This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Anyone else feel like expansion packs are dated?

#1noimnoturdaddyPosted 3/4/2014 5:52:21 PM(edited)
Pretty much dead in the modern scene, but if I even look at something like what "Blizzard" does - SC2 to HotS, D3 to what RoS seems to be offering, Dawn of War expansions - I feel like frequent, but smaller piece DLC does more for a game than a reasonably sized expansion every 1 - 2 years that offers more content, but gets consumed and moved on from pretty quickly.

I think it's dated. A F2P model like "Path of Exile" does more for gaming than expansion packs, and booster packs like what "Battlefield" gets also does more to keep a game active while it still has some of that "new car" smell to it.

I feel like a big problem with expansions is that they take too long to come out after the base game has already come and gone for most people. That worked back when there weren't many games on the market, since there wasn't nearly as much competition on the market. There were just a handful of titles a PC gamer actually played, so developers could take their time creating an expansion knowing that when it came out, the people that spent hundreds of hours playing the base game would spend hundreds of hours on the expansion, because what else was there to buy?

That's the big reason I think people spent more time on one title back then then they do now - there's just too much choice now. These days, with how quickly new games come out and how many of them there are, it's better to generate as much content for a title in as short a time as possible before moving on to another product, than to focus on expanding on something that's already been experienced by players and not delivering new content for a year or more.

Anyway, just got me thinking, with the RoS adverts around the net these days. If some of those features had come out as a smaller package a couple months after release (like most console DLC), ie. Bounties and the Templar (then releasing Act V maybe a month or two later), I would've been interested, but as it is, I'm just not interested in the game anymore. And that has nothing to do with the state of the game at launch, I felt the same about Bioshock: Infinite with how long it took to get the *real* DLC out (that horde mode thing was stall garbage). It just took too long. I'd rather have it come out shortly after, or put the effort into a new game, with a new engine and new assets, to keep things interesting.
---
*raves about their high-end gaming PC*
*recommends games from the 90s to everyone* - PC gamers in a nutshell
#2BuyersRemorse55Posted 3/4/2014 5:59:17 PM
I miss the days of old with expansion packs. I'd rather have one big expansion back, then like 1 DLC every month or two such as like Borderlands 2 did for a while for example. Even the D3 expac, Im gonna buy it, but at this time it is a little disappointing theres only one new class. Hopefully the act is of good quailtiy and at least as long at act 1.

Also free to play games, while nice, overall are lower in quality. POE is one of the few good ones, but even that's still lacking some polish from a standard release.

POE has some great ideas, it was pretty cool actually there was a developer in chat last night talking to everyone and they can pull it off the game will be amazing, but theres a difference in releasing an amazing game off the bat, or releasing a free to play game but after 2 years of patches is realy awesome.

Right now POE is missing a lot, even if you are enjoying the game, its still not quite what its supposed to be yet.
#3KabutoflowerPosted 3/4/2014 5:59:22 PM
Love what Sins did. Standalone expansions or DLC are the way to go.
---
"Don't talk when I'm orating."-Ben Caxton, Stranger In A Strange Land
#4DoomkillaPosted 3/4/2014 6:01:14 PM
I'd rather have decently sized pieces of content than smaller 'boosts' that just make your progression in the original game go faster. The short attention spam of some gamers will just have to get longer if they want actual productivity. It doesn't help the gaming industry at all. All it is doing is promoting the garbage that is the tablet/phone market. That is the last thing this thing needs.
---
"The Wheel weaves as the Wheel wills, and we are only the thread of the Pattern."
Moiraine Damodred
#5Branmuffin316Posted 3/4/2014 6:07:00 PM
I like expansion packs more. I felt like when I would buy an expansion pack that I knew I was getting a lot more gameplay out of a game. DLC is often $10 for a hour or two and I never want to play it again. Fallout 3 is one of the reasons I hardly ever buy DLC.
#6PraetorXynPosted 3/4/2014 6:22:38 PM
I prefer expansion packs.

It's basically to the point now that 75% of games I won't even consider buying until they've been out for a year, because I know there with be a "GOTY" versio with all 30 DLC.
---
Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.png
#7Rolen47Posted 3/4/2014 6:24:57 PM
As long as the expansion pack is standalone and you can play it without buying the previous game I'm fine with it. I hate when they require you to buy the previous game.
#8DoramiPosted 3/4/2014 6:34:41 PM
DLC works better for single player games to choose what you want.

Large expansion packs are needed for multiplayer games to minimize player fragmentation.
---
3DS FC: 1246-9917-4900 | Pokemon X: IGN: Jing | Safari: Ground: Phanpy, Camerupt, Diggersby
NNID: StareRoe | PSN: Raftina
#9Celll212Posted 3/4/2014 6:51:40 PM
PraetorXyn posted...
I prefer expansion packs.

It's basically to the point now that 75% of games I won't even consider buying until they've been out for a year, because I know there with be a "GOTY" versio with all 30 DLC.



This so much, I really wanted to buy BF3 when it came out, but I waited a bit as my finances at the time couldn't justify a 60$ game, then 15-20$ DLC packs every other month.

I waited a year, got the premium edition for 30$ that came with all of the DLC and even some that hadn't come out yet.

The fact that almost EVERY game these days comes with some sort of DLC has become a real put-off to me. I mean DLC or an expansion pack is fine, but when you're paying nearly 100$ or more for a single game, only for them to release a new one the next year, feels like a major rip off to me.

Look at BF3 and BF4, BF4 is pretty much an expansion pack for BF3, but for 60$ plus all of the extra DLC that BF4 will be having in the next year. Granted Battlefield games aren't yearly releases like the COD series, but it still feels like I am throwing my 60$ away on somethng that is mediocre at best.
---
|CM HAF 932|I7-4770k @3.5GHZ|8GB Patriot Viper 3@1600MHZ|MSI Twin Frozr 7950|Antec Quattro 850|Samsung Evo 840 120GB|
#10PraetorXynPosted 3/4/2014 7:40:58 PM
Celll212 posted...
PraetorXyn posted...
I prefer expansion packs.

It's basically to the point now that 75% of games I won't even consider buying until they've been out for a year, because I know there with be a "GOTY" versio with all 30 DLC.



This so much, I really wanted to buy BF3 when it came out, but I waited a bit as my finances at the time couldn't justify a 60$ game, then 15-20$ DLC packs every other month.

I waited a year, got the premium edition for 30$ that came with all of the DLC and even some that hadn't come out yet.

The fact that almost EVERY game these days comes with some sort of DLC has become a real put-off to me. I mean DLC or an expansion pack is fine, but when you're paying nearly 100$ or more for a single game, only for them to release a new one the next year, feels like a major rip off to me.

Look at BF3 and BF4, BF4 is pretty much an expansion pack for BF3, but for 60$ plus all of the extra DLC that BF4 will be having in the next year. Granted Battlefield games aren't yearly releases like the COD series, but it still feels like I am throwing my 60$ away on somethng that is mediocre at best.


By far the worst offenders are open world sandbox games like GTA, Saints Row, Sleeping Dogs, etc.

I bought Saints Row 3 + all DLC like a year after it came out for about $12.
---
Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.png