DLC vs Expansions - KNOW THE DETAIL!

Expansions just don't sound as if you'd get scammed by tiny bits of content called DLC.

I spent the entire last page saying that!

Relax, it's a joke.

Sorry.

whats your opinion on whether official extra content should be small unit pack dlc based (3-5 units) similar sized patch content upgrades or expansion pack sized?

Btw. Total Annihilation patches where downloadable too and they came with new content . That being said, in spirit of Total Annihilation I wouldn't mind if they did the same: add new a new unit (or other content, e.g. pre-built maps, if they ever come up) every few patches, if it fits in their work time and budget.

Expansions are... troublesome. Depends on how it's done. I mean Forged Alliance was technically an "expansion", but it was a standalone expansion, and a completely new game in some ways. But I always felt a bit saddened that, once Forged Alliance came out, Supreme Commander itself did not matter anymore. Not that I don't like FA itself though.

I think what I like best is content being added (and balance being done) over time to the same game. Like it's done with Total Annihilation or Team Fortress 2. But I can also understand, if they go the way that everyone associates with "DLC" nowadays, i.e. content for which you have to pay. If I have lots of fun with the game, I probably won't mind supporting it with (more) money.

The next step in this is that if small unit pack type DLC is payed for, should that content be enforced for ladder play or dissallowed?

Well there are a few scenarios. If it is a DLC, that you have to pay/unlock for each player (but otherwise all players already have the data available, i.e. a "pseudo" DLC, like in SupCom2), then I think it's a safe guess, that they won't be available in ladder player (unless maybe all participants in a ladder match had them available? I don't really care either way ).


In Total Annihilation it worked differently. Units were actual downloadable content. i.e. some players could have them, while others did not. You were always only able to use units, that every player had physically present in his Total Annihilation installation. And this restriction was a technical one, not an artificial one (as with "pseudo" DLC). We have no idea yet though how these things will work in Planetary Annihilation.

I've been refering to them as patch content, as they release a new patch that also contains a unit or two. Obviously patches are free... because Uber are not evil.

The patch containing the actual new units in Supreme Commander 2 (or any game with pseudo DLC) is also free, but that still does not enable you to play them...

Btw. official new units did not come only in patches for Total Annihilation, they were also directly downloadable from the game's website as standalone files. What do you call that then? It's simply DLC of the "good" kind .

Oh you're just splitting hairs, if its free i'm calling it patch content. And with todays lobby systems and online gaming and all that they would probably be included in the patches like how WoW or War3 did it.

I just always find it silly when people are frocing something not to call a "Downloadable Content", even though you are able to download content...
Especially in the case of TA units, how can you not call that actual downloadable content. How is downloadable content that you have to pay for any more downloadable content, than downloadable content, that you download for free .

DLC is how the paid downloadable content is called. DLC stands for downlaodable content.

No. That's what everyone connotates with it. As you point out yourself:

True, but it has 'evolved' (devolved would be more appropriate ) to mean 'paid downloadable content', as I was trying to say.

Originally, patches and all would also fall under DLC. Until it became a business model.

DLC and Expansions are the same thing at thier core, additional Content. They also share a lot of the same pros and cons, like the potential to split the community. The idea that DLC is "Bad" and Expansions are "Good" is all imaginary and crafted from experiences rather than definitions. As someone said before, DLC/Expansions are just tools, they can be used poorly, or very well, it just depends on who is using them and how they're used.

Mike

We seem to be stuck in the mindset of endlessly establishing the terms that we are using.

Ehhh guys, why are we arguing about the semantics of the term DLC...

This topic was about this iirc:

patches should be free, so everyone can play with each other, without having to check if they have the same pack of paid DLC.

If there were paid DLC, this topic was about the content of said DLC. Most people preferred Larger, more expensive DLC packs or in other terms Expansion packs, so it would be relatively easy to still find matches with other people. As you would only need to check if all players have 1 specific DLC (or expansion pack) rather than checking for 20 small DLC packs.

Most people's dislikes about DLC was targeted towards small DLC packs, if I understand it correctly, if so, count me among them.

AHAHAHAHAH... NO

Tthe DLC for supcom 2 was decent. about a dozen and a half new units, including several experimentals and buildings, as well as new maps and options.

while i would prefer expansions, i have no problem if they do DECENT DLC like supcom 2 size

"DLC" has become a four letter word in the eyes of many consumers as publishers (and devs) have abused the new found freedom of being able to new release content quickly and inexpensively.

In the olden days of early 2000's and before, expansion packs needed to have enough content to nearly exist on it's own (and often did) because of the expense of boxing it and physically distributing it. Now we (as an industry) can get content to consumers quickly and cheaply via downloadable content and cut out the middle man (ie: Gamestop / Walmart), but that also means some lost a little of that dedication to make something that's "worth putting in a box" to begin with.

Part of it is the cost of making games has increased far faster than the price gamers are willing to pay, so DLC content is often used as a way to augment revenue by those willing and able to spend more. Free to play games are generally based around this ideal, some people will spend more on a game they enjoy if they're given an option to.

Expansions are one form of DLC, though I would contend in gaming the term "expansion" in itself has taken on more meaning than defined in the word. A single new hat in a game about wearing hats increases the overall content of a game, and that falls under the definition of expansion. Generally expansions are thought of as adding significant new content, usually in the form of new maps, perhaps new narrative gameplay either single player or augmenting the existing game, and generally new experiences be they new weapons, enemies, or units. Any single one part of that, including a single hat, is usually a single DLC in today's world.


As has been noted elsewhere, Planetary Annihilation is not a F2P game. While we obviously believe in the business model, we felt it's impact on the game we want to make with Planetary Annihilation would change it enough to no longer be the game we wanted to make. This of course brings the question of will we have DLC or more specifically expansions. If we do have expansions, what would those look like in a game with randomly generated play fields and may not have a single player campaign?

These are questions we haven't answered ourselves, but it is absolutely our intention that if we do end up making DLC for the game we'll be able to make something of the traditional expansion quality.

Also, maybe hats.