The value of DLC

[Lanfear]

(and I'm tired of the "you just don't have to buy it" line..that's complete crap...games shouldn't be exclusionary..it's all about the money.

And there I was thinking EU, or any other *game* (feel free to replace "game" with any other commodity) as one huge charity event. They dont pay their team by "thumbs ups", unless in Sweden you pay your rent and get healthcare based on likes.

Doesnt mean I agree per se to pricing of all DLC in the state they are being sold when looking at content(FWIW, i have all DLC packs, but only small part of music/unitpacks etc) just depends per DLC/personal preference. But to assume "money is not an issue here" is just weird IMO.

Obv. they have some ppl looking into pricing and what gets the best ROI for developing the game they released almost 2 years ago. Fair pricing depends just depends so much on your location. If they would have released Eldorado this week again, it would actually have saved me money, as I now spend more by going out after work. (and in addition I would have gotten awesome features like the AI not being able to colonise the new world, what more do you want, unless you're playing the new world...).

Just quoting:

For me they dont worth a full price as i can get more hours buying another full game with a discout, a indie game, or a humble pack. Today every week you have a good game in a good sale so a DLC need to be very very good for you to spend on it instead of getting another full game.

True most of those games will give you 10 hours if you're luck, but when you already played 135 hours of EUIV a DLC will need to be a beast to make you play another, lets say 50 hours. So i just choose a new experience.

Those 10 hours "indie" games, are still more expensive on /hour base than the assumed 50 hours of the DLC. But at least you have a different experience, because different game - fair enough. What worries me more is that these so called "indie" games now randomly cost &euro40 while in Steam early access, just because they are tagged as "indie". And compared to that I personally rather get a (maybe bugged) EU IV DLC, which you know will be patched somehow, than paying the double for some random EA game which might or might not even get out of EA...

E
So i wait and wait until the dlc go to a reasonable price for the hours i will get playing. I got only wealth of nations for now, but waiting a 75% discount to buy the others.
Maybe by the end of 2015....

Yes, if you don't want the DLC NOW, just wait for sale, no prob?

 

[Pyske]

You are exactly right. Every DLC has lower value per coder hour invested than the base game.

Even better, you've rediscovered economics! No, really.

If Paradox pays $1000 to develop a feature, they have to recoup that cost. If they have to choose whether to put it into a base game or a DLC, where do they have to add less to the final price to recoup their investment? Every DLC sells fewer copies than the base game has... or it's not a DLC. Thus, the cost has a lower amortization (it's spread across fewer units sold). Voila... even if Paradox doesn't add any intentional extra margin (capitalizing on the value of their brand), the value ratio is still lower, right from the start.

Clearly the sensible alternative is to always release base games. I'm sure the economics will support me on that.

Personally, I've been thinking about making a game about perfectly spherical, frictionless cows.

 

[WhiskyGlen]

You are exactly right. Every DLC has lower value per coder hour invested than the base game.

Even better, you've rediscovered economics! No, really.

The sarcasm on these message boards, or any other message board for that matter, never gets old.

If Paradox pays $1000 to develop a feature, they have to recoup that cost. If they have to choose whether to put it into a base game or a DLC, where do they have to add less to the final price to recoup their investment? Every DLC sells fewer copies than the base game has... or it's not a DLC. Thus, the cost has a lower amortization (it's spread across fewer units sold). Voila... even if Paradox doesn't add any intentional extra margin (capitalizing on the value of their brand), the value ratio is still lower, right from the start.

Every DLC does indeed sell fewer copies. But it also takes nowhere near as long to develop. I would be willing to wager that other than perhaps the Art of War DLC, far more time was spent on the free features. Of course, like I said immediately, many of these things are changes that should have been here since at the very latest, EUIII. But then, why ever release a new version if the present is already perfect?

Clearly the sensible alternative is to always release base games. I'm sure the economics will support me on that.

It worked for many years. It is very interesting to me as to how people always support paying more for less in order to defend their favorite companies. Of course Paradox needs to make money. We all know this. Some of us just don't like to pay more for less. I never said it doesn't even make financial sense for Paradox. What I said is that I am tired of this business practice. It makes sense for "King" to never sell a full version of Candy Crush. They make far more with their microtransactions. It does not mean we should all get together and sing Kumbaya over it.

Personally, I've been thinking about making a game about perfectly spherical, frictionless cows.

Go for it. Not hard. Just make a bunch of floating bubbles with black and white color patterns.

 

[WhiskyGlen]

By the way, the next DLC I would like is an AI enhancement DLC. No more French troops sitting along the English Channel when we have naval superiority in a war and they have plenty of transports. I would like allies to actually go after their war objectives sometimes (a feature I paid for in an expansion). I would like AI that actually tries to make peace when half it's provinces have fallen and it has no standing army. There are lots of AI improvements that could be made that I find far more important than these small additions. A major AI improvement DLC is something I'd gladly pay $5 or maybe even $10 for. If it's really big, $15. Afterall, a game like this is 50%+ about the AI (and yes, that is my random made-up statistic for the night). AI is also probably the most difficult thing to code. So yeah, that is a DLC I would gladly pay for.

 

[AurochsAway]

By the way, the next DLC I would like is an AI enhancement DLC. No more French troops sitting along the English Channel when we have naval superiority in a war and they have plenty of transports. I would like allies to actually go after their war objectives sometimes (a feature I paid for in an expansion). I would like AI that actually tries to make peace when half it's provinces have fallen and it has no standing army. There are lots of AI improvements that could be made that I find far more important than these small additions. A major AI improvement DLC is something I'd gladly pay $5 or maybe even $10 for. If it's really big, $15. Afterall, a game like this is 50%+ about the AI (and yes, that is my random made-up statistic for the night). AI is also probably the most difficult thing to code. So yeah, that is a DLC I would gladly pay for.

Small AI improvements are included in each patch. I think many would be left with a sour taste if AI became DLC.

 

[Mabs]

i dont use -all- the features of all the DLC, but i like to have them "in case" i decide to , and also im happy to spend what is little more than a pack of cigarettes or a few pints of beer, on something i will get more than 10 mins enjoyment out of. I also enjoy HoI 2 + 3, and EU 3 + 4, and am happy to directly support a developer who i hope will continue to produce games i like playing.

 

[Poh]

Except that most old expansions were around $20 to $30. In other words, they were very similarly priced to what these present day DLCs are. Also, if I am paying for a product, I will never factor in the free features each and anyone gets. If I am playing WWII Online, I won't include basic infantry as part of my paid subscription since anyone can play as them for free. I will, however, factor in the tank, airplane, and advanced infantry side of the game.

AoW is probably the biggest expansion ever for a Pdox game and its $20. The part about the Pdox DLC model is that you cant look at it like this. To be able to have everyone play with eachother they need to have the basic stuff as free. The alternative is that you would have to buy Expansion 1 to make use of Expansion 2. And people with Expansion 1 couldnt pay with people on Expansion 2. In the Pdox model everyone can play with eachother however it has some downsides as you need to have free stuff making what you pay for feel as less.

I wouldn't say you wouldn't get any of the free patches. I believe EUII was patched to version 1.9. Rome: Total War II has already had around 15 patches last I knew and they completely revamped the game as they repackaged it. Only DLC I bought for that was a "Beasts of War" add-on for $3 and it was a waste of money as dogs don't work properly anyways. Granted, that is almost not a fair comparison since they have a much higher budget to work with, I assume.

IIRC HoI3 (base game) got 4 major patches even though they only budgeted with 3 patches for the game as they knew it needed it. Then after an expansion you would get some patches once again etc. That was the model prior to the DLC model we have now.

What I will give Paradox credit for is not re-releasing the game each year. That's what bothers me about sports game. Annual releases for games like Football Manager are irritating. That game usually gets three good patches or so per year then all the work goes on the next version. So I do thank Paradox for not going that route. I just wish DLC in general had more value or at least was cheaper. $5 for Art of War or El Dorado would be a very fair price. $20 and $15 respectively? Not so much.

The map rework in AoW is easily worth the $20 however because they need to have people with different DLC enabled play with eachother that is a free feature.

 

[spinoza013]

No no no no, oh please not this again.......

 

[Vaximillian]

No no no no, oh please not this again.......

The ride never ends.

 

[unmerged(1823)]

Except that most old expansions were around $20 to $30. In other words, they were very similarly priced to what these present day DLCs are. Also, if I am paying for a product, I will never factor in the free features each and anyone gets.

Except that for the old expansions, you had 1 programmer & 1 scripter working for 3-4 months, which severly limited the scope of what could be included. For the new expansions you have 5 developers and 4 QA working on it for the same time.

I hear what you are saying about perceived value. but I am terribly sorry..

We will NOT reduce the amount of free features in our patches to increase the amount of paid content.

We will NOT change the price on our expansions, as we have found what is giving insane attachment rates, while making it profitable to continue developing.


Charging 5$ for Art of War, which in paid features alone, had twice the amount of development as the biggest pre-CK2 expansion, and considering the installbase would have made that the LAST eu4 patch ever

 

[Beagá]

I think people´s issues are more with lack of simple dinasties, stability as process and decent naval system, things that are necessary from day one, and are so big to be adressed by piece-meal DLC... requiring BIG and tested expansions.

I won´t deny that some DLCs made some huge difference (making rebels a process was na AWESOME change) but some DLC were rather weak. The only one that really deserves to be called expansion is AOW.

 

[Kirkegaard]

I think people´s issues are more with lack of simple dinasties, stability as process and decent naval system, things that are necessary from day one, and are so big to be adressed by piece-meal DLC... requiring BIG and tested expansions.

I won´t deny that some DLCs made some huge difference (making rebels a process was na AWESOME change) but some DLC were rather weak. The only one that really deserves to be called expansion is AOW.

It is well lucky they don't sell expansions then

 

[the cool guy]

if it allowed you to save your custom set-ups for later use and tweaking

Can't you just save it and alter the save since they let you alter saves? Haven't tested just a thought.

unless in Sweden you pay your rent and get healthcare based on likes.

Pretty sure healthcare is free in Sweden

By the way, the next DLC I would like is an AI enhancement DLC. No more French troops sitting along the English Channel when we have naval superiority in a war and they have plenty of transports. I would like allies to actually go after their war objectives sometimes (a feature I paid for in an expansion). I would like AI that actually tries to make peace when half it's provinces have fallen and it has no standing army. There are lots of AI improvements that could be made that I find far more important than these small additions. A major AI improvement DLC is something I'd gladly pay $5 or maybe even $10 for. If it's really big, $15. Afterall, a game like this is 50%+ about the AI (and yes, that is my random made-up statistic for the night). AI is also probably the most difficult thing to code. So yeah, that is a DLC I would gladly pay for.

Yeah better AI would be nice. I wouldn't mind paying but some probably would.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Pretty sure healthcare is free in Sweden

'Free', with rather high taxes, yeah.

Mind, it's not exactly "Tax over 100% of some people's income" France, but hey.

 

[Silmarion]

I don't think it should be an equal percentage, but it should be somewhere close. I would estimate each one of these DLCs to be around 1% of the game. Of course, how you come to that 1% coll

Sometimes the whole lobster is not available.

Not only is it available, you get half of it for free, and options on how much of the rest you want to purchase. You are literally complaining about Paradox giving out too much stuff for free.

 

[1666846464]

I bought most of the patch-tied DLC and consider myself to have been thoroughly jewed, but since I pirate most of my games anyways I figure I come out alright in the long run.

 

[newtlord]

The problem with the "getting things for free" argument is that a fair percentage of the free patch components issued lately (removing looting, for example) has been more in the nature of "value subtracted" than "value added".

 

[Silmarion]

The problem with the "getting things for free" argument is that a fair percentage of the free patch components issued lately (removing looting, for example) has been more in the nature of "value subtracted" than "value added".

Which is, in no way, a "free feature". It's a game balance change. Now, admittedly one some people, myself included, disagree with, but to try and use it as an anti-dlc argument is disingenuous. You know what is a free feature? Patches in general; under the old expansion system bug fixes and further expansions required you to have every preceding expansion.

 

[RobRoy3]

(and I'm tired of the "you just don't have to buy it" line..that's complete crap...games shouldn't be exclusionary..it's all about the money.

Couldn't disagree more. While the line might, indeed, be cliche. It's still absolutely true. If you don't perceive value in the DLC (plus patch), you not only have the option, you really have the obligation, to NOT PURCHASE IT!!!! How is this exclusionary? You are also free to purchase it. Is someone telling you otherwise?

And, yes, selling a game, like any other product or service is going to be about money, at least in part. Is that not obvious?

Personally, I'm less than thrilled with aspects of El Dorado, and it's value to me is far less than AoW was. But they build up enough good credit with AoW that I'm not going to get too upset about it.

 

[Korsan82]

Welcome to modern day games industry. Milk the cow until it's dead... And even then you can get some milk that's left inside.

There is a reason for why companies went away from addons, which included value like a whole new game sometimes, and went to small DLC which they can sell for prices way too high for the value, like you described. And the reason is not to provide you better quality, but to milk the game until the last.

That's the reason why EUIV is nothing more but a polished EU3. As long as people buy it companies will go on doing this (and I fully understand it from their point of view).