Hi, I’m Pallidum Treponema, the Empress of DLC for the Paradox Development Studio games. I was asked to write a few words on the subject of our DLCs.
Back when we released Crusader Kings II, we also introduced a new DLC model. Instead of continuing with the old-school Expansion model, where each expansion would be a big release that effectively replaced the old base game, we wanted to build our DLCs and expansions in a more modular format. Rather than each new expansion requiring all the previous expansions and new features and bugfixes only being available to those who had bought it all, the new model would allow us to continuously update the base game and distribute expansions as optional DLCs, where a player could pick and choose which ones they wanted to buy.
We also wanted to separate gameplay features, which we would put into the expansions, and cosmetic content, which we would put into smaller, separate DLCs. This was done because by the time of the Crusader Kings II release, we were at a position where we could create a much improved visual experience than we had been able to do before.
In the strategy game genre, especially with deep and complex strategy games, graphics is often a neglected feature. Graphics cost a lot to create and for a niche genre, where sales volumes are traditionally far smaller than that of more mainstream titles, production costs are a very big deal.
The separation between gameplay focused expansions and cosmetic additions that our new model provided us meant that we had a lot more freedom to produce content in a way we were comfortable with, and allowed us to produce both gameplay features and graphical content in ways that we previously could not have done.
It also allowed more freedom for our fans as those who wanted to play our games for the gameplay alone could choose to buy the expansions and ignore the cosmetic additions. They wouldn't have to pay for the cosmetic additions that we could now create, but they might not be interested in. Similarly, someone who wanted to enhance the visual aesthetics of their game could choose to do so without having to buy expansions that they might not care for.
This model isn’t without its own flaws, however. Whenever we release an expansion, we have to balance what goes into the expansion and what will be available as a free patch to the main game. We want to give the players value for their money, so that those who buy the expansions feel they’re receiving what they expected. At the same time, we don’t leave players who only have the base game unable to play the game properly. We also need to account for players who own one expansion, but not another, so that the game doesn’t break when features from one expansion depends on another.
Why aren’t unit packs and portraits included in the expansions?
This is a common question. As mentioned above, we wanted to give both ourselves and our fans more freedom in what we could do.
We could technically add the cosmetic content to the expansions, that’s easy enough. That would, however, require us to charge more for them. We'd need to combine the separate DLCs into larger packages, much like the old expansions. While this would make the list of DLCs more manageable, a good thing in itself, it'd also mean that our fans would have less choice which would be a bad thing.
I should also mention that while we do stick to the guideline of separating cosmetic content and gameplay expansions for the most parts, there have also been exceptions. For example, in the case of the Charlemagne or Rajas of India expansions for Crusader Kings II, we felt that the new changes to the game were so big that we needed to show them visually. In the case of the Charlemagne expansion, we included no less than three new unit packs with the expansion itself. This obviously meant that the Charlemagne expansion cost us more to produce than if we had sold it without the unit packs, but we felt that it was the right thing to do.
The amount of DLCs available
Another common point, often expressed as a complaint about DLC bloat, is that there are too many DLCs. This is an unfortunate result of our model of selling cosmetic DLCs separately. We could mitigate this by including the content in the expansions, which for reasons explained above, is not something we want to do, or we could simply not produce any more content, which is definitely not something we want to do.
I absolutely agree that the list of DLCs that we produce for the games can be a bit unwieldy. Ultimately, however, I think that this is mostly a presentation problem. Making it easier to find what to buy and what you own would resolve most of the problem with “DLC Bloat”, and I think most of our fans want us to make more content available, not less.
Features stripped from the game to sell later
The nefarious evil mastermind in me would love to strip out features such as AI, main menus, mouse pointers and other necessary parts of the games to sell later to desperate fans, but the truth is, if we did this, we wouldn’t be selling many copies of our games. Still, this is a common complaint raised about DLCs. While I can’t speak for other developers, I’m of the firm belief that stripping out a feature that we have spent a lot of time making, to MAYBE sell it later to fans who, at that point may no longer be fans, is not really good business practice.
For various reasons, we may every now and then have to cut features from a game, for example because we don’t have time to make them justice, or because they didn’t work out as we had planned, but rest assured that I’m not in the habit of making a good game bad because of dubious business practices that is more likely than not to have legions of fans descend upon my secret underground lair.
What about the future?
There will be more DLCs. That, I can say for certain. How many? I don’t know. As long as our fans keep buying DLCs to fund my secret plans for world domination, and sadly also pay for food and shelter for my coworkers and other minions, we’ll keep producing DLCs.
Future DLCs may or may not follow the same model. We’re continuously evaluating what’s working and what isn’t, and we may change or tweak our model as we try to improve how it works both for ourselves and for our fans.
All in all, I think our DLC model has served us well, and while it’s not perfect, I think that it’s better than most alternatives. It does seem to be popular among our fans, which is good because a horde of loyal fans is essential for…. various reasons.
Or has it? Let me know what you think. I non-nefariously want to know who disagrees with me and why. Obviously for benign reasons, of course.
Back when we released Crusader Kings II, we also introduced a new DLC model. Instead of continuing with the old-school Expansion model, where each expansion would be a big release that effectively replaced the old base game, we wanted to build our DLCs and expansions in a more modular format. Rather than each new expansion requiring all the previous expansions and new features and bugfixes only being available to those who had bought it all, the new model would allow us to continuously update the base game and distribute expansions as optional DLCs, where a player could pick and choose which ones they wanted to buy.
We also wanted to separate gameplay features, which we would put into the expansions, and cosmetic content, which we would put into smaller, separate DLCs. This was done because by the time of the Crusader Kings II release, we were at a position where we could create a much improved visual experience than we had been able to do before.
In the strategy game genre, especially with deep and complex strategy games, graphics is often a neglected feature. Graphics cost a lot to create and for a niche genre, where sales volumes are traditionally far smaller than that of more mainstream titles, production costs are a very big deal.
The separation between gameplay focused expansions and cosmetic additions that our new model provided us meant that we had a lot more freedom to produce content in a way we were comfortable with, and allowed us to produce both gameplay features and graphical content in ways that we previously could not have done.
It also allowed more freedom for our fans as those who wanted to play our games for the gameplay alone could choose to buy the expansions and ignore the cosmetic additions. They wouldn't have to pay for the cosmetic additions that we could now create, but they might not be interested in. Similarly, someone who wanted to enhance the visual aesthetics of their game could choose to do so without having to buy expansions that they might not care for.
This model isn’t without its own flaws, however. Whenever we release an expansion, we have to balance what goes into the expansion and what will be available as a free patch to the main game. We want to give the players value for their money, so that those who buy the expansions feel they’re receiving what they expected. At the same time, we don’t leave players who only have the base game unable to play the game properly. We also need to account for players who own one expansion, but not another, so that the game doesn’t break when features from one expansion depends on another.
Why aren’t unit packs and portraits included in the expansions?
This is a common question. As mentioned above, we wanted to give both ourselves and our fans more freedom in what we could do.
We could technically add the cosmetic content to the expansions, that’s easy enough. That would, however, require us to charge more for them. We'd need to combine the separate DLCs into larger packages, much like the old expansions. While this would make the list of DLCs more manageable, a good thing in itself, it'd also mean that our fans would have less choice which would be a bad thing.
I should also mention that while we do stick to the guideline of separating cosmetic content and gameplay expansions for the most parts, there have also been exceptions. For example, in the case of the Charlemagne or Rajas of India expansions for Crusader Kings II, we felt that the new changes to the game were so big that we needed to show them visually. In the case of the Charlemagne expansion, we included no less than three new unit packs with the expansion itself. This obviously meant that the Charlemagne expansion cost us more to produce than if we had sold it without the unit packs, but we felt that it was the right thing to do.
The amount of DLCs available
Another common point, often expressed as a complaint about DLC bloat, is that there are too many DLCs. This is an unfortunate result of our model of selling cosmetic DLCs separately. We could mitigate this by including the content in the expansions, which for reasons explained above, is not something we want to do, or we could simply not produce any more content, which is definitely not something we want to do.
I absolutely agree that the list of DLCs that we produce for the games can be a bit unwieldy. Ultimately, however, I think that this is mostly a presentation problem. Making it easier to find what to buy and what you own would resolve most of the problem with “DLC Bloat”, and I think most of our fans want us to make more content available, not less.
Features stripped from the game to sell later
The nefarious evil mastermind in me would love to strip out features such as AI, main menus, mouse pointers and other necessary parts of the games to sell later to desperate fans, but the truth is, if we did this, we wouldn’t be selling many copies of our games. Still, this is a common complaint raised about DLCs. While I can’t speak for other developers, I’m of the firm belief that stripping out a feature that we have spent a lot of time making, to MAYBE sell it later to fans who, at that point may no longer be fans, is not really good business practice.
For various reasons, we may every now and then have to cut features from a game, for example because we don’t have time to make them justice, or because they didn’t work out as we had planned, but rest assured that I’m not in the habit of making a good game bad because of dubious business practices that is more likely than not to have legions of fans descend upon my secret underground lair.
What about the future?
There will be more DLCs. That, I can say for certain. How many? I don’t know. As long as our fans keep buying DLCs to fund my secret plans for world domination, and sadly also pay for food and shelter for my coworkers and other minions, we’ll keep producing DLCs.
Future DLCs may or may not follow the same model. We’re continuously evaluating what’s working and what isn’t, and we may change or tweak our model as we try to improve how it works both for ourselves and for our fans.
All in all, I think our DLC model has served us well, and while it’s not perfect, I think that it’s better than most alternatives. It does seem to be popular among our fans, which is good because a horde of loyal fans is essential for…. various reasons.
Or has it? Let me know what you think. I non-nefariously want to know who disagrees with me and why. Obviously for benign reasons, of course.
- 5
- 5
- 2
- 1
