Skyrim - "DLC will feel more like expansion packs"

[Alrik Fassbauer]

If the DLC is truly like an expansion, what's the real difference?

If DLCs are like expansions - so why aren't they offered at retail ?

I think they should. But DLC is MUCH, much cheaper, because it bypasses

- publisher
- packaging
- retail …

I'm too conservative. And with DLC-only packs (non-retail), they completely leave out conservative customers like me. I have no idea how big the amount of conservative customers is who prefer retail over downloabables, but it seems to me that they believe that they can do without retail buyers.

Plus, offering things as downloabables only is kind of training customers to get used to that (and "un-used" to things retail).

 

[Ithilien]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzHXt6n1QhM&feature=channel_video_title

Listening to that makes me really want more music in the game... It contributes to a great atmosphere, but I want a lot more.

They have probably sold 15 million copies of the game by now, and you'd have to wonder how many would buy a DLC with 10-12 new sound tracks... They could even do a few of the sound tracks that are universal to the Tamriel universe (and reuse them in future releases).

 

[Bedwyr]

I'm too conservative. And with DLC-only packs (non-retail), they completely leave out conservative customers like me. I have no idea how big the amount of conservative customers is who prefer retail over downloabables, but it seems to me that they believe that they can do without retail buyers.

Plus, offering things as downloabables only is kind of training customers to get used to that (and "un-used" to things retail).

Yup. I believe you have the future of software sales in a nutshell there. Declines in retail sales for PC now and "consoles" in the future (whatever they will look like) will be a secular trend and will save developers and publishers a great deal of money.

I'm sorry that this is something that's leaving you out (and I weep with you that things like maps, notebooks, trinkets, and large manuals are a thing of the past), but it's how things are going.

 

[Lemonhead]

sounds good to me. who cares if it's called expansion pack or dlc.

 

[MasterKromm]

Yup. I believe you have the future of software sales in a nutshell there. Declines in retail sales for PC now and "consoles" in the future (whatever they will look like) will be a secular trend and will save developers and publishers a great deal of money.

I'm sorry that this is something that's leaving you out (and I weep with you that things like maps, notebooks, trinkets, and large manuals are a thing of the past), but it's how things are going.

I can agree with your sentiment, that the shift to an exclusively DD system is both inevitable and sad… But Alrik makes a good case, in some ways he sounds like my dad. My father is getting to the point where he's going to go "offline" and avoid the internet. It's not that he hates technology or the internet, heck he's an engineer and chemist… This may sound crazy, but what are the chances some people will reject the internet as it changes - as it becomes more and more commoditized or a vehicle for commoditization?

The above is a rhetorical… I actually wax and wane between gaming is dead/dying and it's going to be alright. As long as gaming has some enjoyment for me I'll stick around, but only with any frequency if there is a great bit of diversity. The trend towards genre coalescence all in the name a broader market will ultimately cannibalize the market they seek to tap - or at least it will because I will buy less.

Back to Alrik and DLC, another issue DLC fails to address is piracy… People will always steal/borrow/take the intangible, even at the expense of future enjoyment(IE if you like a specific industry or in this case game/genre you should contribute to it or compensate for what you take). DLC fails to address piracy because, by it's nature, it fails to add tangible value. IMHO, a good way to combat piracy is through adding tangible/physical value to the purchase - as you said, "maps, notebooks, trinkets, and large manuals" to name a few. I'm willing to pay more than 50-60USD for a compelling game with good extras(paper/cloth/leather map, meaty manual, perhaps a chance at receiving a random piece or article of concept art, ect).

Again, I have nothing against good DLC, in fact I like it when it is done right... I just think companies are being a little to narrow-minded, without a retail market option(which is fast becoming the case by requiring steamworks for retail purchases) we find ourselves in the same boat as with all other service providers(without physical value games are merely a service). How many people are happy with the monopolistic or collusive service providers in their life - phone, cable, internet, ect?

 

[Zloth]

sounds good to me. who cares if it's called expansion pack or dlc.

Retail stores?

 

[rune_74]

Retail stores?

Middlemen....the people the publishers would love to skip.

 

[CountChocula]

sounds good to me. who cares if it's called expansion pack or dlc.

Agreed - in my case, I haven't purchased any packaged retail software applications or games for more than a decade. (I think the last app I bought in a box was probably some version of turbotax from the 1990s ;-)

IMO it's all downloadable content, whether it is larger and more expensive or smaller and cheaper.

 

[Lemonhead]

I don't buy any boxed versions either since 5-6 years back, but I guess it sucks if you still want a physical disc and box.

 

[Bedwyr]

Again, I have nothing against good DLC, in fact I like it when it is done right… I just think companies are being a little to narrow-minded, without a retail market option(which is fast becoming the case by requiring steamworks for retail purchases) we find ourselves in the same boat as with all other service providers(without physical value games are merely a service). How many people are happy with the monopolistic or collusive service providers in their life - phone, cable, internet, ect?

I'm a steam fan but I agree about monopolistic (or oligopolistic) providers. I had high hopes for Impulse till Brad decided to sell the service. I very irrationally do not trust Gamestop.

 

[Couchpotato]

Hm I love how people want a digital future for everything. Its convenient but I don't like letting a company or service revoke my right to play.

I love downloading a 20GB file that takes a day and a half to download at 1.5 mbs. The games are increasing in size every year. I can walk or drive to a store in 10 min to buy a copy. Its not coming anytime soon contrary to popular opinion. Physical copies will be around for at least another 10 years.

Broadband speeds simply aren’t up to delivering entire high-definition games in many parts of the world, and far too many ISPs still impose stringent monthly bandwidth caps. One 30GB PlayStation 3 game could eat up a whole lot of that monthly budget. And some gamers are growing increasingly nervous about the permanence of downloadable games. What happens to all of our XBLA, PSN and Virtual Console games in 5 years? In 10?

When old servers are re-allocated or shut down, will we be able to re-download those games that we paid money for? There's an unspoken time limit on downloaded games which doesn't apply to physical media—though discs and cartridges, too, degrade eventually.

Sorry about the long post I'll end it here. I used to have unlimited downloading from my isp but thanks to company's like Netflix and my isp's greed were all capped now.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

And yet the company that brings us the classic games, ready to work on modern computers, for reasonable prices, DRM free (GOG), offers its product exclusively Digitally. I even get to play ULTIMA underworld again. I owned the game on floppys, but they failed long ago, and I don't even have a drive anymore.
From that POV, it seems to me that the digital distribution revolution has,if anything, extended the lifetime of games, not shortened it.

 

[booboo]

True - but the point about the huge size of many games and bandwidth caps remains. SW:TOR was (supoposedly) 20+ GB.. that would burn my entire month's cap in one go. I have recently bought mainstream FPS type games on Steam - 7-9 GB - 40% or my monthly cap. By comparsion most games I have bought on GOG are tiny. Until high speed networks are widely (everywhere) available and bandwith is effictively free I would like the option to buy a physical copy from a retailer.

 

[DArtagnan]

I think the point some may be missing is:

"DLC will feel more like expansions" != "DLC will be just like expansions".

I want true expansions, because they TEND to be a lot more wholesome and better integrated into the main game.

Even big DLC tend to feel like something added ON TOP of the game, rather than integrated into the main game. That's all fine and good, but it hardly ever means serious changes to the core mechanics or the overall balance of the game. It doesn't really expand the game, as much as it adds more stuff to do that's separate from the main experience - or feels like it.

Thankfully, we have mods to deal with some of those things - and we'll just have to deal with DLC limitations - given the accepted price ranges.

Also, another thing I dislike about DLC - is the staggered release pattern.

They tend to come out one at a time, which is the opposite of ideal for a replay. I tend to want ALL content available when I do a playthrough, and it seems senseless to wait for the first DLC - only to find that there's another coming along after a playthrough is complete.

I'd rather just kick back and wait for something really significant - so that I can get a different and "new" experience the next time I play.

Problem with DLC, is that the wait is LONG - and I can't quite know if they'll be adding more along the way.

A full "meaty" expansion tends to come out after ~1 year - which is ideal for a playthrough - and I know it will be around another year before the next potential one comes out - and it will be another SIGNIFICANT change, making a third playthrough worthwhile.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I guess we'll have to wait for news what they are actually doing, before we can even begin to judge how much like or unlike an expansion it really is. I applaud the trend towards more content-heavy DLC that was already evident with the past FO3 titles.
That said, classic expansions also varied vastly in size and quality, so I find it a bit problematic to set them as a hypothetical "gold standard" against DLC. I think we need to judge the content, not the form of delivery. DLC "tends" (or at least, tended) to be smaller bites than expansions also scheduled for a retail release, but there is certainly no rule that it has to be that way, especially now when increasing percentages of the consumers prefer digital puchases (and I would assume that with the "more hardcore" people that would be the audience for expansions, this fraction is even larger).

 

[DArtagnan]

The "rule" that they "have to be" is about the accepted pricing ranges.

I've yet to see DLC being sold at 30$, for instance. So, as long as DLC costs ~10$ - there's a natural limitation to what we'll get in return.

Isn't that pretty obvious?

Also, it's not like I'm saying an expansion is automatically better. I'm talking about the ideal expansion versus the ideal DLC - at this point in time.

I'm all for positive thinking, but it needs to be rooted in reality.

So far, I've yet to see ANY DLC that's the same as a decent expansion.

 

[crpgnut]

It is interesting to watch the evolution of Digital media. Bethesda says that their DLC will feel more like an expansion, similar to Shivering Isles. Ok, how does it feel that way? If it's going to be priced at $30, like an expansion, then I need something that gives me about 50% of what's currently in Skyrim @ $60. If it's much smaller, then I expect to see something in the $10 range for a price point.

Like Dart, I'd love to see dlc that expanded upon what is currently in the game. Improve the depth of what exists, rather than add more quests or landmass. The economy, factions, and npc awareness of what has happened in the game at various milestones, all need a lot of work. Companions need to have a LOT to say, since they can be with you for hundreds of hours. Several companions should have quest lines that are as long as the guild quests. Say Lydia wants to track her family, since she's been a ward of Jarl Baalgruf since she was a child, etc. Bethesda should take notes from Obsidian's companions and see what they can come up with. A deeper questline involving rebuilding the Blades would work too.

 

[RPGFool]

One of the original goals for dlc was to move towards a more continuous revenue flow for the game devs and/or publishers. It's really tough financially to be paid at intervals of two or three years — while developing full steam the whole time. That was even worse when interest rates were higher, and perhaps more unpredictable. At any rate, the idea was to generate small chunks of revenue that could arrive on a somewhat regular basis in the time period between games.

The larger size of expansions (as traditionally defined and understood) means a longer development time which, in turn, limits the revenue stream to longer time periods.

Unfortunately some companies have exploited dlc as a means of ripping off the customer. Bethesda seems to be on the right track though; my impression is if Bethesda charges for it, its probably going to be worth it.

__

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Like Dart, I'd love to see dlc that expanded upon what is currently in the game. Improve the depth of what exists, rather than add more quests or landmass.

Ok, but thats what TES expansions were, mostly: Landmasses and quest. Sounds to me you actually want neither an expansion nor DLC, you want an "Enhanced edition" a la The Witcher.

 

[DArtagnan]

Ok, but thats what TES expansions were, mostly: Landmasses and quest. Sounds to me you actually want neither an expansion nor DLC, you want an "Enhanced edition" a la The Witcher.

Actually, I don't think anyone said that TES expansions were ideal.

I'd want something along the lines of Hordes of the Underdark or Lord of Destruction. Both expansions expand gameplay in significant ways - in addition to adding new campaigns.

Even so, something like Bloodmoon with the werewolf feature and the huge additional landmass would be great for Skyrim - only with another setting and set of new mechanics.

So, I don't think we want an "Enhanced Edition". We want a real expansion that adds new gameplay features and balances those already there, in ADDITION to adding significant new content. I'm not just talking about a single area lasting 5-10 hours as the usual DLC. A good Skyrim expansion would add 30+ hours of content as well as lots of new gameplay features/perks/skills.

I'd pay 40$, easily, for that.