www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Saturday, June 24, 2023
DLC and overall cost of games
The Sims 4 was released in 2014. It is now free on the Epic Games Store, apparently since earlier this year. Of course that is only the base game. If you wanted to buy all the DLC for The Sims 4 on the Epic Games Store, that would cost you a whopping $1265. I was thinking of this extreme example because of some other games news: Cyberpunk 2077, which I still haven't played yet, will get both a patch to version 2.0 and a $30 DLC in September. Age of Wonders 4, which I am playing, just got the first $10 DLC, and patch to version V1.003, dubbed the "Wyvern Update". My question here is, is that good news?
On the one hand, there are free updates, and older games you can now play for free. On the other hand, I only bought Cyberpunk 2077 when it was heavily discounted to $20, figuring that by the time I get around to play it, it might be worth that much. I don't think I want to buy a $30 DLC with that. But then, there is a risk that the game feels somewhat incomplete, because essential parts of it are in the DLC. I did buy the Dragon DLC for Age of Wonders 4 for $10, but even there I am not sure how essential that will be to my game experience.
The problem of course is that there is no general answer. Some DLCs really only add non-essential additional content to a game, where unless you have already played the base game to 100% complete you might as well skip the DLC. For other games, the DLC significantly enhances the base game, so that playing the game without the DLC feels like playing an inferior version. When people still bought games on discs, they were annoyed to find that for some games the DLC was already on the disc, and then they needed to buy a key to unlock it. Today, with most games just being downloaded, the release of DLCs relatively shortly after release of the base game suggests that the DLC was content that was ready at release, but artificially carved out of the base game and sold separately to make an extra buck.
For Age of Wonders 4, all four DLCs were announced already at the release of the game. I could have bought the Premium Edition of the game for $40 more, or I could buy the expansion pass for $50, or buy the 4 DLCs individually for $60. I went for the individual option, because I simply don't know how much I'll still be into this game when the last DLC comes out. I risk to pay $110 overall for the game if I pick up all DLCs, instead of $90 for the Premium Edition. But buying the Premium Edition suggests that all DLC is essential to playing this game, and if I believe that, games are getting really expensive. As The Sims 4 example shows, base games are frequently sold at heavy discounts later, or even become free, but DLCs tend to remain expensive, unless there is some offer for a bundle. Steam sometimes does something user-friendly here, and offers discounted bundles where you get the full discount on just the parts of the game you don't have yet. I could pick up $70 worth of Civilization VI expansions for $20. But there are many cases where the DLC would more than double the overall cost of a game. As I said, there are certainly cases where this is really additional content, and the price is justified. But when a game is released half-finished, and you'd have to pay more to get a complete version, you feel nickeled and dimed.
- posted by Tobold @ 12:47 PM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
Since all DLC is not created equal I don't have just one opinion on it. The DLC that is already ready when the base game ships irritates me, but I don't think my irritation is justifiable. I'm irritated because I think that if it's co-developed with the base game then it should be part of the base game. But why? It took resources to develop the DLC and if the company decided that the base game will be X amount of gameplay or take approximately Y amount of hours and it meets that, then why do I think they should offer more just because it's available? Companies need to be profitable after all.
On the other hand I am 100% fine with DLC like the upcoming Cyberpunk 2077 expansion. The reason I feel that way is that I've played that game for over 450 hours and it is a full fledged game where the expansion is not needed to get to a story ending. However, like a good sequel the developers are extending the story. I don't feel like I have to play the expansion to get the true value of the base game - I feel like the expansion really does "expand" the game. While it may be downloadable I don't categorize expansions and DLC the same. DLC to me means smaller additions, while expansions mean large content and/or gameplay changes that may expand the content by 30% or more.
I think at the end of the day we just want good value and not feel like we've been taken advantage of.
On the other hand I am 100% fine with DLC like the upcoming Cyberpunk 2077 expansion. The reason I feel that way is that I've played that game for over 450 hours and it is a full fledged game where the expansion is not needed to get to a story ending. However, like a good sequel the developers are extending the story. I don't feel like I have to play the expansion to get the true value of the base game - I feel like the expansion really does "expand" the game. While it may be downloadable I don't categorize expansions and DLC the same. DLC to me means smaller additions, while expansions mean large content and/or gameplay changes that may expand the content by 30% or more.
I think at the end of the day we just want good value and not feel like we've been taken advantage of.
I agree with Janous that all DLC is not created equal.
DLC that is there on release and is clearly just game content cut out so they can charge more at launch? An abuse.
DLC created/added after the game has been out a while so that the developers can keep the long tail alive and the money coming in? Those are generally solid practices, especially as there are a lot of those which are funded by the initial sales of the game.
DLC which is just things like extra costumes or downloadable art and music? I am almost always fine with those because it allows you to provide extra support for the game or get some extra feature if you want it, but there is nothing which requires you to buy to get the full enjoyment out of the game. (Admittedly, outside of free to play games, I rarely buy these expansions myself.)
DLC that is there on release and is clearly just game content cut out so they can charge more at launch? An abuse.
DLC created/added after the game has been out a while so that the developers can keep the long tail alive and the money coming in? Those are generally solid practices, especially as there are a lot of those which are funded by the initial sales of the game.
DLC which is just things like extra costumes or downloadable art and music? I am almost always fine with those because it allows you to provide extra support for the game or get some extra feature if you want it, but there is nothing which requires you to buy to get the full enjoyment out of the game. (Admittedly, outside of free to play games, I rarely buy these expansions myself.)
What I find strange is the backlash against DLC created after a game has shipped is something that I'm only aware of occurring with video games.
Games like the Sims and stuff published by Paradox Interactive are often maligned because they have tons of DLC available after a number of years, but I've never heard of people outside of videogames complaining that product X has tons of additional content you can buy for it 5 years after it came out.
Imagine if I complained because I want to buy a car and it's not right that Toyota is now charging extra money for a RAV4 because they have all these new models that didn't exist when the base car was launched last year. I'd be rightfully laughed at by any car salesman.
Why do gamers feel like they are owed ALL content when they purchase a product even if it's DLC or expansion content created after the initial launch of a game?
Games like the Sims and stuff published by Paradox Interactive are often maligned because they have tons of DLC available after a number of years, but I've never heard of people outside of videogames complaining that product X has tons of additional content you can buy for it 5 years after it came out.
Imagine if I complained because I want to buy a car and it's not right that Toyota is now charging extra money for a RAV4 because they have all these new models that didn't exist when the base car was launched last year. I'd be rightfully laughed at by any car salesman.
Why do gamers feel like they are owed ALL content when they purchase a product even if it's DLC or expansion content created after the initial launch of a game?
Bigeye, to be balanced to cars, the point of coming out with those new models IS to get you to spend new money. Except instead of it being "new content" for your current car, it is supposed to make your shiny car look dull and unappealing, so you want the new shiny and wonderful. It's a better comparison to how video games release sequels, except cars do it yearly or faster.
Yeah not my best analogy but my point is gamers seem to expect that whenever they purchase a game they should receive all content released for the game regardless of the circumstances.
Take Cities Skylines for example. That game received support from its studio for 8 years. In that time it received a ton of various DLC packs and expansions, but theyve also put out a ton of content for free that wasn't in the base game on launch. None of this content would have been developed if not for the paid DLC funding the continued support of the game. Go to just about any social media post about that game and you'll find folks complaining about the "full game" costing hundreds of dollars. It's just a strange complaint to me that doesn't translate to any other industry.
Post a Comment
Take Cities Skylines for example. That game received support from its studio for 8 years. In that time it received a ton of various DLC packs and expansions, but theyve also put out a ton of content for free that wasn't in the base game on launch. None of this content would have been developed if not for the paid DLC funding the continued support of the game. Go to just about any social media post about that game and you'll find folks complaining about the "full game" costing hundreds of dollars. It's just a strange complaint to me that doesn't translate to any other industry.
<< Home
