The Myth of 'Good DLC'
May. 11th, 2019 08:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
owsf2000So I was thinking about what makes 'Good DLC' while replying to kane_magus over in his blog.
It was hard, REALLY hard, to think about what would qualify as good/justifiable/defensible DLC practices. Virtually every thing they do just pisses me off and/or it's extremely easy to see how it's nothing more than an excuse to nickel and dime (or "dollar bill" more often than not) the user base.
First batch of DLC that doesn't piss me off is the stuff that aren't a part of the game itself. This includes soundtracks, themes (For consoles), wallpapers/screen savers (for PC), user icons, and other similar things. Those things have zero impact on the game's content and are the least likely thing to entice a player to buy. About the only reason to buy these things are if the game was done VERY well and the player sees it as a way to 'tipping' the devs or the game is so awesome the player would like to have it on their wallpaper/theme/etc.
The only other thing I can think of as 'acceptable' DLC would be, for lack of a better term, 'Legacy Expansion Packs'.
I have to say 'Legacy' because normal Expansion Packs would not qualify as 'good' to me. Expansion packs these days stink of "Ok we're going to stop developing the game at this point, everything else will go into an 'expansion' pack."
Essentially the types of expansion packs I'm talking about are those that are released no earlier than 1 year after the original game is released. In addition I'd argue that the expansion pack should also not be PRESOLD/OFFERED or even ADVERTISED prior to that 1 year term.
Why the limit on presales or advertising of the planned expansion pack? Because it betrays the point that the expansion was pre-planned and that if it's delayed a year it's simply because they're doing it to pretend to be a 'legacy expansion pack'. (Something that would happen if people actually started to think like me on this.)
Ok, need to start a chilled out groove to help focus.
By putting the gag order on the expansion pack plans for 1 year, it means reviewers and gamers will be reviewing the game based on how it's actually released and they won't end their review with 'but the company says an expansion pack is on the way eventually that will fix up all these shortcomings."
If the reviews of the game, without expansion pack hints, show a game feels complete then you can probably assume the game isn't arbitrarily cut off by the devs. If it feels incomplete then you can assume they're doing the usual tactic of releasing a game before finishing their job. (Consider No Man's Sky as a glaring, obvious example.)
That's about the only thing I can consider 'good' DLC nowadays. Just about everything else I can think of stinks of unreasonable greed. Have I bought 'bad' DLC? (costumes, etc) Yes. And it feels like I was rewarded by encouraging the developer/publisher to push the DLC even harder. Look at my rants in the past about the Hatsune Miku Project Diva DLC practices as examples of that.
You'll notice I don't include "free" DLC as 'good'. I've seen free DLC used for a variety of reasons. One big example is as a way to cover up horribly inept game balancing. "Here have free stats/money/etc since we know the monsters are too strong, give too little rewards, etc" This includes DLC that are free to the original purchaser. Those are no different than paid DLC - it's just included in the cost of the base game.
The whole point of 'legacy' expansion packs are to revitalize a previous hit a year or two after it's release. This is why the packs shouldn't be mentioned prior to that 1 year delay (let alone put up as a preorder bonus). Ideally I'd say the work on the packs shouldn't even START prior to that first year after release. It gives a year of feedback to listen to what the players think they want more of. If the devs can already say by launch what they should have added to the game it's more of an indication that they cut shit out.
For example, one good example of a legacy pack for say Ar Tonelico would have been Conversation Packs. One of the big things gamers of that series enjoyed was the conversations between the player and the reyvatiels in their party - or as the second+ game started adding, conversations between the reyvateils etc. This actually shows why you need that 1 year gag order on the expansion pack plans. If during that first year you find players complaining about how lacking the conversation choices are in the game, then it shows the dev cut back on that important aspect of the game to sell separately. On the other hand if the players are happy enough with what the base game was then you can consider the game wasn't cut off by the devs.
If they released the exact same content as an "expansion" soon after release, or had it as a preorder bonus, it would immediately look like the devs were cutting content out.
NOTE: I don't think the industry would ever try this. It goes completely against their efforts to reduce dev time and increase profit/gamer. Also I shouldn't post rants after waking up! :D
kane_magus over in his blog.It was hard, REALLY hard, to think about what would qualify as good/justifiable/defensible DLC practices. Virtually every thing they do just pisses me off and/or it's extremely easy to see how it's nothing more than an excuse to nickel and dime (or "dollar bill" more often than not) the user base.
First batch of DLC that doesn't piss me off is the stuff that aren't a part of the game itself. This includes soundtracks, themes (For consoles), wallpapers/screen savers (for PC), user icons, and other similar things. Those things have zero impact on the game's content and are the least likely thing to entice a player to buy. About the only reason to buy these things are if the game was done VERY well and the player sees it as a way to 'tipping' the devs or the game is so awesome the player would like to have it on their wallpaper/theme/etc.
The only other thing I can think of as 'acceptable' DLC would be, for lack of a better term, 'Legacy Expansion Packs'.
I have to say 'Legacy' because normal Expansion Packs would not qualify as 'good' to me. Expansion packs these days stink of "Ok we're going to stop developing the game at this point, everything else will go into an 'expansion' pack."
Essentially the types of expansion packs I'm talking about are those that are released no earlier than 1 year after the original game is released. In addition I'd argue that the expansion pack should also not be PRESOLD/OFFERED or even ADVERTISED prior to that 1 year term.
Why the limit on presales or advertising of the planned expansion pack? Because it betrays the point that the expansion was pre-planned and that if it's delayed a year it's simply because they're doing it to pretend to be a 'legacy expansion pack'. (Something that would happen if people actually started to think like me on this.)
Ok, need to start a chilled out groove to help focus.
By putting the gag order on the expansion pack plans for 1 year, it means reviewers and gamers will be reviewing the game based on how it's actually released and they won't end their review with 'but the company says an expansion pack is on the way eventually that will fix up all these shortcomings."
If the reviews of the game, without expansion pack hints, show a game feels complete then you can probably assume the game isn't arbitrarily cut off by the devs. If it feels incomplete then you can assume they're doing the usual tactic of releasing a game before finishing their job. (Consider No Man's Sky as a glaring, obvious example.)
That's about the only thing I can consider 'good' DLC nowadays. Just about everything else I can think of stinks of unreasonable greed. Have I bought 'bad' DLC? (costumes, etc) Yes. And it feels like I was rewarded by encouraging the developer/publisher to push the DLC even harder. Look at my rants in the past about the Hatsune Miku Project Diva DLC practices as examples of that.
You'll notice I don't include "free" DLC as 'good'. I've seen free DLC used for a variety of reasons. One big example is as a way to cover up horribly inept game balancing. "Here have free stats/money/etc since we know the monsters are too strong, give too little rewards, etc" This includes DLC that are free to the original purchaser. Those are no different than paid DLC - it's just included in the cost of the base game.
The whole point of 'legacy' expansion packs are to revitalize a previous hit a year or two after it's release. This is why the packs shouldn't be mentioned prior to that 1 year delay (let alone put up as a preorder bonus). Ideally I'd say the work on the packs shouldn't even START prior to that first year after release. It gives a year of feedback to listen to what the players think they want more of. If the devs can already say by launch what they should have added to the game it's more of an indication that they cut shit out.
For example, one good example of a legacy pack for say Ar Tonelico would have been Conversation Packs. One of the big things gamers of that series enjoyed was the conversations between the player and the reyvatiels in their party - or as the second+ game started adding, conversations between the reyvateils etc. This actually shows why you need that 1 year gag order on the expansion pack plans. If during that first year you find players complaining about how lacking the conversation choices are in the game, then it shows the dev cut back on that important aspect of the game to sell separately. On the other hand if the players are happy enough with what the base game was then you can consider the game wasn't cut off by the devs.
If they released the exact same content as an "expansion" soon after release, or had it as a preorder bonus, it would immediately look like the devs were cutting content out.
NOTE: I don't think the industry would ever try this. It goes completely against their efforts to reduce dev time and increase profit/gamer. Also I shouldn't post rants after waking up! :D
no subject
Date: 2019-05-17 06:39 am (UTC)