Poll: Expansions Vs. DLC

[A Weakgeek]

Some may say this is a useless topic, seeing as the traditional game expansions are almost dead in the industry ( Only some PC titles publish them anymore).

For those who dont know what I'm talking about...

Expansions: Usually released several months after the game, at about 40-20 dollars. They usually feature a new story, areas, gameplay features etc. The most expansive ones are pretty much a new game, running on the same engine. Examples: Morrowind: Bloodmoon, Warcraft III: The frozen throne, Civilization V: Gods and kings etc.

DLC: Might be released even on Day 1 (Oh gawd), prices ranging from like 2-12 dollars. They usually feature a mission or two, new weapons, customization options, multiplayer maps etc. The most expansive DLC (In the 12 dollar range) might sometimes resemble a lighter expansion pack, but in my experience very rarely.

I personally do not like how dlc has shaped games, but which one do you guys prefer?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's sort of down to the individual expansion or DLC.

I've played great, meaty expansions, and lousy expansions that didn't feel anything close to being worth their (often very high) price point.

I've played ghastly, slip-shod DLC that felt completely insulting, and I've played DLC that put some full price expansions to shame.

It's really not a "one or the other" situation. And frankly, since everything is digital these days, they're basically the same fucking thing described in two different ways.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

To be that guy, technically, they are the same thing. Before, we had expansions that were on disc to add a ton to the base game. Then when a simpler way to distribute content came about (downloadable content), it made it to where they could make smaller expansions/items/junk and sell it. To justify actually putting it on a disc, mass producing it, and shipping it to retail stores, they'd need to have more than just a few skins and a weapon. But, on topic, I prefer the mission type content (example: Fallout 3, Borderlands DLC) rather than smaller, cosmetic add-ons (Borderlands 2 Head/Skin packs - but I still bought one of those).

I'd probably get hate for this, and a little off topic, but I like the concept of micro transactions to an extent. For example with Black Ops, I would have paid a few dollars to unlock the Spectre M4 right away (since it is my favorite gun ever, and I've about given up my dream of owning a real one). But then for those people who would rather play 20-30 hours to unlock it, power to them. I really don't have the time to do so anymore.

 

[veloper]

When is DLC not DLC anymore?

I think that Gods&kings is a questionable example for a full expansion. Maps, wonders and civs already sell as "DLC" for Civ5 and the addition of religion and espionage doesn't make a new game.
While I think the last two additions were very welcome features that helped elevated the game above mediocrity, I still see it as merely a lot of DLC in one package. So expansions vary in size too.

You could even take this discussion further to try and define the boundaries of:
full sequels
expansions
DLC and
micro-transactions.

 

[A Weakgeek]

It's really not a "one or the other" situation.

Yeah, thats the thing though. It doesn't need to be, but it kinda has become that way. We will most likely never see an expansion like the bloodmoon or even shivering isles for a Elderscrolls game again. Because selling alot of small DLC is just more profitable.

Also, I love the digital trend we have going on, I love using steam to buy and play my games. However, back when they still did expansion disks, most of the time they had to add enough content to justify the disk in the first place. So in general I feel I got more bang for my buck back then.

EDIT: A bit off topic, but one thing I also do not like about DLC is how it has become a trend to strip content from the main game, and sell it on release. That was extremely rare with expansions, seeing as it wouldnt be released in 6 or so months, and stripping that much content from a game would probably hurt the ratings anyways.

I think that Gods&kings is a questionable example for a full expansion. Maps, wonders and civs already sell as "DLC" for Civ5 and the addition of religion and espionage doesn't make a new game.
While I think the last two additions were very welcome features that helped elevated the game above mediocrity, I still see it as merely a lot of DLC in one package. So expansions vary in size too.

A fair point, to be honest, I was reaching a bit. I did it because I wanted to include something that wasnt atleast 3 years old, but it was pretty hard to think one up.

Also yeah its not always simple to define the difference between expansions and DLC, as there are examples of bad expansions and very expansive DLCs, but most of the time its not that hard to define.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yeah, thats the thing though. It doesn't need to be, but it kinda has become that way. We will most likely never see an expansion like the bloodmoon or even shivering isles for a Elderscrolls game again. Because selling alot of small DLC is just more profitable.

Also, I love the digital trend we have going on, I love using steam to buy and play my games. However, back when they still did expansion disks, most of the time they had to add enough content to justify the disk in the first place. So in general I feel I got more bang for my buck back then.

EDIT: A bit off topic, but one thing I also do not like about DLC is how it has become a trend to strip content from the main game, and sell it on release. That was extremely rare with expansions, seeing as it wouldnt be released in 6 or so months, and stripping that much content from a game would probably hurt the ratings anyways.

We did get more content on the disk, but I recall paying a lot more for it too. Most expansions were $39 to $49 back when boxed expansions were a regular thing.

I agree there's some pretty dodgy DLC out there, and DLC that definitely feels like it was content pirated out of the core game, but there's been some good stuff, too. I got tremendous value out of some of the Fallout DLC I purchased, for example...more than I ever got out of the majority of boxed expansions back in the day. And I never shied off dropping a couple of bucks on a new Civ faction, because it would always revive Civ for me, and I'd play another 20-30 hours of it, which is pretty damn good value.

 

[A Weakgeek]

Yeah, thats the thing though. It doesn't need to be, but it kinda has become that way. We will most likely never see an expansion like the bloodmoon or even shivering isles for a Elderscrolls game again. Because selling alot of small DLC is just more profitable.

Also, I love the digital trend we have going on, I love using steam to buy and play my games. However, back when they still did expansion disks, most of the time they had to add enough content to justify the disk in the first place. So in general I feel I got more bang for my buck back then.

EDIT: A bit off topic, but one thing I also do not like about DLC is how it has become a trend to strip content from the main game, and sell it on release. That was extremely rare with expansions, seeing as it wouldnt be released in 6 or so months, and stripping that much content from a game would probably hurt the ratings anyways.

We did get more content on the disk, but I recall paying a lot more for it too. Most expansions were $39 to $49 back when boxed expansions were a regular thing.

I agree there's some pretty dodgy DLC out there, and DLC that definitely feels like it was content pirated out of the core game, but there's been some good stuff, too. I got tremendous value out of some of the Fallout DLC I purchased, for example...more than I ever got out of the majority of boxed expansions back in the day. And I never shied off dropping a couple of bucks on a new Civ faction, because it would always revive Civ for me, and I'd play another 20-30 hours of it, which is pretty damn good value.

Id argue that games that have very good replay value benefit alot more from smaller DLC (Civilization for example). Because while most of what your playing is old content (like with extra civilizations) the dlc gives you that hook that gets you started again.

This ofcourse is a great thing, but only very few games seem to be able to pull it off.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Id argue that games that have very good replay value benefit alot more from smaller DLC (Civilization for example). Because while most of what your playing is old content (like with extra civilizations) the dlc gives you that hook that gets you started again.

This ofcourse is a great thing, but only very few games seem to be able to pull it off.

Which leaves you scratching your head as to why the XCOM team released a goddam series of 3 story missions as their first DLC instead of maps, aliens, or tech. You'd think the Civ experience would've pointed them in the right direction, but nooo....

 

[A Weakgeek]

Id argue that games that have very good replay value benefit alot more from smaller DLC (Civilization for example). Because while most of what your playing is old content (like with extra civilizations) the dlc gives you that hook that gets you started again.

This ofcourse is a great thing, but only very few games seem to be able to pull it off.

Which leaves you scratching your head as to why the XCOM team released a goddam series of 3 story missions as their first DLC instead of maps, aliens, or tech. You'd think the Civ experience would've pointed them in the right direction, but nooo....

Oh for the love of god how I agree with you there. I couldn't have thought of a worse DLC in truth. The council missions are like the worst part of that game, they start repeating after like 2 playthroughs, 3 more isnt going to make a damn difference!

Add new maps to the random pool, new items, new weapons, new enemies if you want to really impress. Not scripted "play once and your done" missions.

EDIT: And to think, that this DLC is why the devs wont release the modkit for the game.

 

[felbot]

expansion packs for me here, they're always going to be better.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

We did get more content on the disk, but I recall paying a lot more for it too. Most expansions were $39 to $49 back when boxed expansions were a regular thing.

I'd actually argue that we paid less for it (as far as how much content you get for your dollar), assuming we're talking about someone who is planning to buy all of the content-DLC (not cosmetic) for a game like Mass Effect or whatever. I'd rather pay $40 for an expansion pack that I'm going to get 15 or so hours out of than four DLC packs over the span of a few months for $40 total that only last maybe two hours each.

I feel like I got a whole hell of a lot more content for my money with stuff like StarCraft: Brood War and Tiberian Sun: Firestorm than with most games using the DLC model. The only game I've played semi-recently where I feel like the DLC model was roughly on-par with expansions was Fallout: New Vegas... but let's face it, most DLC isn't as meaty as those ones ones.

From what I've seen, the only time the DLC model is actually cheaper than expansion packs is when the person buying the content only wants a small chunk of it, in which case they can buy just one of those aforementioned hypothetical DLC packs with the stuff they want, pay $10, and be done - saving them $30 in the process (IE: People who bought Lair of the Shadow Broker for Mass Effect 2 or The Secret Armory of General Knoxx for Borderlands and didn't bother with anything else).

Oh, and I voted Expansions. I miss 'em.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'd actually argue that we paid less for it (as far as how much content you get for your dollar), assuming we're talking about someone who is planning to buy all of the content-DLC (not cosmetic) for a game like Mass Effect or whatever. I'd rather pay $40 for an expansion pack that I'm going to get 15 or so hours out of than four DLC packs over the span of a few months for $40 total that only last maybe two hours each.

I feel like I got a whole hell of a lot more content for my money with stuff like StarCraft: Brood War and Tiberian Sun: Firestorm than with most games using the DLC model. The only game I've played semi-recently where I feel like the DLC model was roughly on-par with expansions was Fallout: New Vegas... but let's face it, most DLC isn't as meaty as those ones ones.

From what I've seen, the only time the DLC model is actually cheaper than expansion packs is when the person buying the content only wants a small chunk of it, in which case they can buy just one of those aforementioned hypothetical DLC packs with the stuff they want, pay $10, and be done - saving them $30 in the process (IE: People who bought Lair of the Shadow Broker for Mass Effect 2 or The Secret Armory of General Knoxx for Borderlands and didn't bother with anything else).

Oh, and I voted Expansions. I miss 'em.

Well, yes, some expansions were excellent value. There were some stinkers as well. The concept of "poor value for the dollar" wasn't invented in 2010 or anything, we've had lousy/short games since the medium was invented, and we've had shady companies shilling us crappy goods for decades. There's no writ that says DLC has too be lousy value. It's just parceled out differently.

I have no problem with either method. The METHOD is not the problem...it's just extra content delivered either in chunks or one big packet. Individual offers being poorly made or overpriced is the problem.

I think a lot of gamers suffer from some serious rose colored glasses. It's the "Classic Music was way better than Modern Music" phenomenon, where we only remember the greatest hits because the crap has faded from public memory.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Well, yes, some expansions were excellent value. There were some stinkers as well. The concept of "poor value for the dollar" wasn't invented in 2010 or anything, we've had lousy/short games since the medium was invented, and we've had shady companies shilling us crappy goods for decades. There's no writ that says DLC has too be lousy value. It's just parceled out differently.

I have no problem with either method. The METHOD is not the problem...it's just extra content delivered either in chunks or one big packet. Individual offers being poorly made or overpriced is the problem.

I think a lot of gamers suffer from some serious rose colored glasses. It's the "Classic Music was way better than Modern Music" phenomenon, where we only remember the greatest hits because the crap has faded from public memory.

I'm not saying "poor value for the dollar" is a new phenomenon. What I'm saying is that back in the day of expansions, the stinkers were the exception rather than the rule. Publishers paid a lot of money to get those expansions developed and produced, then manufactured, then shipped, the stocked on store shelves. It was often on-par with sequels, so it was in their best interest for them to be worth the money.

You also have to factor in shelf-life. Expansion packs weren't going to stay on store shelves forever, they needed to sell to make a profit. DLC is typically always out there, indefinitely, with a price tag that rarely changes even if the actual game's price drops. Even if the sales of the DLC aren't initially strong, they'll still trickle in money over years. Expansion Packs didn't get that luxury. If they didn't get good press and sell well upon release, that was pretty much it for them - making them a sizable financial loss for the publishers. More incentive to make them worth the gamer's time and money.

These days with DLC the stinkers are usually the rule while the ones actually worth their value are the exceptions. Because DLC is cheaper to develop/produce/distribute and faster/easier for gamers to acquire, there isn't as much incentive anymore to keep the quality up. If a particular DLC pack is a stinker and word spreads, it doesn't matter, because so many people already bought it with a few clicks of their mouse that it likely already earned back the development cost. Beyond that, you can't even return it anymore if it is bad. If I'd been unsatisfied with the copy of Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge that I bought, I could have gotten my money back.

You compare it to classic vs. modern music. I wouldn't. Expansion packs were much more expensive to produce and ship. The majority of the games that got expansion packs were AAA games that had already been well-received by gamers, justifying the cost to publishers. Games that were objectively utter shit didn't tend to get expansions. These days most new games have some form of DLC or micro-transactions, because they're a hell of a lot more cost effective. A publisher/developer can put out a cheaply-developed 2-hour DLC for $10, people will buy it, and all it has to do is break even with the development cost in order to be worthwhile since manufacturing/shipping/shelf space are no longer factors. And because of the instant nature of digital downloads, news of DLC not being worth the money tends not to reach the day-1 purchase fans as effectively as it would have back when they needed to find the time to actually go to a store.

EDIT: Not to mention that now you have DLC replacing things that used to be free. Back when I used to play Counter-Strike I had a ton of maps for that game, and I was always getting new ones. These days with Call of Duty titles you're stuck with a small handful of maps, unless you feel like shelling out $15 for another very small handful of maps. Thanks to DLC, stuff that used to be added to games by passionate modding teams is now monetized by publishers, and I wouldn't be surprised to see that as a growing trend within the industry now that modding in general is frequently made into a punishable offense.

 

[Bostur]

As Guppy said there has been lousy expansions and great DLCs, it depends on the specifics. Some DLCs are identical to what used to be called expansions.

The thing that rubs me the wrong way with DLCs is when they are used to split the game into tiny bits that are sold separately. Or when the sale of DLCs is coupled with obnoxious marketing schemes in the games or outside the games. I sometimes wish I could pay $5 extra for a game to opt out of marketing, but I doubt thats going to happen.

I'd actually argue that we paid less for it (as far as how much content you get for your dollar), assuming we're talking about someone who is planning to buy all of the content-DLC (not cosmetic) for a game like Mass Effect or whatever. I'd rather pay $40 for an expansion pack that I'm going to get 15 or so hours out of than four DLC packs over the span of a few months for $40 total that only last maybe two hours each.

I feel like I got a whole hell of a lot more content for my money with stuff like StarCraft: Brood War and Tiberian Sun: Firestorm than with most games using the DLC model. The only game I've played semi-recently where I feel like the DLC model was roughly on-par with expansions was Fallout: New Vegas... but let's face it, most DLC isn't as meaty as those ones ones.

Thats how I remember it as well. Expansions were often priced at 50%-75% of the original game and was often quite meaty. Their biggest downside was that they had too much content. After having played through half an expansion I often had enough of that franchise for a while. But I feel that was a luxury problem.

 

[A Weakgeek]

unless you feel like shelling out $15 for another very small handful of maps.

I'm so fucking sick of this. Nowdays every fps that comes out has so few maps I can count them with my fingers. THEN a month later they come out with a 10-15 dollar dlc with 3-4 maps and suddenly the community is divided.

 

[Aerosteam]

By the time the OP said Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne, DLC pretty much lost. Because, you know, WC3 is the only RTS game I like and not incredibly sucky at.

Also DLC usually consists of appearance packs and arsenal packs nowadays, which I hate so much. And sometimes it's clear that some were completed before the actual game itself comes out. No. Don't do that. Stop.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Yeah, thats the thing though. It doesn't need to be, but it kinda has become that way. We will most likely never see an expansion like the bloodmoon or even shivering isles for a Elderscrolls game again. Because selling alot of small DLC is just more profitable.

Also, I love the digital trend we have going on, I love using steam to buy and play my games. However, back when they still did expansion disks, most of the time they had to add enough content to justify the disk in the first place. So in general I feel I got more bang for my buck back then.

EDIT: A bit off topic, but one thing I also do not like about DLC is how it has become a trend to strip content from the main game, and sell it on release. That was extremely rare with expansions, seeing as it wouldnt be released in 6 or so months, and stripping that much content from a game would probably hurt the ratings anyways.

We did get more content on the disk, but I recall paying a lot more for it too. Most expansions were $39 to $49 back when boxed expansions were a regular thing.

I agree there's some pretty dodgy DLC out there, and DLC that definitely feels like it was content pirated out of the core game, but there's been some good stuff, too. I got tremendous value out of some of the Fallout DLC I purchased, for example...more than I ever got out of the majority of boxed expansions back in the day. And I never shied off dropping a couple of bucks on a new Civ faction, because it would always revive Civ for me, and I'd play another 20-30 hours of it, which is pretty damn good value.

Don't forget Blizzard is packaging expansions and selling them as full price products now. Hey there $60 Heart of the Swarm! No thanks!

Edit: Wait nevermind. It's only $40. I swear I saw it for $60 somewhere. Oh well.

 

[The_Echo]

I really, honestly don't care either way. DLC is nice, expansions are nice.

If I want it, I'll get it. Doesn't really matter what form it's in.

 

[Yopaz]

I really don't see them as that different. An expansion offers a few new ways to play, some updates, missions and items. DLC offers some new missions, some additions to the game and items.

I guess there's a difference in how much content you are getting, but then again there's also a difference in price. There are bad expansions and there is bad DLC. Sometimes you get value for your money, sometimes you don't.

A good DLC package for a reasonable price is pretty much equal to an expansion for a reasonable price. Even when it comes to full games the same problems arise. I have had more fun with the Borderlands DLC which I paid ?20 than Bioshock which I paid $50 for (Steam had stopped using USD when I bought the DLC, but not when I bought Bioshock), yet I wont say that DLC is better than full games.

 

[Mikeyfell]

As long as it's quality content I don't care what form it comes in, But if I had to choose I'd say DLC.

(Especially in this day and age most expansions are just released as DLC anyway) Skyrim's Dawnguard, Borderlands' General Knox, Dragon Age's Awakening. the line is blurring.

But I did buy a shameful amount of bonus points for Record of Agarest War 2, and that's not even additional content.
I would like to see a real money store where I can buy Orange guns in Borderlands 2... That's one of the things that DLC has over expansions.