I don’t understand why anyone buys things like this. Paid emotes?? Who cares? I guess I understand children who just ask their parents, but who else would actually pay money for this stuff? I happily pay for DLC like expansion packs or other content added after the initial launch of the game, but I don’t think I’ll ever pay for emojis, in a game or anywhere else.
It's the collector mindset. When someone is very interested in a particular niche, he or she may have a nagging feeling of an incomplete experience if a particular version of literature is missing from their shelf, or a rendition of art/music, or a trivial piece of their favorite game. It's irrational, but very human.
There's also the patron mindset - some want to feel like they are maximizing their financial support for a particular creator or shop and any trinkets they receive in return become a form of public prestige dressing - like philanthropists having their names on a supporter wall.
It's just a fun form of paid cosmetics, which are the same as most things that are cosmetic.
Some people want them for their aesthetics, some people want them as a status symbol, some people just wanna collect stuff. Also some people will want to support the development of their favourite game, and in return they get a token that provides no advantages in game (to avoid "Pay to Win".)
You know another milsim game that does paid DLC right? ARMA. They deliver actual content in their downloadable content (new campaigns, new settings, new factions, new vehicles, whatever). And sure, maybe some of that content's not for you (some I've bought, some I haven't), but nobody can deny there's meaningful content in every one of their DLCs.
Emote DLC is like they tripped over their own shoelaces on whether to do DLCs. Both going back on their promise and delivering weak DLC.
As a consumer, I feel that if a company goes back on a promise like this using this specific rationale, that the company should open up its books to the public, and make transparent its funding goals.
Can't have your cake and eat it too - If you want hosted multiplayer and regular updates, the dev has to pay for it. And I don't think a monthly payment would be any better.
But before I rattle on about entitled users, I have to keep in mind the median gamer here is not gainfully employed. The bulk of the complaining is being done by minors and dependents. You know, literally children.
If I could put out my vote I wouldn't have hosted multiplayer be the only option. However, it is becoming increasingly common that this isn't tolerated. Regular updates is another thing
Squad servers are operated by the community, mostly by gaming clans and similar organizations. But Squad uses a "server license" system where server owners must meet certain criteria (for example a minimum level of moderation) in order to be allowed to operate a server. Supporting the DLC is sure to be a requirement.
This system existed in Project Reality too, I believe in that game it outright prohibited you from even having access to the server executable without a license while in Squad it only applies to being listed in the client's server browser.
> This system existed in Project Reality too, I believe in that game it outright prohibited you from even having access to the server executable without a license while in Squad it only applies to being listed in the client's server browser.
You could decompile the Python code in PR. The PR devs could "blacklist" servers if they wrote magic strings in chat etc with their BF2 user names.
I know it sounds really good to say no DLC ever, especially as a counter to so many abusive microtransaction implementations, but I think it should be obvious to anyone that development of new content needs to be paid for somehow.
Sometimes a game is such a wild success that the sale of new copies can sustain development for years, Minecraft and Kerbal Space Program for example, but even those juggernauts have eventually introduced new versions where that promise was never made. Minecraft Java edition is still entirely free of paid content, but Minecraft Bedrock edition which is the version compatible with consoles and mobile devices has all kinds of stuff. Kerbal Space Program kept their promise that early buyers got everything free, but development on the original has shifted to pure maintenance as they're about to ship Kerbal Space Program 2.
---
Personally I've never understood the problem some people have with the concept of DLC as a whole. If the developer can make more content which I can then choose to buy if I feel like it'll be worth the money, that seems like a win-win. Just like expansion packs in the days of boxed games (and still in physical tabletop/board gaming), or buying mission packs to upgrade your shareware copy of Wolfenstein 3D.
There are definitely certain ways that DLC has been abused which should 100% be shunned. The model used by all too many "free-to-play" mobile distraction games where you can pay to speed up or eliminate move timers, anything competitive with a "pay-to-win" aspect, multiplayer games segregating players without the DLC to smaller and smaller queues, etc. All that is bad, but that doesn't mean the entire concept of DLC is bad.
The important thing in my book is that the only reason I should feel the need to buy the DLC is because I want the content the DLC provides. If I feel like I have to buy something to remain competitive with others who have, or to keep being able to play with my friends, or even to just keep playing at all that day then that game is doing it the evil way.
It is sad in it's own right, as it causes class divides to broach into video games [1]. Loot boxes should probably be outright illegal for children [2]
[1] - Try being the kid who has everything second-hand in a school of 80s-90s Automaker employed children.
[2] - Can we also just talk about how MGM has an advert for their gambling app where people are gambling at a wedding reception? The first time I saw it I thought it was going to be about gambling addiction.
DLC as we used to understand it (as significant expansions of content) are fine. The modern nickle and diming players for every little thing of modern DLC is awful bullshit and I'm mad at developers for doing it and players for accepting it.
Which is funny b/c I remember around 2008-2010ish, my 'has every game console but might play a PC game once in a while' friend went on a tirade about how Expansion packs for PC games were the reason DLC was so prevalent. [1]
My response was that the Tie Fighter Expansion he was referenced was 20$, had -hours- of content (On top of extra replay value for existing missions) and while not 'half' of the game, was a far better value than DLC of that time. (Looking at you, AC2 extra missions)
[1] - My date/timing might be off, but to frame, this was when.. -some- game (Might have been a Resident Evil 5 versus mode) had DLC that was primarily on disc based on the size of the download.
I think modern 'Mission Packs' tend to be cash grabs, at least in the sense of they usually are a lot lower value than the core game.
DLC is what the expansions of the 90s and early 00s turned into, imo. They realized they could make expansions smaller and smaller and smaller and still ask for a similar amount of money and effectively print money. The logical conclusion of that evolution is ridiculous crap like buying a $25 costume or modern Tekken asking you to buy individual characters.
> They realized they could make expansions smaller and smaller and smaller and still ask for a similar amount of money and effectively print money.
Oh I 100% agree, might have worded it too cynically/nihilistically. They get to make money on all ends as lazily as possible.
i.e. in the late 90s, the publishing model meant that you had to pack everything together at once. You wanted to make sure an expansion was worth buying for as many people as possible.
Now, Publishers have realized that two things:
1. The 'Casual' folks will possibly buy one or two DLC things, and the heavy separation of DLC content drives their analytics for future work. DLC that gets 'wacky' or does things that are a bit disparate from other DLC is a tell for this IMO.
2. The 'Hardcore' folks that are obsessed with a franchise will grit their teeth at the markup resulting from splitting things up.
> but I think it should be obvious to anyone that development of new content needs to be paid for somehow.
I think decades of free player created mods, patches, skins, textures, and maps should make it obvious to anyone that the development of new content doesn't need to be paid for with credit cards and in-game currency. Providing players with tools to generate their own new content increases the longevity of your game, increases the number of players, gets your bugs fixed at no cost, and can even give companies a way to spot amazing talent. There are still people making content for UT99! Some companies don't just make it harder for people to create new content, some file lawsuits against players creating content.
Although modding communities have done amazing things, that doesn't mean developers shouldn't continue to create cool things too and I haven't really heard any complaints about expansions as long as they are seen as worthwhile and are genuinely new additions to a game and not just large parts of the story paywalled off for a quick buck (still looking at you, mass effect).
DLC isn't something that really needs to exist to fund games or to make sure that there is amazing new content for gamers. It's generally just a scam used to bleed whales and make gamers feel bad thanks to FOMO and their increasingly strained budgets.
Why is it that I can still buy DRM for skyrim, but I also need to install a free community written patch to fix a massive number of major bugs?
One problem with DLCs is that they dilute the consistent idea or style that might have been implemented in the main game. And the entire model stimulates developers to do that, as it's cheaper to make more of what you already have, instead of making something new with a separate consistent vision.
So they usually look like a fifth leg on a dog, and break the style or balance in the otherwise solid game, and that's the consequence of the model itself. Even if the DLC is good it can feel disproportionate to the rest of the game.
I’ve played Squad since the first day of early access. And I played Project Reality long before that. I have mixed feelings. I understand a game needs to receive funding to be continually updated. I’m fine paying some more money for new factions or maps. I’ve definitely gotten my money’s worth out of Squad. I just worry this is going to be exploited to introduce non-immersive content the majority of the community doesn’t want. The creator of Squad, Offworld Industries, received a large investment from Tencent recently. Perhaps this is a product of that event.
Promises by companies are worth nothing. Absolutely nothing. Why?
Because they don't need to fucking keep them.
Great example out of my own personal experience: CCP hf, who run EVE ONLINE.
They've broken promises time and time again. What they do to get away with it? They slowly, over the course of a decade, changed their target audience.
One change here, one change there. Their CEO, CCP Hellmar, said that 50% of the playerbase are from 2018 and beyond. EVE's a game that runs for 20 years now.
CCP griefed away most of the people who made the game what it was in favour of a completely different audience they have an easier time milking out of their money.
Anyone believing any promises by any company is naive at best.
Marketing promises should never be taken at face value.
I recall a company that once attempted to bake a marketing promise in their stated policy. It said, "Don't be evil." That was removed after a few years. The statement tied their hands too much for their liking.
Am I a minority that has little to no problem with paid cosmetics?
Pay to win, and loot boxes with game impact, can go jump.
But paid cosmetics, Valorant-style, seems like a great way of generating revenue that keeps the game accessible and under development.
I realise it's somewhat different in this specific case. But if the other option is stopping active development, this seems like the least bad alternative.
From a casual game play perspective it is fine with cosmetics. But having virtual merchandise aimed at kids and gambling addicts is immoral in my opinion.
Of course developers need an ongoing revenue source and of course new content isn't always going to fit a business model.
The company that I'm working at wants to provide game developers access to the secondary sales market. Users who are done with their game license can resell it and recoup some of what they paid and go buy another game. Game devs and publishers get a cut of each resale.
The typical profit curve for a game on Steam is a peak around release and then a steep, perpetual drop off.
We aim to reduce that drop-off to ensure that game devs can afford to keep building cool stuff.
36 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 82.2 ms ] threadThere's also the patron mindset - some want to feel like they are maximizing their financial support for a particular creator or shop and any trinkets they receive in return become a form of public prestige dressing - like philanthropists having their names on a supporter wall.
Some people want them for their aesthetics, some people want them as a status symbol, some people just wanna collect stuff. Also some people will want to support the development of their favourite game, and in return they get a token that provides no advantages in game (to avoid "Pay to Win".)
Old Minecraft is an excellent example of owning the game. Earlier than that it was the norm.
milsim = military simulator
Emote DLC is like they tripped over their own shoelaces on whether to do DLCs. Both going back on their promise and delivering weak DLC.
But before I rattle on about entitled users, I have to keep in mind the median gamer here is not gainfully employed. The bulk of the complaining is being done by minors and dependents. You know, literally children.
This system existed in Project Reality too, I believe in that game it outright prohibited you from even having access to the server executable without a license while in Squad it only applies to being listed in the client's server browser.
You could decompile the Python code in PR. The PR devs could "blacklist" servers if they wrote magic strings in chat etc with their BF2 user names.
They could also give them self Ninja kits.
Sometimes a game is such a wild success that the sale of new copies can sustain development for years, Minecraft and Kerbal Space Program for example, but even those juggernauts have eventually introduced new versions where that promise was never made. Minecraft Java edition is still entirely free of paid content, but Minecraft Bedrock edition which is the version compatible with consoles and mobile devices has all kinds of stuff. Kerbal Space Program kept their promise that early buyers got everything free, but development on the original has shifted to pure maintenance as they're about to ship Kerbal Space Program 2.
---
Personally I've never understood the problem some people have with the concept of DLC as a whole. If the developer can make more content which I can then choose to buy if I feel like it'll be worth the money, that seems like a win-win. Just like expansion packs in the days of boxed games (and still in physical tabletop/board gaming), or buying mission packs to upgrade your shareware copy of Wolfenstein 3D.
There are definitely certain ways that DLC has been abused which should 100% be shunned. The model used by all too many "free-to-play" mobile distraction games where you can pay to speed up or eliminate move timers, anything competitive with a "pay-to-win" aspect, multiplayer games segregating players without the DLC to smaller and smaller queues, etc. All that is bad, but that doesn't mean the entire concept of DLC is bad.
The important thing in my book is that the only reason I should feel the need to buy the DLC is because I want the content the DLC provides. If I feel like I have to buy something to remain competitive with others who have, or to keep being able to play with my friends, or even to just keep playing at all that day then that game is doing it the evil way.
In other words, micro transactions targeted at kids and teenagers.
New content? Fine. Fancy outfit sponsored by the latest brand? GTFo
[1] - Try being the kid who has everything second-hand in a school of 80s-90s Automaker employed children.
[2] - Can we also just talk about how MGM has an advert for their gambling app where people are gambling at a wedding reception? The first time I saw it I thought it was going to be about gambling addiction.
My response was that the Tie Fighter Expansion he was referenced was 20$, had -hours- of content (On top of extra replay value for existing missions) and while not 'half' of the game, was a far better value than DLC of that time. (Looking at you, AC2 extra missions)
[1] - My date/timing might be off, but to frame, this was when.. -some- game (Might have been a Resident Evil 5 versus mode) had DLC that was primarily on disc based on the size of the download.
I think modern 'Mission Packs' tend to be cash grabs, at least in the sense of they usually are a lot lower value than the core game.
DLC is what the expansions of the 90s and early 00s turned into, imo. They realized they could make expansions smaller and smaller and smaller and still ask for a similar amount of money and effectively print money. The logical conclusion of that evolution is ridiculous crap like buying a $25 costume or modern Tekken asking you to buy individual characters.
Oh I 100% agree, might have worded it too cynically/nihilistically. They get to make money on all ends as lazily as possible.
i.e. in the late 90s, the publishing model meant that you had to pack everything together at once. You wanted to make sure an expansion was worth buying for as many people as possible.
Now, Publishers have realized that two things:
1. The 'Casual' folks will possibly buy one or two DLC things, and the heavy separation of DLC content drives their analytics for future work. DLC that gets 'wacky' or does things that are a bit disparate from other DLC is a tell for this IMO.
2. The 'Hardcore' folks that are obsessed with a franchise will grit their teeth at the markup resulting from splitting things up.
I think decades of free player created mods, patches, skins, textures, and maps should make it obvious to anyone that the development of new content doesn't need to be paid for with credit cards and in-game currency. Providing players with tools to generate their own new content increases the longevity of your game, increases the number of players, gets your bugs fixed at no cost, and can even give companies a way to spot amazing talent. There are still people making content for UT99! Some companies don't just make it harder for people to create new content, some file lawsuits against players creating content.
Although modding communities have done amazing things, that doesn't mean developers shouldn't continue to create cool things too and I haven't really heard any complaints about expansions as long as they are seen as worthwhile and are genuinely new additions to a game and not just large parts of the story paywalled off for a quick buck (still looking at you, mass effect).
DLC isn't something that really needs to exist to fund games or to make sure that there is amazing new content for gamers. It's generally just a scam used to bleed whales and make gamers feel bad thanks to FOMO and their increasingly strained budgets.
Why is it that I can still buy DRM for skyrim, but I also need to install a free community written patch to fix a massive number of major bugs?
So they usually look like a fifth leg on a dog, and break the style or balance in the otherwise solid game, and that's the consequence of the model itself. Even if the DLC is good it can feel disproportionate to the rest of the game.
Good DLCs for good games are... scarce.
Because they don't need to fucking keep them.
Great example out of my own personal experience: CCP hf, who run EVE ONLINE.
They've broken promises time and time again. What they do to get away with it? They slowly, over the course of a decade, changed their target audience.
One change here, one change there. Their CEO, CCP Hellmar, said that 50% of the playerbase are from 2018 and beyond. EVE's a game that runs for 20 years now.
CCP griefed away most of the people who made the game what it was in favour of a completely different audience they have an easier time milking out of their money.
Anyone believing any promises by any company is naive at best.
I feel like Valve needs to step up and clean this platform a little bit
I recall a company that once attempted to bake a marketing promise in their stated policy. It said, "Don't be evil." That was removed after a few years. The statement tied their hands too much for their liking.
Pay to win, and loot boxes with game impact, can go jump.
But paid cosmetics, Valorant-style, seems like a great way of generating revenue that keeps the game accessible and under development.
I realise it's somewhat different in this specific case. But if the other option is stopping active development, this seems like the least bad alternative.
The company that I'm working at wants to provide game developers access to the secondary sales market. Users who are done with their game license can resell it and recoup some of what they paid and go buy another game. Game devs and publishers get a cut of each resale.
The typical profit curve for a game on Steam is a peak around release and then a steep, perpetual drop off.
We aim to reduce that drop-off to ensure that game devs can afford to keep building cool stuff.