Whats the problem with DLCs?

[paulram16]

And my point is that, however unfair you may perceive it, Squad is still well within their rights to pursue the course of action that they did.

However, since I'm getting a bit too emotionally invested in this discussion, I think I'll bow out for the moment before I end up doing something silly to prove a point.

EDIT: Paulram: You say that like greed is a bad thing.

Not really, because of what they wrote upon purcahse of the game, the customer has the upper hand.

[Brabbit1987]

I suggest you go to Board Game Geek to see the fate of a kickstarted game called Up Front. No one is going to receive what they bought OR any bonus! NOTHING! In fact, kickstarter failures are going to become a major legal issue soon, at least potentially.

Ok, so if you do not feel the value in the experience, don't buy.

So, if that's your choice, what are you still doing here? Do you expect to convince the rest of us that we've been ripped off? What's the end game you are seeking?

Despite what the company does, I do like KSP enough to still have purchased it. I admit when a company makes a great game. Much like Nexon. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with how the company does things.

At the end of the day, I just want this game to feel complete. I don't want to later find out they released an expansion that adds a major part to the game that should have been in the main version to begin with and I have to pay even more for it. That is my main worry. I don't want to feel like at the end of the day that I been cheated.

Also, I don't even understand what kick starter has anything to do with this. Showing an example of what could have happened? Sorry on kick starter people pay more, its a much larger reason to be angry if they get no return. Here some people payed $8, $10, $20. If the game failed .. it's not a large investment lost at all. Fact of the matter is earlier adopters are taking less of a risk, because they payed less. They are only at risk of $8. Those who purchase later are at risk of $20+.

[Fel]

Brabbit, the fact is that the whole "Free Expansions" deal is just Public Relations.

Some Terrorists decided to run amok claiming that Squad was trying to cut them out of the game they paid for... when in reality they just wanted free stuff.

Squad had two choices; tell the people the truth and deal with the fallout or throw them a bone and tell them to be quiet.

Squad CANNOT AFFORD to make every expansion free; and they never wanted to make any expansion free in the first place... the problem is ENTIRELY on the PR aspect. (And PR is very important when you don't have the financing of a publisher behind you.) Rather than deal with the potential consequences, they took a pay cut. It was a smart PR decision.

*Now could they have negociated a bit? Yes. a discount or something off expansions rather than "free"... but it was an issue, it was attracting attention... they NEEDED it to go away.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Fel

[boolybooly]

IMHO KSP is a buy in beta with a promise to make a complete game including some kind of career sim for no extra money. What I would pay is not the issue, the question is what will be seen as ethical and supported by the >90% majority of the user base.

As I see it, KSP has to be finished to the standard of playable game. There is a danger we have all got used to beta standards which could carry on into the finished product and I think it should be finished to a high quality, the highest quality possible, and that should continue into the foreseeable future for no extra charge as long as the game is in development, including DLC development and KSP2. Further bug fixes or refinements should not be in DLCs, should always be free to owners of the game and available seperately from purchaseable DLCs which add content and function. But the bug fixes may in part be financed by DLC as continuing to polish the base game apart from satisfying honest pride can be justified as making a good foundation which grows the player base and improves community confidence on which basis DLC content will be more popular.

If the attention to support is good then there is plenty of scope for DLCs which wont get peoples backs up.

The nuance I got from the furore was that some people got the wrong end of the stick about Harvesters statements. That is because there is a degree of paranoia among gamers about the attitudes of some of the cynical publisher mentalities which might belong to people who might schmooze developer expos and this happened just after one such. In some cases I honestly believe the paranoia is justifed. IMHO expo hype can do funny things to the developer / fan relationship and not all of it good.

The accusations against KSP were totally unjustified by either Harvesters statements or intent but I think there is a lot of discontent out there and KSP caught a gust of the wind that is blowing, through no fault of its own. But the answer to that is not to isolate and insulate against the user base (which ultimately alienates), which you are not doing thankfully, it is to communicate and achieve mutual understanding and set an example for good developer conduct and community relations and the answer is always to proceed ethically, because that is what ethics is.

Edited May 22, 2013 by boolybooly

[Scrogdog]

Despite what the company does, I do like KSP enough to still have purchased it. I admit when a company makes a great game. Much like Nexon. But it doesn't mean I have to agree with how the company does things.

At the end of the day, I just want this game to feel complete. I don't want to later find out they released an expansion that adds a major part to the game that should have been in the main version to begin with and I have to pay even more for it. That is my main worry. I don't want to feel like at the end of the day that I been cheated.

Also, I don't even understand what kick starter has anything to do with this. Showing an example of what could have happened? Sorry on kick starter people pay more, its a much larger reason to be angry if they get no return. Here some people payed $8, $10, $20. If the game failed .. it's not a large investment lost at all. Fact of the matter is earlier adopters are taking less of a risk, because they payed less. They are only at risk of $8. Those who purchase later are at risk of $20+.

Well, it's all a matter of perspective, eh? You are talking to a guy who didn't bat an eye at paying $200 for a game!

Ok, so I paid $20 and someone else played less. But I LOVE this game. So, to protest and make a statement, I should NOT buy and enjoy it?

I don't see the sense there. I spend $20 a week on coffee! $20 is less than a case of decent beer!

The point of kickstarter was to show there is such a thing as the risk phase. People know they might get burned but still do it.

But, you didn't get nothing. You got sandbox complete. I don't care if someone gets the game for free all updates for the rest of their life! I am a business man! I'm in it to make money!

Thusly, I find it entirely reasonable to support this great game. But even if they all die tomorrow and nothing more happens, I will always feel like I got my money's worth from the game. In fact, I'll wager I'd have paid more for it if that's what it took!

The game is THAT good even in Alpha! Sorry you can't see that potential or value, but that's entirely your decision.

[Loocas]

I don't think people should discuss this topic anymore. I mean, SQUAD has already made a decision, what can we do?

[Brabbit1987]

Scrogdog said:

Well, it's all a matter of perspective, eh? You are talking to a guy who didn't bat an eye at paying $200 for a game!

Ok, so I paid $20 and someone else played less. But I LOVE this game. So, to protest and make a statement, I should NOT buy and enjoy it?

I don't see the sense there. I spend $20 a week on coffee! $20 is less than a case of decent beer!

The point of kickstarter was to show there is such a thing as the risk phase. People know they might get burned but still do it.

But, you didn't get nothing. You got sandbox complete. I don't care if someone gets the game for free all updates for the rest of their life! I am a business man! I'm in it to make money!

Thusly, I find it entirely reasonable to support this great game. But even if they all die tomorrow and nothing more happens, I will always feel like I got my money's worth from the game. In fact, I'll wager I'd have paid more for it if that's what it took!

The game is THAT good even in Alpha! Sorry you can't see that potential or value, but that's entirely your decision.

No no, I agree. I most certainly feel like I got my moneys worth, the issue isn't that. The issue is others got it for much much much cheaper along with free expansions. [snip]

Edited August 20, 2020 by Deddly

[N3X15]

I don't have any problem with DLC if it's done right.

But take a game like, say saints row 3 where they have a trillion DLC's with all kinds of bull**** that should have been in the base game, and then they have a ton of DLCs for stuff like cheat codes that takes 5 minutes to create that they charge 3,99 for

DLC should be stuff like new gameplay aspects coupled with new parts and such, not one extra part or horse armor.

I mean, in the future people will be so goddamn used to this microtransaction bull**** that paying 69.99 bucks for the base game and an extra 60 during gameplay so that the game won't come off as the half-assed crap that it is, be considered perfectly acceptable.

Now, i have no doubt that the KSP will not just be one extra parts or some crappy skins, but actual gameplay enchantments and different packs, but all devs arent based

If we ever do DLC (in any price-range), it will be an expansion pack, not NEW HAT!!!1 Think Brood War for Starcraft.

[paulram16]

If we ever do DLC (in any price-range), it will be an expansion pack, not NEW HAT!!!1 Think Brood War for Starcraft.

As I said, DLC is fine but whoever brought it up maybe should have thought about it twice before making any comment on the matter. Talking about that kinda stuff at the current stage is just going to cause controversy

[Locklear308]

Can we please stop calling it DLC?

This is NOT the world of consoles. This is PC. It is expansion packs.

DLC is like paying for a colored helmet. (Which I would never do, seriously?)

Expansion packs are like adding a new gameplay element, a huge one (THAT, I will buy)

They should finish up everything planned for the base game. AND THEN! Add expansion packs with cute names that fit the game.

Ex:

"Kerbal Space Program | Jeb's Intergalactic Map" (Or something like that)

Adds entire new galaxies to explore! Planets, stars, moons, and mysteries!

[Scrogdog]

Brabbit1987 said:

No no, I agree. I most certainly feel like I got my moneys worth, the issue isn't that. The issue is others got it for much much much cheaper along with free expansions. [snip]

Hehe, well honesty is always appreciated of course. But, you know, when you get to be my age (54) you learn to not sweat the small stuff.

Enjoy the game!

[AmpsterMan]

Man, even though i would be eligible for the free DLC and Expansions if/when they come I am STILL going to donate the money on principle. I never expected free DLC and Expansions, only updates to the game until it reached final release and then possible bug fixes and patches.

[Exal]

The problem is the game is not complete. I am expecting certain features.

Ok wait what u just said made no logical since sure I understand where ur getting at but u said what U are expecting. That is the problem right there, squad has never stated what is going to be in the actual game all they have for that is a list on wiki of planned features and what is in the game right now. U dont get everything u want just because u want it in the game. If I could I would gladly let u have the dlcs or expansions or whatever we get for free and ill buy them myself, just to make u feel better.

[Exal]

And one more question are the people that are complaining the ones in school with not a lot of money. Because the game right now is not that much, especially for what ur getting (I've already wasted over a hundred hours... Maybe not wasted!) and another twenty for expansions is not that much really in the while scheme of things when you think about how much squad is spending on trying to get this game to its full potential.

[paulram16]

Can I just point out to those who say "the game is not that much" that to some it is, some of us ( not saying me but others) are on minimum wage and dont have enough money to just throw into a game whenever it requires DLC.

[Scrogdog]

Can I just point out to those who say "the game is not that much" that to some it is, some of us ( not saying me but others) are on minimum wage and dont have enough money to just throw into a game whenever it requires DLC.

I understand. In fact, I'll wager that most of us do. I'm strictly middle class and kinda proud of it. I do well for myself right now, but it was damn hard work and things were not always this way.

But, in a very good way, you have just precisely demonstrated my point about VALUE! Your funds are limited. If you allocate some of your hard earned dollars to entertainment, it is essential to get the biggest bang for your buck as you can!

Well, what else is going to bring you this kind of joy, for hours upon hours on end for $20? You can't buy your partner dinner for that!

Looking at things that way should give you the following revelation in my humble opinion, you can't afford NOT to buy more of this game! It's an unbelievable bargain!

Edited May 23, 2013 by Scrogdog
typo

[Exal]

just throw into a game whenever it requires DLC.

Well good thing dlcs are not required. U dont have to buy them if u don't want to or can't afford them.

[Specialist290]

Exactly. The thing about DLC content is that it's optional. There's nothing that says you have to buy it if you don't want it. You can enjoy the stock game just as much without it.

And if you're making so little money that buying an extra DLC pack would seriously cut into your budget, then you really shouldn't be worrying about computer games in the first place.

[Exal]

THANK YOU, you read my mind

[Eji1700]

Exactly. The thing about DLC content is that it's optional. There's nothing that says you have to buy it if you don't want it. You can enjoy the stock game just as much without it.

And if you're making so little money that buying an extra DLC pack would seriously cut into your budget, then you really shouldn't be worrying about computer games in the first place.

And the problem with DLC content is that 1. Many developers prefer to make the game, and then parcel it up, and 2. Many developers seem to like massively overcharging for their DLC. Sure $1 isn't much, but when you're paying for a skin that should likely be $0.10 tops, its a mess.

This very much leads to lower quality games if you're not willing to pay for overpriced content which the game was designed to have, but then removed later to make more money. Further it KILLS modding because smart people won't pay $1 for what they could have done themselves in a few seconds with mod tools. How do you solve this? Don't add mod tools.

As for Kerbal, my feeling is that they should do an actual release at some point, and if they want to do an expansion afterwords, that's fine. I'd be willing to pay for more content, especially if it's actual content. Honestly i'd prefer they just do a full out expansion pack rather than this piecemeal bs. They've clearly done tons of work to bring this game to where it is. That said, if i suddenly see rocket booster downloads at a $1 each and the removal of mod tools, i'll throw it in the trash pile with all the other games that want to treat me like i'm an idiot.

[comham]

That is the problem right there, squad has never stated what is going to be in the actual game all they have for that is a list on wiki of planned features and what is in the game right now.

The wiki list is not officially maintained by squad, it's just a fan list and only half of it is referenced. But, yeah, I think the main lesson for SQUAD or anyone else looking at this to take away is, once you've got to a certain stage in the project, start tightly defining the goals for 1.0 and make that public; if you've got a vague "everyone knows" set of ideas about 1.0 floating about it can be very harmful.

[Brabbit1987]

I do have to point this out. DLC, and expansions are pretty much the same thing. An expansion is a DLC. Though a DLC may not be an expansion. In other words DLC is just a broader term. While expansion is a specific type of DLC. Not sure how much sense that will make to anyone but a good example would be like skyrim hearthfire is a DLC, but I wouldn't call it an expansion. It's more of an add-on / new feature. While Dragonborn is also a DLC but I would consider it an expansion as it expands the game by a lot.

In other words DLC simply means anything that is downloadable for the game.

Back on topic, I jsut simply wish Squad would make it more clear, on what is actually suppose to be in the final game, and what will not be.

[KasperVld]

At this point that's impossible to do. As long as the game is in alpha state new features are continuously being added.

[Brabbit1987]

At this point that's impossible to do. As long as the game is in alpha state new features are continuously being added.

Which there in lies the problem. If they couldn't clarify exactly what their product will be it would have been smarter not to have mentioned any free expansions as of yet, because that makes people feel uncertain of exactly what it is they are getting in the end. I feel it was way to early for them to have decided such things.

[Frostiken]

People complaining about not getting the 'free DLC' they were "promised" mystify me.

So you don't want to pay Squad for more content. Do you think they're going to just keep making it for free? How long do you think that would last?

Would you rather have paid DLC, or no DLC at all because they closed their doors?

I would happily pay for a DLC, especially if it included things that you can't accomplish through the plugins system.