I have read the entire transcript, just to be sure, and I want to bring to the table a topic that nobody said before. Paid DLCs would produce community segmentation. What happens when a player has the DLC and other not. Because it is tradition that players with one specific DLC cannot play with players not having the same DLC. This is a potential problem. For example, how to deal with... cosmetic DLCs?... which the approach would be? The player with the DLC can play with others not having the DLC? and if yes... these players not having the DLC would be unable to see the cosmetic? The best approach is that everybody would see the cosmetic, only that players not having the DLC cannot use it. In this case, the DLC should be similar to an update, where the DLC is propagated across all players, even if they have not payed for. The problem with this is that you must tie the use of the cosmetic to some online check, so only paying players would use it, so this creates a dependency on a online service. Another way to do this is a key downloaded and unlocking the content, and being delivered only to the people that paid for the content, but this is avoidable by hacking / cracking the game, not desirable for the developer. If we are talking about content that modifies the game mechanics, even is more complicated, because in this case I think that players not having the content would not play with players having the DLC. So this would create community segmentation, just as I said at the beginning. So we have three potential side effects due to DLCs: - Community segmentation - Online services dependency - Use of paid content, not paying Please go ahead and comment if you want.
all good points look how space endangers does there DLC let me know what you think i thing they have a good system for DLC
Do you mean Space Engineers ? I have not found any reference to "Space Endangers". Unfortunately I do not have this game, but I know a friend that have it, I will ask him about how the DLCs are implemented there. Or if there is anyone here wanting comment how these DLC work... it will be fine.
I'll definatly buy a DLC to support devs. Especially if they implement what I suggest And it happened with my request to implement a basic aerodinamics!
The main reason why I made a transcript of the first video is to show how "talking" instead of clearly writing arguments on a forum is just an attempt to "drown the fish in a sea of words". The objective was also to provide a means for others to "quote" what has been said with clarity, because we can't quote "speech" without first transcribing it. This is my first point : I think this is not only a lazy method to expose a subject, but it is also a dishonest one. When discussing a topic, people try to influence their "opponents" with all kinds of lousy methods, instead of using proper argumentation based on facts and, at worse, reasonable speculative comments. This video is everything except that. I will use the transcript to show some of the tactics used to try to invalidate opposition to DLCs that was exposed in writings in this thread. In the video, @BrokenFang , you said this : "So this... this video is going to be kind of a discussion around a forum post that I had recently put together (...) " This is not a "discussion" it's a convoluted monologue spanning 23 long minutes, which once transcribed equates to many long pages of text. If anyone had dared to do this in writing, he would have gotten mocked just for the sheer volume of what he's throwing in, not even on value of content. In the first (long) paragraph of the transcript, @BrokenFang , you are trying to establish yourself as an "expert" ( in what exactly? ) by saying you have been around video games for 25 years, then going into a lengthy explanation to justify why 25 years equates a "life of videogame" by making lousy comparisons ( do prisoners sentenced to life become "experts in prisons" ? ) and other similar irrelevant topics. You didn't even say what was your field of expertise, but the point here is the reason why you did it : it's a fallacious argument that proves nothing regarding your "expertise". What if I told you that I have been - just like you - around "video games" since 1982, so close to 40 years : does this make me a much better expert than you on the subject, and will my arguments weight double than yours ? Later in the video : And you know, there were some good topics brought up, I mean really good topics, and there's kind of... two main thought processes that exist in this topic. Well again : that is akin to trying to restrain the debate around 2 topics that you decided arbitrarily. Let me suggest that there are far more aspects to this DLC suggestion than what you propose here. More on this later. In the 4th long paragraph of the transcript, you are saying that players bought the game 5 or 6 years ago, and that was all what the developers had to pay for their work for the following 5 or 6 years. That is an enormous lie and it took you a lengthy explanation to try to make it sound a pity for the developers. You then go on saying that people here on the thread opposed DLC by associating them to "predatory practices like EA Sports" which is not true either. In that same 4th paragraph : And so, you know, you have to realize that these folks that are working in this development project, you know, they have... they probably got kids, they got wives, you know, they probably get to pay for education, clothes for their... for their kids, you know, a whole... the power bill, a whole slew of things that, as our society is coming to the realization that is bec*... there is more and more pressure on fiat currency. So it's just more relevant than ever to... to keep the kind of the wheels greased, keep motion going and not let things kind of burn out. And one of the ways to do that is through a metered kind of *Kane style DLC drop every... let's say six (6) to ten (10) weeks. Not you are building upon your first fallacy that the developers only got 20 bucks per game sold 6 years ago, and nothing since then. This is an attempt to call for pity, and an attempt to depict opponents to your suggestion as heartless and selfish. We don't buy DLC = the developers family will not go to school and will fall into misery. In the 5th paragraph of the transcript, now you continue to build upon your own fallacies. Now you're addressing "the 2nd topic" because we all know there were only 2 issues here, as you "decided" : Now here... here's the other scope of this discussion where when you get into like " I paid for this, I expect this project, you know, I paid my twenty-five dollars (25$), I expect a working version of the game to this standard" and once it's this standard I have my playthrough and now the game has... has died. Right? The game has died, there's no... they do like one or two patches after the release, and then they go on and move on to another project. Right ? Again that is an over-simplification of the topic. I wonder who wrote anything on the forum here that sounds remotely like what you say in your video. In fact you are just trying to railroad the topic onto your own grounds, where the only option is "get some DLC system in and stop arguing that your initial payment has any value today". But in reality you see very clearly what other players think of this on the forum here. The other half of your video is just going in tangeants that have nothing to do with the topic of DLC. I still had to listen to the whole video to make sure I heard everything relevant to "DLC". Now about the " only 2 main thought processes " you declared in the beginning of your video : Not only did you make a nice "construct" of the issues debated, trying to drown them in a sea of words and using obviously cheap "sales" practices by naming yourself an expert and trying to devaluate other's opinions (thanks for showing only my avatar in the video, by the way) by depicting them as selfishness that will result in the developer's families to fall into misery, but you voluntarily ignored the fact that the game sold practically at constant rate for the whole time. And more importantly, as I stated many times now : if some players don't trust the developers to be able to work adequately on the game why would they trust them to work on DLC ? What would prevent the developers from charging for cosmetics (that we get for free now) AND still work on the core game and all other aspects themselves, completely "bypassing" your suggestion to "outsource" AND getting paid for this ? How can you provide players with any kind of "garantee" or even valid argument that this would never happen ? Your "expertise" ? I think the main problem with your video, and your whole suggestion, is that you may be thinking that other players and the developers are stupid. Now I suggest that next time you want to try to sell us BS you either have the courage to write it down on the forums so everyone can reply to it, or at the very least try to be better prepared and use real arguments instead of cheap pedantic sales rhetoric. .
TD/DR Version of my previous post : In your video you are trying to establish yourself as an expert, then you restrict the debate to 2 positions : yours (the good one) and the "others" that are selfish and that by refusing to accept your DLC proposal they will put the developers and their families into misery. You then go in tangential monologue on modding and other topics to mix-in with the previous "kool-aid" so it may seem less bitter to swallow. Again : no, thanks. We're educated adults, and able to make an opinion by ourselves about your proposals and arguments, the game, the DLC practices and the developers. And now that I may have poked a little hole in your feelings, I'm sure you will pay more attention to what I write. I can make videos too, but I think you get the idea. It took me a good 2 hours to transcribe, out of my free time, because I respect the effort you put into trying to convince us. But I don't approve your arguments or methods.
BrokenFang has stated in this forum previously that it is difficult for him to write due to a disability (I believe he writes via transcribing software), and that talking on a video is easier for him. While I have said I would prefer he made a TLDR for his posts too, there appears to be a perfectly legitimate reason for him to post in this way and this assumption about his attempt is unfounded. Your emphasis on logic is admirable (pointing out an appeal to authority), but the snarkyness (eg. "kool-aid" comment) in the tone of many of your comments detracts from it greatly. There's simply no need for that.
Space engineers DLC works like this: They have different skins, textures, and decorative blocks as part of DLC. Players who own the DLC can apply the skins and textures to their suit or structures, or build the decorative blocks. Players who do not own the DLC can still see and interact with DLC content, but cannot build it themselves. Workshop uploads that use DLC content in their blueprints will be marked as requiring the DLC to use them. I only bring that up as an example of how one might do DLC in a game like this. However I don't think Empyrion is ready for DLC. Space Engineers didn't start DLC until they were fully released. Empyrion is still considered under active development.
That is a lame excuse to justify using cheap paternalism and lies. What he has done is simply talk to no end for no real need other than what I wrote. Like I wrote to him, I write to you : we're not stupid, and thanks for the backseat moderation. The "need" for that is none of your business. Do you think I "need" you to tell me how and what I should write ? He could have said all he had to say in less than 5 minutes had he not wasted so much time trying to make us feel stupid, selfish and ignorant. Let me add that if some players don't trust the developers (they explained things to us at length twice now) then it makes no sense to try to convince others that they should be trusted for DLC, or for anything at that matter. "They only got your 25$ six years ago and nothing since" now that's a plain flat lie. A "writing disability" doesn't put these words in one's mouth, sir. So it's just a question of credibility. You can't have both. If this is too complex to grasp then maybe you should avoid meddling in matters you don't understand, frankly. .
" Oh... this guy only has one leg... can't we acccept that when he tells lies it's ok ? " What kind of BS is this ?
Fun fact about SE's new wheel DLC. It basically nerfs them to hell. The race track world and off-road wheels have scripts running that let them work at all, while the vanilla ones basically stop steering if you get too fast. Advanced rovers aren't a thing anymore. Yet another indication of the simple wisdom of the HV. I decline to spill more salt over that game. DLC would cost more time/money to develop. Empyrion is already mostly done, so that cost is mostly paid. It's simply better economics to continue selling Empyrion. I can't imagine it's reached anything close to its full potential audience yet. Rather than investing in development of new paid content, a safer bet would be advertising. I would suggest Eleon have a look at XP Gamers and the ARMCO community. Captain Shack has done his share of paid promotions in addition to his usual content, and generally does a good job at it.
Hey. Guys. Lets not get personal here. It helps nobody. I am in favour of DLC when it comes to supporting content creators - but there are so many other ways to achieve a kind of ecosystem where content creators are not abused, and are not abusing. It would be really good for content creators to get some reward for all of their hard work. I'm pretty sure some of them do this for reward, and yes, fully aware that selling t-shirts is going to get you into hot water, so not talking about merch. But creatives do need support/patreon/whatever paypal/buymeacoffee et al. I'm not seeing that happening yet. Sadly. I'm no fan of the vendor pricing and controlling DLC, at least not like SE does where DLC is play-to-win and feature unlocks. I would much rather buy an Eleon t-shirt than an unlock. Anyway, that's my 2 pence, hope it was short enough.
If the game file doesn't break anymore then I'm all for it. The #1 ruiner for me has been well... the games in development LOL and I can't continue my game files. Version after version, I spent countless hours grinding, collecting, building knowing that I will probably lose my work in the next update. With that stability issue in mind, would you still say its time for DLC?
Thanks for the clarification, yes I tough that this is the common way that cosmetic DLCs are implemented. Not a bad way, I think it is the most reasonable to do. Anyway, the same as you, I think that the game should be completed in its totality before thinking into launch any DLC. At least all the most annoying bugs should be fixed, at minimum. Again thank you for the info.
I can't believe somebody is actually asking for a paid DLC!! Years and years of amazing marketing techniques worked like a charm....pretty sad. Thankfully Eleon go their own way, some may say it's an outdated way as they don't even have a greedy external investor, but guess what was prominent in the outdated world? Quality and passion....
Ah yes, sometimes I feel proud to be called a dinosaur and/or outdated. Maybe I'm just getting old and bitter but, I do miss the good ol' days when people were more focused on developing spacecraft instead of iphones. These days when I want to socialize, everyone gets confused because I go to the pub and they start logging in to Facebook...
I had my share of Games with DLC's. For each one of them to pay almost as much as for the full game. TESO - charges for every DLC about € 50.- each Year comes at least one. Therefore I prefer the way SWTOR handles this: Updates, additions and all new stuff - even before the Cartel Market - comes for FREE.
