slyely

I usually don't log in, but wanted to extend my condolences to family and friends.

I may have not known you personally Ryan, but I will miss you my friend. Your presence here on Giantbomb will always be remembered.

@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.

@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.

@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.

I really enjoyed Galactic Civilizations 2 and it is a definite must play if your looking for a space strategy game (plus you can probably pick it up with expansions pretty cheap now)...another one I have recently played is Gratuitous Space Battles, but GSB is more about planning then watching how your plan plays out.

The ability to opt out of invasions but still be able to read and rate messages and enjoy a single-player experience.

And dedicated servers for pvp would be nice.

@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.

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

@BruceLeeSoapdish said:

Best place for PvP is the ash desert right before the final boss, try to be around level 80 for best results. My personal favorite is the maxed-out black knight axe (fastest swinging two-hander and it swings horizontal in sweeps) and a +15 eagle shield coupled with the tranquil walk of peace miracle. You can also use humanities to refill your health when you invade, so stock up on those as well.

Glad you're enjoying and i personally can't wait for the next "souls" entry.

Thx Bruce. Right now I'm at sl 69, I got the eagle shield and am using it...though I have not unlocked the +15 yet only the +10. I also just got the Moonlight Sword from Seeth (I'm curious about this one), I'm thinking about using that to see how it scales...currently have a mix of Quelaggs Fury for fire, lightning Claymore, magic Estoc, and the lightning spear.

@BrockNRolla said:

@Make_Me_Mad said:

@BrockNRolla said:

It's pretty good. That said, I stopped to play Skyrim, and now that I'm done with that, I can't say I feel any pull back to Dark Souls.

Funny. Skyrim stopped working correctly, so I went back to playing Dark Souls and am considering selling Skyrim off used somewhere. The circle of life!

It moves us all.

I actually have both Skyrim and Dark Souls. Skyrim on PC. I have already played it for about 60 hours. That is also a great game, but that is another thread altogether. Dark Souls came about because I was starting to get the Elder Scrolls burnout (ya know where you stop for a bit then come back because you just have to play it). I'm still just amazed at how good Dark Souls is though. For an RPG lover, especially an old school RPG lover Dark Souls scratched that itch for me. Plus it has pvp in a fantasy world...something I wish we saw more instead of all the military FPS games. Or RPGMMOs, but the grindfest in those can become really really boring.