Worst DLC and Patch Ever. Change my mind

[safe-keeper]

DLC's also kill creativity. Look at Larian. Everyone is begging for BG3 DLC and Larian is like nope we move onto the next big game. This is how it is suppose to be done. Not dozens and dozens of various DLC's to milk the consumer. These are PC games not mobile games.

It depends on how the DLC model is used, in my eyes. PDX has historically (not anymore, obviously) been good at supporting their games for a decade plus, giving out lots of free bug fixes and updates alongside DLCs that you mostly did not need to enjoy the game. For example, I've put quite a few hours into CK2 and I only own the Old Gods DLC, the one that added playable Norse nations. I still hop into HoI4 from time to time even though I don't own any of the newest DLCs. I like that they properly support their games for years and years instead of leaving them in a half-finished state for then to move on to the sequel. They're still working on Stellaris, for example, not Stellaris 2024 Black Ops Modern Warfare Premium Remastered Edition.

As for your argument that people have to buy the DLCs... no one is forcing them to. The fact that people are buying them means people want them, doesn't it? So... those people who want the DLC buy it, the people who don't can choose not to. Sounds like a win-win to me.

That is, again, as long as it's done right. The minute the DLCs become cash grabs and bugs and problems with the game aren't fixed (or worse, bundled with the DLC!), my goodwill is gone. Case in point, for years and years in HoI4, Vichy France declared war the instant it was formed, which is ahistorical and also really detrimental to gameplay. Then when the devs finally fix it, they put it behind a DLC paywall. Similarily, convoys kept taking suicidal routes through enemy waters, and there was no way for players to prevent that --until a naval DLC came out and allowed paying players to declare sea zones as off-limit to warships and convoys. That's when I stopped buying HoI4 DLCs.

DLCs are fine, it's the way you do them that matters to me.

 

[DracoDrache]

Agree

It depends on how the DLC model is used, in my eyes. PDX has historically (not anymore, obviously) been good at supporting their games for a decade plus, giving out lots of free bug fixes and updates alongside DLCs that you mostly did not need to enjoy the game. For example, I've put quite a few hours into CK2 and I only own the Old Gods DLC, the one that added playable Norse nations. I still hop into HoI4 from time to time even though I don't own any of the newest DLCs. I like that they properly support their games for years and years instead of leaving them in a half-finished state for then to move on to the sequel. They're still working on Stellaris, for example, not Stellaris 2024 Black Ops Modern Warfare Premium Remastered Edition.

As for your argument that people have to buy the DLCs... no one is forcing them to. The fact that people are buying them means people want them, doesn't it? So... those people who want the DLC buy it, the people who don't can choose not to. Sounds like a win-win to me.

That is, again, as long as it's done right. The minute the DLCs become cash grabs and bugs and problems with the game aren't fixed (or worse, bundled with the DLC!), my goodwill is gone. Case in point, for years and years in HoI4, Vichy France declared war the instant it was formed, which is ahistorical and also really detrimental to gameplay. Then when the devs finally fix it, they put it behind a DLC paywall. Similarily, convoys kept taking suicidal routes through enemy waters, and there was no way for players to prevent that --until a naval DLC came out and allowed paying players to declare sea zones as off-limit to warships and convoys. That's when I stopped buying HoI4 DLCs.

DLCs are fine, it's the way you do them that matters to me.

Look at Anno 1800. I really do enjoy this game (even though I can't play, bc I currently don't have the time). Almost all DLCs added so many new things that changed the way you play. And everything was backed by the community. They wanted it. (And probably Ubisoft saw a way to make money, but regardless, they delivered a very good main game and good DLCs.) Every DLC added new things to the main game for free, which can't be said about CS2: Even Tress are now looked behind a paywall.

 

[whosthebestcop]

Games always have had expansions. I remember Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe had 4 expansion packs and that was 1991.

Each was a separate plane but it included an entire tour of duty.

Fortnite showed the companies if they apply mobile asset store to PC games they can take advantage of the consumer and basically print money.

This is why gta6 was delayed. GTA 5 and it's assets printed money for rockstar. It was insane how much money they could make.

Eventually this is what happened to all of paradox core games especially seen in both cs1 and cs2.

Before ck2 each game had 3-4. Huge expansions. But then it was shown fans will buy assets, different art things, radio stations etc.

 

[[Delta ²k5]]

Games always have had expansions. I remember Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe had 4 expansion packs and that was 1991.

While it's true that games always featured expansions it's not a good idea to compare the situation back then to the one we have today. Back then devs were not able to just release something "on demand". This makes a huge difference in development as a "finished" state for an application as a whole is never reached in agile development. You may start with version 1.0 but end up after years with version 3.2 when finally a successor is able to take over the most important tasks when the legacy platform reached its limits.

As you in theory can release an update or DLC daily nowadays (so when a certain feature is finished) you usually have a base product (which might even be free of charge, for example DCS) and additional content (like plugins, addons or something else) which enables you as a customer to build a version of the application specifically for your own needs as a gamer or as a professional when it comes down to tools.
So, if a DLC is not your taste or too pricy you just vote with your wallet or look for some alternative (if available) - in our case the alternative will be assets from PDX mods when that part is ready (which shall not take ages as I saw some previews of models imported through the import pipeline).

This is why gta6 was delayed. GTA 5 and it's assets printed money for rockstar.

I don't know from where you have that specific information - from my knowledge GTA VI was announced in December last year while in dev since 2013 (conception/design). Shark Card sales and RDR2 were only a reason to not rush things because they turned out to be cash cows, however I doubt that this actively delayed development.

If GTA V Online can be a cash cow, why shall GTA VI Online not perform in the same or even better way? Imagine you could only access overpowered weapons, flying bikes and specific properties using a GTA+ subscription on the new game - wow, that would be THE thing from a business perspective aka "pay to win". Also you could harvest money on all ends: Specific hardware deals in cooperation with Sony for their PS5 Pro while still knowing that many players will have to stick to their PS4 to play GTA V Online

Eventually this is what happened to all of paradox core games especially seen in both cs1 and cs2.

Debatable, at least on C:S1/C:S2. I saw no benefit in buying most DLCs day one, especially I simply didn't buy any radio stations. Some people who like them did so but for me it was just not interesting. Some people also buy a $15€+ Fortnite Skin which doesn't even feature anything but a real brand on the digital shoes - so what? If they like it that's pretty fine with me as I'm not forced to do so.

This is also a key difference to products from EA Games like Sim City 2013 - They officially marketed their "Blimp DLC" for ~10 bucks (back in 2013...) as a solution for "traffic problems" from which the main game suffered whenever the single small city tile was filled with buildings leading to a deadlock. That basically was "pay to not to fail". On C:S your city will always survive if you didn't buy Natural Disasters, Mass Transit or Snowfall - and on C:S2 it surely will still survive without waterfront themed buildings and palms.

Before ck2 each game had 3-4. Huge expansions. But then it was shown fans will buy assets, different art things, radio stations etc.

Well, if it works there is in first place nothing wrong with this approach. Looking at the forums and other places it also seems to me that the majority of people buying the smaller stuff is pretty fine with it, as in comparison to overall sales there may be 0.01% getting vocal. If there would not be enough fans buying such things or complain about misinformation these simply would not exist and PDX would have to change course or close doors forever.

Same applies to Fortnite and its skins which I personally also find utterly pointless even if I never played the game (as I find the whole thing utterly pointless), however it somehow has its supportive fan base which I simply respect.