they are today, like Awakening for example. Not 20 hours unless the original game was up towards 60. There were exceptions and the average was probably a bit higher, but 20 hours is a lot to ask from an expansion.

As soon as digital distribution became a good way to deliver content, they were able to streamline expansions down into smaller chunks, giving everything they did before without having to justify using a DVD by making it especially long. I think the longer bits of DLC we see today are awesome because it allows the developer to go in a new direction with multiple chunks rather than doing one or two bigger chunks, and again, they don't have to justify anything but the price, which they can set on a pretty big spectrum.

#34 Edited by kingzetta (4307 posts) -

and whats the deal with airplane food

#35 Posted by MikkaQ (10317 posts) -

I always hated expansion packs. They were expensive, usually near the same price of the game if I bought them around the same time, and they didn't even have all that much content. I feel like I'm getting a better deal when a well thought-out and executed DLC package comes out.

#36 Posted by Ketchupp (673 posts) -

People stopped buying discs and good games started coming out more often.

#37 Posted by sesquipedalophobe (183 posts) -

I figured DLCs and expansions were basically the same thing, except for the fact DLCs couldn't play offline. I bought one expansion, but it was the Oblivion Game of the Year edition disc. I usually wait for every DLC to make their way to the market for a bit more playtime.

#38 Edited by lockwoodx (2479 posts) -

$DLC and F2P models make a lot more money in the long run because there's less risk involved for the studio.

To put it in layman terms; They figured out a way to charge for demos and you're basically demoing future content.

#39 Posted by fuzzybunny566 (451 posts) -

Scourge of Armagon and Dissolution of Eternity made me happy...and Brood War, too

#40 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

GTA4 had incredible expansions. Red Dead had Undead Nightmare, Gears 3's latest DLC is something I'd consider an expansion. Halo 3:ODST would have been an expansion and some may say it still should have been. I know others have given more examples.

#41 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

@mandude said:

DLC is a scourge that must be eliminated. I think one of the low points for the entire industry was when Dragon Age: Origins asked you in-game to pay them some money for a quest that was already in the game.

If you bought the game new that never actually happened though haha

#42 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -
@MideonNViscera: I bought it new (PC), and all I got was the Shale DLC...
#43 Posted by Commisar123 (1796 posts) -

I think those are just DLC packs now, not to mention a lot of PC developers are still releasing expansion packs

Online
#44 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

@mandude said:

@MideonNViscera: I bought it new (PC), and all I got was the Shale DLC...

Hmm, maybe Warden's Keep was my pre-order bonus then. It was a couple years ago after all. I just know I had them both, along with that Blood Dragon Armor.

#45 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -

Ah, just looked it up. It came with the collector's edition.
 
What an atrocity though...the fact that you can miss the armour that comes with the DLC, as well...

#46 Posted by slyely (154 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos said:

$10 DLC is usually more than a sip. If you don't like it, don't pay for it and they will have to do more for your money. But to be honest, in terms of value, 10 dollars for an hour-2 hours of content is usually the right ratio to the value of the full package.

@slyely: 20 hours of gameplay in an industry of increasingly shorter games? An expansion is an addition to the original game using the original technology that gives a fraction of the original's content (for example, a 30 hour game would get an expansion that is anywhere from 10-20 hours generally speaking, but a much shorter game say like HL2, would get "expansions" that were just a few hours, but still compared to the original about the same ratio). By your expectation, only a failing genre would be able to deliver a true expansion. There aren't a lot of 60 hour RPGs these days dude. And most of them come out with "expansions". Back in the day, expansions were pretty big on occasion, but mostly were just like they are today, like Awakening for example. Not 20 hours unless the original game was up towards 60. There were exceptions and the average was probably a bit higher, but 20 hours is a lot to ask from an expansion.

As soon as digital distribution became a good way to deliver content, they were able to streamline expansions down into smaller chunks, giving everything they did before without having to justify using a DVD by making it especially long. I think the longer bits of DLC we see today are awesome because it allows the developer to go in a new direction with multiple chunks rather than doing one or two bigger chunks, and again, they don't have to justify anything but the price, which they can set on a pretty big spectrum.

Well in terms of value it does correlate with the trend of video games becoming shorter. So I can see what you are saying that a 10 dollar dlc being a correct ratio of content, but this is also our fault for allowing this to be accepted. It seems to me that the majority of games today are becoming shorter and trying to push small dlc just for the fact that they use that idea of an accepted ratio for dlc length and pricing. In other words they are just trying to cash in...instead of giving us a quality product. I could go on about the infamous 5 hour campaigns in certain games I will not mention *cough*...we know what they are. And they expect us to pay full price for these games, and sadly many people do. But, we still see some companies that do provide a quality product that is in the difficulty and game like games used to provide us, and these game companies are always commended on their games and any lengthy dlc or expansions that come afterword. These companies are becoming rare quickly.

As for genre's, any genre of game should be able to produce a game that can provide 20, 60, or 100 hours of gameplay. All the most successful games do provide this. MW3, BF3...provide a multiplayer aspect that people play for... well hell some for a few hundred hours, but they take advantage of this and release insignificant dlc/expansions. Successful RPGs on average...approx 40-100 hours, and the most successful ones also provide dlc/expansions with significant content. Action/adventure...Rockstar games are always a good example. The thing is companies want to make money so if they can get away with less content, less overhead and costs...they are going to do it, and people are letting them.

And your right larger chunks of dlc are awesome, because they provide us with what we feel is good value. But, the trend for the majority now is to pressure sale us into buying small bits of dlc so the balance of income on their end is higher than the value of dlc/addons/expansions we receive.

#47 Posted by slyely (154 posts) -

@Vercinger said:

You can definitely add me to the list of gamers who are annoyed by the present state of DLC. The first time I really noticed this new trend was with Civilization V, which ditched worthwhile expansions for bits and pieces of content. The result being that I lost interest in the game and probably won't buy it until it's been out for a few years, with all the content in a bundle at a significantly reduced price. And that's if I bother with it at all.

Another example is the Total War series, which added small DLC from Empire onward, thus reducing my desire to play those games. I recently bought Empire and Napoleon in a pack at a good price, but I regret doing it, as I don't want to support developers who do this.

And yesterday I saw a Cities in Motion complete pack at a low price and was tempted to get it. Now, transport management is one of my favorite genres, and I've been itching to play something similar to Traffic Giant for years, so this really was a tempting offer. Still, I was hesitant, as the developers of the game had decided to release extra content in 6 small pieces of DLC rather than proper expansions. So I decided to check their website to see if this was really a complete bundle... And it isn't. They plan to release even more bits and pieces of overpriced content. Needless to say, I didn't buy the game and now I doubt I ever will.

I have noticed the same thing, hence my post...lol. Yeah I have come to the point also that If I am really interested I'll wait till after they release a complete pack, and sometimes I just say, "hell with it, there are other games to play now." I also bought the Empire and Napoleon pack on steam, all together like that is great. I did play it for a long time. Yeah I shouldn't be supporting that business strategy, but damn I love those games!

But your post made me think of another problem with the trend of mini-dlc bits. The price of entry is terrible! Say you don't buy the game on release, which normally I don't...there are exceptions though, and wait about five months. But then, you have to worry about the price of the original game, then all the bits of dlc which can be about $2-15 a piece. You see where I'm going, just another reason "dlc sips" drive me nuts.

#48 Posted by Vercinger (48 posts) -

@slyely: Exactly! What developers seem to forget is that the one valuable thing they're selling is the actual base game! The product that took months or years to make. All the extra content they release afterwards as DLC is just there to (supposedly) improve the quality of that base game. But instead, we often get DLC that barely impacts our enjoyment of the game and yet costs as much as 20% of the base game.

One example that impacts me is Gratuitous Space Battles. I got the game from the Humble Bundle, but only the game and none of the DLC. On Steam, the game is €20 and the combined cost of the DLC is... €32! For a total cost of €52 if you buy the game and all the DLC individually. Is it worth it? Certainly not. Granted, the Galactic Conquest DLC is worth it, but the rest are not, and overall, this is a really poor marketing strategy, especially for an indie developer. What Cliff Harris (the developer) should have done is release all the DLC as an expansion for €15 and a complete pack (game + expansion) for €30. Then we would be getting pretty good value for our money. As it is, I'm getting the impression that the man is just trying to milk the game's fans for as much money as possible.

#49 Posted by Village_Guy (2637 posts) -

Look out for Strategy games, MMOs and some RPGs if you want expansion packs, otherwise we mostly call it DLC nowadays.