Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend FREE long term patch support?

  1. #1

    Default Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend FREE long term patch support?

    I've recently look at the business model used by Paradox for their newer games that is released on steam, namely Crusader Kings II. One thing I like about their model is they are essentially using the profit they made from DLCs to fund patch support. The biggest difference between their model and models used by other game companies is that they can have the means to make incremental changes over a very long period of time.

    As long as people buy their DLCs, they can continue to patch the game. While other companies might stop patch support after 2 or so years, their model can potentially extend patch support to 5-7 years. Furthermore, their DLCs is aimed to introducing new features to the game that helps to increase immersion for the campaign.

    It would certainly be interesting if CA can adopt this model of business because they can continue to support Rome II with patches and make slow and incremental changes to the base game. This is a much better model than trying to build a whole new game with a new game engine with more bugs.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend long term patch support?

    Agreed. Although sometimes Paradox has a ethically questionable policy of disabling certain features until a DLC is bought. In Crusader Kings II, you were able to play a Jewish character until the Sons of Abraham DLC came out, which disabled that feature until players bought the DLC. Likewise, if you did not buy any DLCs, the game would almost constantly remind you that you should buy them, which is rather despicable in my view.

    But I do like Paradox's long-term support.
    Last edited by atheniandp; December 15, 2013 at 12:11 AM.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. - G.K. CHESTERTON

  3. #3

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend long term patch support?

    No the real question is: Can DLC sales be used to fund and extend the bonuses the execs at the publishers get?

    And the answer is probably YES.

  4. #4
    RedGuard's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Telmachian mountain range
    Posts
    4,350

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend long term patch support?

    you ask can DLC fund long term patch support.... The question you should ask is can patches support DLC in the long term?

  5. #5
    Barbarian Nobility's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Australia - Land of the Bogan and home of the serial killer
    Posts
    7,008

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend long term patch support?

    I'm still gonna play, but my hitherto love of this series has undergone another serious decline such as how I felt about etw....if it's not redeemed by an absolutely amazing standalone or new title I'll probably turn my back on the series

  6. #6
    Karnil Vark Khaitan's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    DaneMark
    Posts
    5,031

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend long term patch support?

    Hmm I would say yes look at shogun 2. and I hope so.

    Im the Knight in Sour Armor http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ghtInSourArmor
    Rainbow Darling rainbows Darling. Darling Rainbows!!!!!
    but on the same time modder with my first mod for Rome 2!http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=286218945
    Hey Sparkle Sparkle Sparkle!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDULtV9U2kA
    Quote Originally Posted by riskymonk View Post
    yea but mods are created by fans of the series. Games are created by university students who might not necessarily know or play the games/series they're working on

  7. #7

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend long term patch support?

    No. DLCs are ridiculous if you look at the their prices compared to the amount of content they contain. You're basically saying we should be ok with companies releasing half arsed, half finished games and then only adding the other half (or more like another 1/5) if enough people buy their overpriced DLCs. They should release their games in a reasonable state and most of the DLC content should be in the game already. How can you be ok with paying £6 or wtv. for the abilty to play 3 reskinned clone facs which were already in the game? You are essentially paying for maybe 6 or 7 new units and the custom objectives and starting bonuses (i.e. -20% diplomatic penalty vs. subculture x). This did not take them 1/5 of the resources and time of the main game to develop, therefore it is overpriced and exploitative. The bottom line is, DLC whoring is becoming ridiculous and we are increasingly having to pay more than the £30 for the main copy to get a complete game. Again, this is pure extortion.

    Oh and before the mindless fanboys/apologists start crying that I could have got the nomads and greeks for free, lmao, do you actually think I'm enough of a mug to pay for them? I got both of them for free.

  8. #8
    =Vastator='s Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sardinia, Italy
    Posts
    1,284

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend long term patch support?

    Quote Originally Posted by VarrKhaitan View Post
    Hmm I would say yes look at shogun 2. and I hope so.
    The first months patches fixed the game, the following were minor (if we not consider the DLC stuff), and some of them even broke some aspects (see the utterly broken defensive naval battle AI, which was working pre-FOTS, and the fact that now AI spams small fleets of kobaya ships.... the naval part of a campaign is broken, and it was never re-patched)
    Disclaimer: the post above is way way prealpha, the final version will be way better than this.

  9. #9
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    North East of Nowhere
    Posts
    526

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend long term patch support?

    No, DLC funding should NOT be used to fix the game. CA should use their own money to fix the game.

    If they use DLC money to fix the game, it is we, the consumer, who are fixing the game. We were entitled to a working game on release and CA did not deliver this, and the responsibility should be upon them to deliver it.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend long term patch support?

    I think everyone misunderstood my point.

    I am saying the sales generated from DLC can be used to fund free patches.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend FREE long term patch support?

    I Think, the core of problem is somewhere else. DLCs add a few factions and not upgrade the game. The game has still had same battle mechanic, politics and that is problem.

  12. #12
    Decanus
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    North East of Nowhere
    Posts
    526

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend long term patch support?

    Quote Originally Posted by ray243 View Post
    I think everyone misunderstood my point.

    I am saying the sales generated from DLC can be used to fund free patches.
    They can hardly be called free patches when the money is coming from DLC sales.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend long term patch support?

    One very important difference to note here is that the usual business practice for CA is to push out 3 - 4 patches, and then call it a day, never touching that particular game again, leaving it to modders to try to clean up their mess (as much as they are able).

    Paradox has always supported their games for years and years after release. This is hardly a "new" thing, they've done this since LONG before DLC existed. Of course its easier to support it with the financial support that DLC provides, but its hardly the only way.
    "I will say it again, there are no bugs in this game. No melee bug, no formation bug, no suicidal general bug, nothing."

    M2TWRocks, when speaking of N:TW (Source)

  14. #14
    Foederatus
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Schramberg/ Germany
    Posts
    33

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend FREE long term patch support?

    Sega/CA are selling unfinished product for a full price. It's their bloody duty to fix it, if they want to continue selling games.

    Paid unlocks are semi-ok in free games, think of DOA5, which is free, but with minimal rooster. In fully paid titles? Eventually, if game is so awesome. R2 is not in my eyes.

    Blizzard released last Diablo 2 patch 10+ years from release of the game. Without any dlc, with just one expansion.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend FREE long term patch support?

    They already said that Rome 2 will get the most support off all TW,s too date

    So with this new fast releasing dlc thing you can exspect they support there game like that

  16. #16

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend FREE long term patch support?

    Quote Originally Posted by GoTW Kubee View Post
    No. DLCs are ridiculous if you look at the their prices compared to the amount of content they contain. You're basically saying we should be ok with companies releasing half arsed, half finished games and then only adding the other half (or more like another 1/5) if enough people buy their overpriced DLCs. They should release their games in a reasonable state and most of the DLC content should be in the game already. How can you be ok with paying £6 or wtv. for the abilty to play 3 reskinned clone facs which were already in the game? You are essentially paying for maybe 6 or 7 new units and the custom objectives and starting bonuses (i.e. -20% diplomatic penalty vs. subculture x). This did not take them 1/5 of the resources and time of the main game to develop, therefore it is overpriced and exploitative. The bottom line is, DLC whoring is becoming ridiculous and we are increasingly having to pay more than the £30 for the main copy to get a complete game. Again, this is pure extortion.

    Oh and before the mindless fanboys/apologists start crying that I could have got the nomads and greeks for free, lmao, do you actually think I'm enough of a mug to pay for them? I got both of them for free.
    Quote Originally Posted by SKSlave View Post
    No, DLC funding should NOT be used to fix the game. CA should use their own money to fix the game.

    If they use DLC money to fix the game, it is we, the consumer, who are fixing the game. We were entitled to a working game on release and CA did not deliver this, and the responsibility should be upon them to deliver it.
    Quote Originally Posted by SKSlave View Post
    They can hardly be called free patches when the money is coming from DLC sales.
    Quote Originally Posted by azbestor View Post
    Sega/CA are selling unfinished product for a full price. It's their bloody duty to fix it, if they want to continue selling games.

    Paid unlocks are semi-ok in free games, think of DOA5, which is free, but with minimal rooster. In fully paid titles? Eventually, if game is so awesome. R2 is not in my eyes.

    Blizzard released last Diablo 2 patch 10+ years from release of the game. Without any dlc, with just one expansion.
    These guys have said it all.This is pure madness.It's blackmail if you think about it."Buy my DLCs or I will not fix the game that I destroyed myself.".It would be such an unethical and shameful move.

    It's CA's responsibility/problem to find the money needed to fix the game with free patches.The money from sales that the people paid full price for a functional game and got the mess of TWR2 should be used to fix the game instead.Demanding more money from the fans is a fatal mistake for the company.Of course there are still blind fanboys ready to throw more money at them without question,but normal people don't throw their hard earned money away like that you know.

    If I buy a new car for example and find out that the engine is broken I demand from the seller to fix the engine for free because I have already paid for a working engine in the first place.Why should games be a different case?

    And I want to close my post with this,as many people seem to forget pretty fast.The fans have already showed their love,dedication and respect to the company by buying their game.It's about time CA gives some love,dedication and respect back to the fans too.

  17. #17
    chris10's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    3,239

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend FREE long term patch support?

    Quote Originally Posted by ray243 View Post
    I've recently look at the business model used by Paradox for their newer games that is released on steam, namely Crusader Kings II. One thing I like about their model is they are essentially using the profit they made from DLCs to fund patch support. The biggest difference between their model and models used by other game companies is that they can have the means to make incremental changes over a very long period of time.

    As long as people buy their DLCs, they can continue to patch the game. While other companies might stop patch support after 2 or so years, their model can potentially extend patch support to 5-7 years. Furthermore, their DLCs is aimed to introducing new features to the game that helps to increase immersion for the campaign.

    It would certainly be interesting if CA can adopt this model of business because they can continue to support Rome II with patches and make slow and incremental changes to the base game. This is a much better model than trying to build a whole new game with a new game engine with more bugs.
    as well mention that Paradox DLC has a respectable pricing policy when considering that expansions often add essential new stuff to the game mechanics

  18. #18

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend FREE long term patch support?

    We shall not pay CA for them to fix the game. Its their responsibility to fix the game because we pay them the price of a finished game.

    Releasing games with lack of contents to sell as dlc's is not a good practice.

    Aside from that, they shall release DLC after the game has been fixed.
    Last edited by jamreal18; December 15, 2013 at 07:05 AM.

  19. #19
    Anna_Gein's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    3,666

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend FREE long term patch support?

    Potentially yes ...

    But will theses dlc sell well ? I don't know about you guys but I have absolutely no interest in DLC that merely allow me to see how broken this game is with a "new" faction or a slightly different map. And from the overwhelming negative reaction this game has, I am certain most player share my opinion.

    If CA hopes to support the long post release development support necessary to R2, they better release DLC that actually that improve existing features or add news for the main game. Typically they should release seasons for the main game with Caesar in Gaul DLC. Then work on DLC completely made of improvement rather than new campaigns. IMO this is the most interesting thing CA could learn form the current Paradox DLC policy or recent similar situation like Civ5 expansion.

    By no way do I see this situation as a good one but it seems to best thing that could happen to R2. More probably CA is already moving to different titles and won't improve the game in any meaningful way.
    Last edited by Anna_Gein; December 15, 2013 at 09:02 AM.

  20. #20
    Kurisu Paifuaa's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania, US
    Posts
    621

    Default Re: Can DLCs sales be used to fund and extend long term patch support?

    Quote Originally Posted by atheniandp View Post
    Agreed. Although sometimes Paradox has a ethically questionable policy of disabling certain features until a DLC is bought. In Crusader Kings II, you were able to play a Jewish character until the Sons of Abraham DLC came out, which disabled that feature until players bought the DLC. Likewise, if you did not buy any DLCs, the game would almost constantly remind you that you should buy them, which is rather despicable in my view.

    But I do like Paradox's long-term support.
    What gets my goat is how Paradox separate the art and sound assets from major gameplay expansions. I can see the value in making those individually available if you don't want the extra game mechanics. However, if I'm buying into an expansion... I expect it to be a complete package. Of course I want the damned portraits, coat of arms, unit art and music for the Nords if I'm buying The Old Gods, for example. Not including those looks like pure price obfuscation from the perspective of the consumer.

    On the other hand, I'd love to see any DLC at all for Sengoku. They dropped that one pretty quickly and it's a good example of what happens if you release a barebones product that doesn't sell well outside a niche audience... it paradoxically lacks the polish and artistic appeal to sell widely or garner above-average reviews... and subsequently dies before you can improve it via the DLC model. Pun sort of intended

    CA's model is completely different and generates it's own issues. Look at what happened when they released Fall of the Samurai... yes, it added a ton of content and the accompanying patches improved the base game (if you also own that). But the co-dependency on the same underlying code had some undesirable effects. For example, they changed the lighting and materials system for FotS (it's simpler, with fewer diverse materials for unit model parts). That did not mix well at all with the original game's design and left things looking terrible for several months. They fixed it mostly, but it still looks substantially different from what you may have signed on for from the beginning.

    Fortunately, both companies support modding, so DLC additions give us more assets to work with. Unfortunately, it doesn't include even limited source code (ala Firaxis) so the scope is limited. Some problems can't be addressed, which is especially irritating when DLC content negatively impacts the base game.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •