Jason Schreier from kotaku says the DLC for single player often doesn't often sell very well by his sources.

#3
Interesting. Do the stand alone titles sell well? I am much more likely to buy stand alone expansion-like games than just DLC. I was waiting until all DLC was released before returning to FFXV. I guess I won't be returning at all.
 
#5
For any game that has a mix of DLC (map packs or extra content) and microtrans, I wonder which is a bigger money maker and by how much.

Getting a feeling DLC is a waste of time for devs. Too much effort even if its $20 a pop.

Easier and faster to shotgun a flea market of $2 hats and camo skins and hope a gamer buys a bunch.
 
#7
Before playing it I was waiting for a “complete edition” of FFXV which would have everything included on the disc since the Royal Edition does not, guess that won’t be happening will it?
 
#9
no shit . absolutely no shit. neither does multiplayer DLC. most people don't buy dlc.

the big difference here is that, one costs about an hour or two of work (for the most part) to make. the other will take months because it has narrative and actual game making

its pretty easy to copy paste a texture or a model as a new skin and put it for 5-10 dollars. rinse and repeat and you can make 10 of those a week with a few dozen staff if not more

it would take more than few months with a few dozen staff to make a single player dlc expansion.


so many games have recolors as mtx and dlc and simple things like a move or an animation that you'd have hundreds of in a single player dlc. voice acting etc. you get my point.

there is not much reason to make a single player expansion or dlc to a SP game. just make a new game.
 
Last edited:
#10
The digital age has really nickel and dimed gamers, but on the plus side since the 90s, at least sports games are complete. Aside from Tiger Woods Golf course add-on packs, pretty much every sports game in the past 20+ years has all teams, players, modes. Standard features.

If this was 1990, many sports games had a basic core game for full price. Then if you wanted the Pro Players Disk (current players and teams), that was a $20 expansion pack. Then if you wanted the GM Commissioners pack (managerial options), that was another $20.
 
#16
It makes sense when you think about it. People tend to move on from games quite fast. By the time the DLC releases, they're already occupied by something else.

Sad to say, but I've got a lot of games where I bought the DLC but never actually had the time to go back to the game and play it. One of these days I'll play the Dark Souls 3 DLC.

It's why I'm not even bothering with DLC for Spider-Man, as an example. I liked the base game but I've already got too many other games to keep me occupied.
 
Last edited:
#18
That's unfortunate. There's been some single player dlc that has been top notch. From Software and CDPR seem to know how to make meaningful single player dlc that deserves everyone's attention. However, I would more consider those to be more expansion packs tbh.
 
#19
DLC should never have been a thing, the industry should have stuck to the old industry PC standard of expansion packs. Pay $60 for the full game and then $30-$50 for an expansion pack with half or the same amount of content as the full game. Smaller form DLC is a waste of money and the cost usually doesn't reflect the amount of time or effort that goes in to producing said smaller form DLC. Releasing multiple DLC packs makes me personally wait for a complete edition, if I knew a game was going to release with zero DLC but an expansion pack was planned within 8-12 months after release I'd be much more open to purchasing the initial game early.

PS:
I don't care for anything Jason Schreier says.
"Good DLC is neglected all the time"?
How about some actual sales figures and research to prove your point? I mean single player DLC doesn't sell, yet, they have been releasing it none stop for the past 10 years or so?
 
#20
Another shenanigan from Schreier to diminish solo game... The Witcher III DLC sold very well, because those DLC were at fair price and with some real content.
Even the DLC for an average game like Fallout 4 sold well, since they are better than the main game.

Very weird that we don't hear those Shiny Knight Warrior from press defending the consumers against all Publisher scammy and predatory practicing.
It seems like those White Knight are a bit one sided, and have some interest...
 
Last edited:
#28
Just launch the game as it should, complete.

The expansions must be as before, complete and unique, not pieces DLC Shit.
This is a dumb sentiment. I actually compared Battlefield 1/4's Premium content versus Battlefield 1942/Battlefield 2's expansion content and it turned out that that Battlefield 1/4 Premium actually had more maps, weapons, vehicles and game modes than what the booster and expansion packs brought to the table value-wise. Despite the significantly higher fidelity and the resources poured into making them, Battlefield 1/4's DLC was a better value than the beloved expansion packs. As for single player games, I remember buying crappy expansion packs just as I have bought DLC that has blown me away. Every release should be judged on its own merit and the nostalgia surrounding retail expansion packs is weird because if we could have acquired major content releases without them having to manufacture and ship out retail copies and for us, without leaving our homes like we do now, we would've been all over that. It just wasn't feasible back then.

We've always been sifting through shit to find the gems worth playing. For every complaint about Steam's garbage, I never see anyone acknowledge the shovelware that was on the shelves across the nation back then and back then, we didn't know it was garbage. Gaming hasn't gotten any worse. Perhaps it did for a short period in the late 2000s when everyone was trying to take the crown of the brown modern military shooter and the WoW-killer but now? If anything, it's gotten better. There's more games coming out than ever and there's truly something for everybody every couple months, it's a cheaper hobby than ever before, it's more accessible than ever before, self-funded/crowdfunded and even indie titles are practically yesterday's AAA productions and easily masquerade as such with the exception of Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto's insane scale and production values.
 
Last edited:
#29
Of course it doesn't. Most games are repetitive and grindy (like openworld games). After I am done playing them, the last thing I want is to go back to play some more.

In order to offer DLC, games should offer a complete experience and leave players wanting more. Not overstay your welcome, and bore us with chasing collectibles for hours or completing 100% of the openworld map.

I never understood their business model. Why do they keep cramming boring shit in their games? That's the reason I rarely buy DLC at all. I usually get them only when they are on sale for very cheap.
 
#31
It makes sense. In the case of DLC you are artificially restricting yourself to the games install base. With a standalone game you do just as much additional work as a DLC but are only restricted to the install base of the platform.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
#33
Good, DLC should just die. DLC imo are CUT content.
IMO you don't know what you're talking about. This is true in some cases, but very little DLC is something that was merely cut from the main game.

Now, there are instances where ideas for the main game are left on the cutting room floor and get picked up again to become DLC.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
#34
It makes sense. In the case of DLC you are artificially restricting yourself to the games install base. With a standalone game you do just as much additional work as a DLC but are only restricted to the install base of the platform.
Somebody clearly knows nothing about game development.

DLC requires nowhere near the amount of work needed to make a standalone game. For DLC, you have most if not all of the available assets from the main game, there is little to no tech development and thus very little bug fixing.
 
#36
If they don't sell well, at least it's reflecting the market opinion of people not liking DLC because the base install doesn't feel like a full game after the release of DLC.

These forums are full of discussions on DLC :) Very easy to see why that may be true, and thus why a company would shy away from dumping money into development for a DLC with such a precedence in the market.

Who budges first? Do we dump money into shit DLC until the producers push out good DLC, or do the producers pour money to the dev studios and push out good DLC that gains traction over time?

The world may never know.....
 
#39
Now I'm curious to see some sales data of DLC.
Not surprised by this though, most single player DLC look more like cheaply made bonuses than anything else. A bunch of 2 hours long missions they can release for a couple of months after the game released that are often not of comparable quality to the actual main game.

The only games this gen that have gotten me to buy DLC are The Witcher 3, Nioh, Bloodborne and Dark Souls 3. All of them felt substantial and of high quality. Blood and Wine in particular was better than a lot of $60 games. I wonder how well those sold.


I hope FFXV was one of the games with low DLC sales. Next time maybe release a complete game with a complete story and don't charge us to add things that should have been there to begin with
 
Last edited:
#40
By simple logic DLC can't sell more than the base game. Also, It's near impossible that it will sale 90%-100% of the main game.
Of course making it a stand alone will broaden the reach of the game. Perhaps people confuse the main game with the stand alone, see it cheap and get it. DLC should be counted by percentage of the main game. Like if a DLC sales 40% of the main game, it should be considered a success.
 
#41
Somebody clearly knows nothing about game development.

DLC requires nowhere near the amount of work needed to make a standalone game. For DLC, you have most if not all of the available assets from the main game, there is little to no tech development and thus very little bug fixing.
The assets are created for the main game and assets would need to be created for DLC or standalone, the engine has been made, everything is done tech wise. There is very little tech development in these standalone games. I'm not saying the work is identical but most manhours that go into the DLC to create the story, animations and assets can go into the standalone additional game based on the tech of the previous main game.
 
Last edited:

JORMBO

Darkness no more
#45
This makes sense. I rarely feel like firing up a game I beat months ago for more short DLC content. I don’t mind content that has a lot of meat to it though. Horizon Frozen Wild and Xenoblade Torna were great. FF14 Episodes did not grab my interest enough.
 
#47
Compared to easy cheap multiplayer dlc+microtransactions.. yeah obviously.
Thats the shitty thing its not even game companies that are at fault its the dumb consumer which is why mobile gaming/carrot on a stick money will be the future.
 
#49
Problem is, there is DLC today for almost everything.
in the past it was just a mission disc for C&C, Warcraft 2, …
Almost always only really successful games had DLC.
Now, almost every game has some kind of DLC. I don't have something again DLC as long as it doesn't feel like it is cut out of the original game.
E.g. I really like the DLC stuff for the Mass effect series as it was an addition to the story and didn't feel like they cut it out.

The example FF XV is a really bad one, because it nothing complete. The game itself had an incomplete story and a payed movie and many DLCs later it is still a complete mess.