Shadowrun Returns - Dragonfall Expansion

DArtagnan said:

Trust me, there are many, many gamers out there without a clue. The audience is much larger and much more diverse than it used to be.

Now, they won't die because they buy this and expect more than a 5-10 hours campaign, but that doesn't mean it's the honest way to market it.

I know some people think that if you don't do thorough research, you deserve to be punished - but I'm not one of those people.

If DLC has no inherent expectations and expansions have no inherent expectations - then I suppose calling Horse Armor for Oblivion an expansion is A-OK?

If the Council Missions DLC for X-Com was called an expansion, then that'd be ok as well?

Expansions as we used to know them were often integrated directly INTO the main game - like is the case with Diablo 2 and the recent X-Com expansion. Some weren't. So that point is hereby refuted.

I don't care how much bullshit semantics people care to spout: Expansions differ from DLC in the perception of the audience - and it's about having more content and more significant content.

It's true that there's no way to quantify what that means, exactly, and if you're ok with this Shadowrun campaign story being called an expansion - there's no problem.

I have no problem with it, myself - I'm just pointing out that it was called DLC and it's now called an expansion. I'm questioning whether there's a good enough reason for that - and I reserve the right to be sceptical.

That's all.

Click to expand...

You are spinning yourself in circles, fuming all the while, and it's kinda silly.

DLC is, and has always been, a term that denotes a method of delivery, not an indication of size. It is true that digital delivery made it possible for companies to release much smaller content packs than they could have when the only way they could sell something to you was to put it on an optical disc and sell it through a retailer. So, we got some famously tiny DLC, like the infamous horse armor.

To cite one example that I'm sure you'll poke some kind of weird holes in, Bethesda called everything they released for Skyrim "DLC" despite that content being radically different in size and scope. I would imagine we'd agree on the application of the term "expansion" only to Dragonborn...but the point is that such an application is necessarily arbitrary and subjective, and that it is ALL DLC in 2013, because it is all content downloaded to your computer.

JFarrell71 said:

You are spinning yourself in circles, fuming all the while, and it's kinda silly.

DLC is, and has always been, a term that denotes a method of delivery, not an indication of size. It is true that digital delivery made it possible for companies to release much smaller content packs than they could have when the only way they could sell something to you was to put it on an optical disc and sell it through a retailer. So, we got some famously tiny DLC, like the infamous horse armor.

To cite one example that I'm sure you'll poke some kind of weird holes in, Bethesda called everything they released for Skyrim "DLC" despite that content being radically different in size and scope. I would imagine we'd agree on the application of the term "expansion" only to Dragonborn…but the point is that such an application is necessarily arbitrary and subjective, and that it is ALL DLC in 2013, because it is all content downloaded to your computer.

Click to expand...

What's silly is that you still don't understand what I'm saying.

I'm not talking about DLC - but about the concept of an expansion. You can call ANY piece of software DLC - and I won't care.

Let me repeat this: I'm not talking about DLC. I don't care about what DLC is. Anyone at the age of 5 and with the knowledge of the acronym knows what DLC is and what it can potentially be. You're not "showing me the light" by pointing this amazing wisdom out again and again.

I care about what an expansion is.

Get it?

They're calling it an expansion - and I'm asking if that's reasonable considering what's part of it - and whether they changed it for marketing reasons rather than "good and honest" reasons to serve the consumer.

Would you be ok with calling Horse Armor an expansion? Do you think the average gamer would?

Be honest now.

I have no problem with Bethesda calling Dragonborn DLC or expansion - as they choose. That's because I think there's significant content there.

DArtagnan said:

What's silly is that you still don't understand what I'm saying.

I'm not talking about DLC - but about the concept of an expansion.

Let me repeat this: I'm not talking about DLC. I don't care about what DLC is. Anyone at the age of 5 and with the knowledge of the acronym knows what DLC is and what it can potentially be. You're not "showing me the light" by pointing this amazing wisdom out again and again.

I care about what an expansion is.

Get it?

They're calling it an expansion - and I'm asking if that's reasonable considering what's part of it - and whether they changed it for marketing reasons rather than "good and honest" reasons to serve the consumer.

Would you be ok with calling Horse Armor an expansion? Do you think the average gamer would?

Be honest now.

I have no problem with Bethesda calling Dragonborn DLC or expansion - as they choose. That's because I think there's significant content there.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah, I think they are justified in calling it an expansion because by the standards of 2013, standards that have been created in no small part because of the digital methods of selling additional content, it is as much the modern equivalent of an expansion as anything is. You're trying to apply an old connotation of the term. What's the last add-on (trying to chose a neutral term here) would YOU consider worthy of the appellation "expansion"? Shivering Isles?

As far as I can tell, it's been a while. For better or worse, this is what we get now. Take pretty much any game from the last several years with significant add-on support (Dishonored, Borderlands 1&2, Bioware games), and this is typically what we get: 1-4 hours of additional story content, or in the case of something that has no story, like Civ 5, a handful of gameplay changes and some small percentage of new components the game already had (troop types, maps, and so on.)

By those modern standards, which are the only standards that Harebrained should be evaluated by since it's not, in fact, 2008, this does add enough content for them to justify using the term.

I just did a quick (and of course uncomplete) survey.

• DA-Awakening is called an expansion despite being of much smaller scope than the original game.
• the (often small) DA 2 DLCs are called "expansion" on variuos sites
• the quite small multiplayer DLCs for Mass Effect 3 are called "Expansion Packs" on its most poular wiki

Of course this isn't representative and you can find enough sites where these additions are just called "DLC".
But I really doubt if the gamers expectations on the addition's scope really depends on the label that much.

DArtagnan said:

I have no problem with Bethesda calling Dragonborn DLC or expansion - as they choose. That's because I think there's significant content there.

Click to expand...

I completely agree.
But imho that justifies Dragonfall to be called an expansion as it actually is significant content too (if it has the same scope as the original campaign).
If it turns out that Dragonfall is much smaller in scope, like just 4-5 hours, then I will say that they've tricked the consumers.

JFarrell71 said:

Well, yeah, I think they are justified in calling it an expansion because by the standards of 2013, standards that have been created in no small part because of the digital methods of selling additional content, it is as much the modern equivalent of an expansion as anything is. You're trying to apply an old connotation of the term. What's the last add-on (trying to chose a neutral term here) would YOU consider worthy of the appellation "expansion"? Shivering Isles?

Click to expand...

I think the recent X-Com expansion is worthy.

But what I think is not relevant - I'm asking an open question. If you're OK with how the concept of an expansion is being diminished constantly - then you don't have to care at all.

As far as I can tell, it's been a while. For better or worse, this is what we get now. Take pretty much any game from the last several years with significant add-on support (Dishonored, Borderlands 1&2, Bioware games), and this is typically what we get: 1-4 hours of additional story content, or in the case of something that has no story, like Civ 5, a handful of gameplay changes and some small percentage of new components the game already had (troop types, maps, and so on.)

Click to expand...

I think the Civ expansions are reasonably strong - because those games are all about mechanics, and the expansions provide significant new systems.

By those modern standards, which are the only standards that Harebrained should be evaluated by since it's not, in fact, 2008, this does add enough content for them to justify using the term.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion. I don't care to evaluate them.

I care to ask whether there's enough there to justify calling it an expansion, and everyone will have to ask that question by themselves.

Personally, I'm sceptical. I can't be sure since I haven't played it yet.

Morrandir said:

I completely agree.
But imho that justifies Dragonfall to be called an expansion as it actually is significant content too (if it has the same scope as the original campaign).
If it turns out that Dragonfall is much smaller in scope, like just 4-5 hours, then I will say that they've tricked the consumers.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm sceptical about.

Remember, I'm not saying it's NOT enough to justify an expansion. I'm just very sceptical.

Then again, I thought Shadowrun campaign was too short and too linear, and overall very weak in RPG terms.

Morrandir said:

I just did a quick (and of course uncomplete) survey.

• DA-Awakening is called an expansion despite being of much smaller scope than the original game.
• the (often small) DA 2 DLCs are called "expansion" on variuos sites
• the quite small multiplayer DLCs for Mass Effect 3 are called "Expansion Packs" on its most poular wiki

Of course this isn't representative and you can find enough sites where these additions are just called "DLC".
But I really doubt if the gamers expectations on the addition's scope really depends on the label that much.

Click to expand...

Awakening was pretty big, though.

But you're right - suits are doing what they can to change perceptions and manipulate words to match their intentions.

I'm not happy about it - but I guess most of you don't mind that you can no longer be certain that an expansion is significant.

Ok, then only time will tell.

As for SRR's and Dragonfall's cost-benefit ratio, everyone has to decide for himself I think.

Morrandir said:

Ok, then only time will tell.

As for SRR's and Dragonfall's cost-benefit ratio, everyone has to decide for himself I think.

Click to expand...

I certainly don't want to decide that for people.

I'm having enough trouble deciding things for myself already

I Just can't be bothered really.

DArtagnan said:

But what I think is not relevant - I'm asking an open question. If you're OK with how the concept of an expansion is being diminished constantly - then you don't have to care at all.

But you're right - suits are doing what they can to change perceptions and manipulate words to match their intentions.

Click to expand...

If anything, it's been over-rated for far too long. It simply means the game has received something that has added to it in extent, size, volume, or scope. In this case, adding a feature (or several) to the base system that was not there before is indeed an expansion. They're certainly not manipulating words…they're using the given definition, for what they're doing, properly.

ex·pan·sion [ik-span-shuh n]
noun
1. the act or process of expanding.

ex·pand [ik-spand]
verb (used with object)
1. to increase in extent, size, volume, scope, etc.

Hell, the first UO expansion added a new land area, chatting, and creatures. This SR expansion adds a new area, items, saving, editor options, creatures, and the ability to run teams. That's more and it was done 15 years later..where is this mythical diminishing you're talking about?

Pretty stupid argument imo. I don't see how it really matters whether you refer to it as an expansion, add-on, or DLC. It's all pretty much the same thing nowadays.

Since most add-ons are only available through digital distribution now anyways, it's all DLC really. Although I can understand the perception that many people have that "DLC" means "short", since that term was originally used only for add-ons that were very small in size or individual items within the game.

Argument game thread again. Man, there are a lot of these. I work full-time so I can't participate. Not that I'm feeling left out

JDR13 said:

Pretty stupid argument imo. I don't see how it really matters whether you refer to it as an expansion, add-on, or DLC. It's all pretty much the same thing nowadays.

Since most add-ons are only available through digital distribution now anyways, it's all DLC really. Although I can understand the perception that many people have that "DLC" means "short", since that term was originally used only for add-ons that were very small in size or individual items within the game.

Click to expand...

That's kind of part of the problem too..since DLC is DownLoadable Content. The important word here being content..something that is contained. Expansions change the container while DLCs go in it.

It's all semantics really though. I'm just poking the bear with a stick.

No, it's reading between the lines. It doesn't matter how you call it. Target group as always are gamers who bought the main release and most of them will know how to handle this press release.

JDR13 said:

Pretty stupid argument imo. I don't see how it really matters whether you refer to it as an expansion, add-on, or DLC. It's all pretty much the same thing nowadays.

Since most add-ons are only available through digital distribution now anyways, it's all DLC really. Although I can understand the perception that many people have that "DLC" means "short", since that term was originally used only for add-ons that were very small in size or individual items within the game.

Click to expand...

You don't get it either

Again, it's not about DLC - and I have no problem with an expansion being called DLC.

I have a problem with the word expansion being used when the content is not significant - because that's not how it used to be, and it's too easy to exploit for marketing purposes.

Once again, would you accept calling Horse Armor an expansion?

If not, then why not?

Obviously, because you also have certain expectations of an expansion. Whether you can admit that or not, is another matter.

HordeQ said:

If anything, it's been over-rated for far too long. It simply means the game has received something that has added to it in extent, size, volume, or scope. In this case, adding a feature (or several) to the base system that was not there before is indeed an expansion. They're certainly not manipulating words…they're using the given definition, for what they're doing, properly.

ex·pan·sion [ik-span-shuh n]
noun
1. the act or process of expanding.

ex·pand [ik-spand]
verb (used with object)
1. to increase in extent, size, volume, scope, etc.

Hell, the first UO expansion added a new land area, chatting, and creatures. This SR expansion adds a new area, items, saving, editor options, creatures, and the ability to run teams. That's more and it was done 15 years later..where is this mythical diminishing you're talking about?

Click to expand...

So, you think calling Oblivion Horse Armor an expansion is A-OK and wouldn't represent a problem at all?

As for your other point, it would help if you actually read what I'm writing.

I haven't said anything about the SR expansion not being a real expansion.

I've said I remain sceptical whether it is or not.

Once I've made up my mind about this massive amount of features you're talking about, I'll let you know.

DArtagnan said:

I'm not talking about semantic application, but about being honest with your audience and using the words that best fit according to expectations.

Click to expand...

Which audience? What expectations? What poll, what consensus of gamers, do you have (other than your own perceptions) on what people THINK when they hear DLC or expansion?

Many of these words have never had explicit definitions - all you can do is grab contextual definitions, best support by the majority of use.

Honest with your audience? What honesty do you display by putting forth your 'scepticism' as the basis for your assertions on the dishonesty of their use of the word expansion? Where is the honesty in your avoidance of the truth that anyone calling into question your 'opinion' on Harebrained's supposed 'dishonesty' gets a verbal beatdown by you, usually decorated with pejoratives and ad hominems?

DArtagnan said:

If you want to argue that an expansion could, potentially, be a blue hat for your character in a game - because that's expanded content - go right ahead.

Click to expand...

Straw man. Putting up a ridiculous, and purposefully easy to mock, extrapolation of my attempts to explain how the term 'expansion' does not have some gold standard 'only and every' definition.

DArtagnan said:

But I'm living in the real world and in the real world, language is flawed and there are expectations when you use certain words.

Click to expand...

Implication being, what, that trying to look at the terms, how they are used, and the contextual definitions of said terms, is fantasy land? But you, with your personally approved view of what these words mean, and the many disagreeing with you be damned, THAT'S reality?

Language is flawed, sure. Especially when people hijack it to mean whatever they, personally, want it to. For example, imposing their views and opinions as 'reality' and the arguments of those in disagreement with you as - wait for it -

DArtagnan said:

I'm sure their marketing people would support your bullshit, though

Click to expand...

- bullshit.

Merin said:

Which audience? What expectations? What poll, what consensus of gamers, do you have (other than your own perceptions) on what people THINK when they hear DLC or expansion?

Click to expand...

Their audience, which means every potential buyer. People will expect of an expansion what they're used to getting from an expansion. Which means that some people will expect more than others.

Simple, really.

Many of these words have never had explicit definitions - all you can do is grab contextual definitions, best support by the majority of use.

Click to expand...

Which is my point. Expansion used to mean significant content - and today we have very different uses of it.

It's not rocket science, really.

Honest with your audience? What honesty do you display by putting forth your 'scepticism' as the basis for your assertions on the dishonesty of their use of the word expansion? Where is the honesty in your avoidance of the truth that anyone calling into question your 'opinion' on Harebrained's supposed 'dishonesty' gets a verbal beatdown by you, usually decorated with pejoratives and ad hominems?

Click to expand...

Verbal beatdown?

Do you mean when I explain my position you feel beat down?

Am I beating you down right now?

I'm an honest person - now and in general. If you believe I'm lying - then there's not much point in exchanging.

Straw man. Putting up a ridiculous, and purposefully easy to mock, extrapolation of my attempts to explain how the term 'expansion' does not have some gold standard 'only and every' definition.

Click to expand...

No one ever claimed it had a gold standard. I'm pointing out that not everything can reasonably be called an expansion - because people have been arguing there's no difference between calling something DLC and then calling it an expansion.

There is, because DLC CAN be anything, really.

The hat example being extreme is irrelevant - it simply demonstrates my point in a way that everyone can understand. There IS a difference. Well, there used to be.

Implication being, what, that trying to look at the terms, how they are used, and the contextual definitions of said terms, is fantasy land? But you, with your personally approved view of what these words mean, and the many disagreeing with you be damned, THAT'S reality?

Click to expand...

Fantasy land being DLC and expansions beeing freely interchangeable.

If you stop acting like an insulted elder - we might have a productive conversation.

I'm what you might call very good at not being emotionally involved in a debate - because it makes you miss points and you tend to become irrational once you boil over.

This means you're not going to have the slightest effect feigning indignation. I consider it a pathetic tactic, really.

Language is flawed, sure. Especially when people hijack it to mean whatever they, personally, want it to. For example, imposing their views and opinions as 'reality' and the arguments of those in disagreement with you as - wait for it -

Click to expand...

So, by arguing that expansion shouldn't be equated with DLC - because it's useful for communicating significant content is the same as hijacking the word and imposing my view on others?

Oh, yeah, I'm beating you down because my arguments are annoyingly rational.

- bullshit.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm glad you understand