Making DLC Worth It

[Rxmonste]

You know when you order a meal and every time you did, you got exactly what you were expecting at the end? But how would you feel nowadays if you looked at a meal on the menu, ordered it, and then you were shocked to see that some key ingredients were missing? That sadly happens nowadays, at least in the world of video games, and why is that you ask? DLC. Back when it was still a new thing, developers and publishers were still figuring it out, but when it became ever more popular, they unlocked potential behind DLCs as money making machines. And a lot of players (Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular) bought into those business practices and strategies to the point where there was a lot of DLCs in games that were intended as part of the base game, but now put behind a paywall.

Now I don’t think DLCs are inherently bad, I’ve played a lot of good pieces of DLC, but not as much as I have bad ones. And after playing through Hearts of Stone, an expansion to The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, I felt like it did a lot of things right that some companies should learn from. And if you have played Witcher 3 and haven’t played Hearts of Stone yet, I highly recommend it, CD Projekt RED have done it again and how! This is all an opinion so feel free to share your own thoughts. Now without further ado, let’s get into what I think developers should do to make DLC worth it.

Step 1: Don’t Rip Us Off

Now this is the core ingredient to good DLC that developers should always be aware of, it’s easy to make players feel they were ripped off, there are many ways. If it was day one DLC, of course they’d feel ripped off, because you made this along with the game so why not just put it in? If the DLC is of major importance to the game’s narrative (I’m looking at you Asura’s Wrath and Mass Effect 3) then never keep it locked behind a paywall, especially if it’s locked on disc. I know I’ve stated sometimes that there are reasons behind everything a developer/publisher does in this industry, but that doesn’t mean I’m willing to let them off the hook, players aren’t moneybags. And good PR is important. Here’s a link to a letter that CD Projekt RED put in every copy of The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt.

Step 2: Think About Value

Now that I said what I think makes DLC terrible, here’s what devs should know to make it decent and worth it. A rational consumer wouldn’t feel as appealed towards spending 3 to 20 dollars to grab DLCs that grant a variety of different skins as much as he/she would feel appealed to pay the same price for one piece of DLC that gives them all that and then some, some even do it for free like Portal 2's extra coop missions. Make your players feel like they got their money’s worth when making DLC, something you put sweat into. If it’s a map or mission, it ought to be one you spent enough time building to fit the price, just think about that. And to go back to Hearts of Stone, it costs 10 dollars, features 15 hours of new content such as new quests, gear and enemies plus the replay value that naturally comes with The Witcher series.

Step 3: Always Experiment

You know how to make DLC good, now how do you make it great and go the extra mile? If there’s one thing to take into consideration as a designer, is that since your base game is finished, you are 100% free to take risks because DLCs won’t ruin the base game (For the most part) so don’t be afraid to make the experience feel new and different. This is where I have to praise Hearts of Stone yet again, as it twists The Witcher 3 formula enough to make it feel like a different journey. Whereas the story of Wild Hunt was about saving the world as well as those you care for through investigation and battling, Hearts of Stone’s story is about how Geralt made a pact with the devil (Metaphorically speaking) and now has to free himself by doing tasks that are uncharacteristic of him, but he does it because of the situation present at hand so it doesn’t ruin the game, I especially have to commend a certain quest in Hearts of Stone that I won’t spoil, but I’ll just say, that quest changes how you play the game through its duration, and that’s the power of experimentation! Through downloadable content we want the player to feel like they paid for something that they can never get in the base game no matter what, not just by adding more but by adding new, without completely reinventing the game.

Honorable Mentions go to Red Dead Redemption Undead nightmare, XCom: Enemy Within and most of Fire Emblem Awakening’s DLCs.

That is all for today folks, what do you think of DLC? Do you like it or hate it? If you like it, when do you believe it’s worth buying? What’s your favorite DLC? Discuss at will.

And for those who read my reviews, the Persona 3 FES review is still in progress, I’m 25 hours in and I’m still taking notes, the review will be there when I finish it.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Rxmonste

[Zera]

The Ten Commandments of DLC

1. Thou shalt not cut away content from thy game for DLC.

2. Thou shalt not charge for content that is already on the disc.

3. Thou shalt not charge for consumable items like power-ups.

4. Thou shalt not have micro-transactions in a purchased game.

5. Thou shalt not give a multiplayer advantage to those who bought DLC.

6. Thou shalt not charge to skip a designated waiting period before play.

7. Thou shalt not constantly remind the player about the DLC they haven't bought.

8. Thou shalt not charge more than $1 per character skin.

9. Thou shalt not have DLC that is a worse price-to-content ratio than the game itself.

10. Thou shalt not charge for DLC at all (The difference between great DLC and amazing DLC.)

Some examples of great DLC, which adhere to 9 or more of these commandments -

Super Luigi U

Mario Kart 8

Shovel Knight

Professor Layton series

Edited October 17, 2015 by Zera

[Florete]

I'm just gonna throw it out there: these "steps" are too vague to be useful.

"Don’t Rip Us Off" Under whose definition? Not everyone considers day-one DLC to be a rip-off (and indeed, not all day-one DLC is a rip-off). People have different ideas about how "necessary" something is to the core game. You need to be more specific.

"Think About Value" ...What? "Alright, I thought about it. What do I do now?" This step basically isn't saying anything. Additionally, your explanation of it may as well be under your first step about not ripping people off.

"Always Experiment" Why? 100% free to take risks? DLC still costs time and money to make, pal. There's actually arguably less reason to experiment with DLC because you're only selling to people who already own and like the game; why not just give them something you know they will like?

There are certainly poor DLC practices happening these days, but you need to think more about what they actually are.

[NinjaMonkey]

10. Thou shalt not charge for DLC at all (The difference between great DLC and amazing DLC)

I don't agree with this one, I'm sorry. Developers should be able to charge money for extra content, as long as the price is a reasonable one,

[Florete]

The Ten Commandments of DLC

1. Thou shalt not cut away content from thy game for DLC.

2. Thou shalt not charge for content that is already on the disc.

5. Thou shalt not give a multiplayer advantage to those who bought DLC.

6. Thou shalt not charge for the ability to skip a designated waiting period before play.

These I agree with.

3. Thou shalt not charge for consumable items like power-ups.

7. Thou shalt not constantly remind the player about the DLC they haven't bought.

8. Thou shalt not charge more than $1 per character skin.

These depend on the situation in question.

9. Thou shalt not release DLC that is a worse value than the game itself.

10. Thou shalt not charge for DLC at all (The difference between great DLC and amazing DLC)

These I don't agree with. How do you define what is worse value than the main game? Why should developers not be paid for extra work? Edited October 15, 2015 by Red Fox of Fire

[Integrity]

it's just zera being mad about people charging for original work

seriously he's gone off on several tangents on ip.chat about this, both prompted and unprompted

it's stupid

irregardless: dlc now encompasses enemy within, the best expansion of modern times or maybe all times, and is therefore excusable period.

also shoutout to rocket league's cosmetic dlc i've bought all of

[-Cynthia-]

What counts as good DLC really depends on the game's consumers and what they expect. People pay a significant amount just to have a new outfit for one character in some games (League of Legends for instance), while in other games this would probably be seen as a waste of development time and consumer money.

[Rxmonste]

I'm just gonna throw it out there: these "steps" are too vague to be useful.

"Don’t Rip Us Off" Under whose definition? Not everyone considers day-one DLC to be a rip-off (and indeed, not all day-one DLC is a rip-off). People have different ideas about how "necessary" something is to the core game. You need to be more specific.

"Think About Value" ...What? "Alright, I thought about it. What do I do now?" This step basically isn't saying anything. Additionally, your explanation of it may as well be under your first step about not ripping people off.

"Always Experiment" Why? 100% free to take risks? DLC still costs time and money to make, pal. There's actually arguably less reason to experiment with DLC because you're only selling to people who already own and like the game; why not just give them something you know they will like?

There are certainly poor DLC practices happening these days, but you need to think more about what they actually are.

Alright, I saw this one coming.

Step 3 isn't a requirement to be clear, it's what pushes it to amazing. And of course they're free to take risks, they don't necessarily have to, but what I meant is they can be more obliged to do it since it's not as risky as it is with sequels.

Step 1 As much as I love Zaeed's mission from Mass Effect 2, it still was part of the game's development period. And I don't necessarily think all day one DLCs are ripoffs, but from my personal experience, most players I've seen think so. What is necessary to the core game is things like "The True Ending DLC" Asura's Wrath or the "Prothean DLC" Mass Effect.

Step 2 I'll admit this one's rushed and required more elaboration, but I basically meant to directly target microtransactions, which you could feature as part of bigger DLC. After playing Undead Nightmare, it was hard for me to cut developers some slack over offering pricier DLC that isn't as extensive, thus value.

In all honestly, this was intended as more of a rant than a lesson, I wanted to get an opinion off my chest quickly. My friends and I work in this industry and unlike them, I can see value within DLC where as they hate its guts.

I ran out of ideas, so someone else will have to fill in the last one for me.

Thou shalt not feature microtransactions in a non free-to-play game.

irregardless: dlc now encompasses enemy within, the best expansion of modern times or maybe all times, and is therefore excusable period.

Definitely one of the better DLCs I've played, I agree with that, I'll update honorable mentions with it because I think it's that good.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Rxmonste

[Zera]

Thou shalt not feature microtransactions in a non free-to-play game.

Does purchasing something like a character skin count as a microtransaction?

[Rxmonste]

Does purchasing something like a character skin count as a microtransaction?

Yeah, in fact selling consumables, items and powerups also count as microtransactions and you mentioned those.

I was kind of stuck. Hmm... Thou shalt not only release DLC for multiplayer. Which a lot of companies are guilty of and don't realize that a lot of players care only about the single-player mode.

CD Projekt RED nails all of the stuff you put on your list. CD Projekt RED is to me what Treasure is to you. Both deserve great credit.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Rxmonste

[Zera]

9. Thou shalt not have DLC that is a worse value than the game itself.

10. Thou shalt not charge for DLC at all (The difference between great DLC and amazing DLC.)

These I don't agree with. How do you define what is worse value than the main game? Why should developers not be paid for extra work?

9. I edited my post to say "price-to-content ratio" instead, which is exactly what it sounds like. Take New Super Mario Bros. 2 for example. You get 80 levels for $40, or two levels per dollar. If you buy all the DLC, however, you get 30 levels for $25, so the ratio is much less favorable. If you buy any DLC, the total content of your game will have a worse price-to-content ratio. I believe that if a developer does this, they should offer DLC bundles that have a better value. The opposite side of this is Mario Kart 8, whose DLC has about twice the value of the main game.

10. Shovel Knight and the entire Professor Layton series have free DLC, but I don't see their developers complaining. In fact, they seem happy to give more to the players that gave them money. You know, back before DLC, developers with extra time would still produce extra content, but instead of charging for it they'd just put it in the game as a bonus? That's why there are older games that are just as huge as modern games with DLC. Now, I'm not saying DLC has to be free, but there's no denying that free is always better than charged, and it will fulfill my other 9 points automatically. In other words, it's basically The Best Thing Ever™.

[Rxmonste]

9. I edited my post to say "price-to-content ratio" instead, which is exactly what it sounds like. Take New Super Mario Bros. 2 for example. You get 80 levels for $40, or two levels per dollar. If you buy all the DLC, however, you get 30 levels for $25, so the ratio is much less favorable. If you buy any DLC, the total content of your game will have a worse price-to-content ratio. I believe that if a developer does this, they should offer DLC bundles that have a better value. The opposite side of this is Mario Kart 8, whose DLC has about twice the value of the main game.

Exactly what I intended step 2 to be, thanks for contributing. Dollar per hour or price per content ratio, very important for me.

10. Shovel Knight and the entire Professor Layton series have free DLC, but I don't see their developers complaining. In fact, they seem happy to give more to the players that gave them money. You know, back before DLC, developers with extra time would still produce extra content, but instead of charging for it they'd just put it in the game as a bonus? That's why there are older games that are just as huge as modern games with DLC. Now, I'm not saying DLC has to be free, but there's no denying that free is always better than charged, and it will fulfill my other 9 points automatically. In other words, it's basically The Best Thing Ever™.

Yup, that's CD Projekt RED's philosophy as well, make the DLC if the game is successful because you're able to pay the developers without asking for money because the original game was successful enough. Which is why every Witcher 3 DLC minus the expansions are free.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Rxmonste

[MarioKirby]

9. I edited my post to say "price-to-content ratio" instead, which is exactly what it sounds like. Take New Super Mario Bros. 2 for example. You get 80 levels for $40, or two levels per dollar. If you buy all the DLC, however, you get 30 levels for $25, so the ratio is much less favorable. If you buy any DLC, the total content of your game will have a worse price-to-content ratio. I believe that if a developer does this, they should offer DLC bundles that have a better value. The opposite side of this is Mario Kart 8, whose DLC has about twice the value of the main game.

10. Shovel Knight and the entire Professor Layton series have free DLC, but I don't see their developers complaining. In fact, they seem happy to give more to the players that gave them money. You know, back before DLC, developers with extra time would still produce extra content, but instead of charging for it they'd just put it in the game as a bonus? That's why there are older games that are just as huge as modern games with DLC. Now, I'm not saying DLC has to be free, but there's no denying that free is always better than charged, and it will fulfill my other 9 points automatically. In other words, it's basically The Best Thing Ever™.

I'm not really going to debate #9, as value is subjective, but your #10 has some flaws.

First, the DLC for Professor Layton is literally just one puzzle a week, something so inconsequential in comparison to the main game. It's pretty much equivalent to a character skin DLC. Had they made a pattern of releasing 3 or 4 a week, or even full puzzle packs, they probably would charge money for them. (I can't say for certain that they would, as I am not aware of Level-5's stances on DLC)

Second, the DLC for Shovel Knight is free is because they were stretch goals that were met. Had the backers not paid for it during the campaign, there's not even a guarantee we would have gotten them, let alone for free.

You also assert that making DLC takes away time from that actual development time of the main game. This is also running off the assumption that the DLC is planned as well as made during the development time. Is there, however, any proof that this is the case?

And you really can't use the "back in the day" argument when developers back them still charged extra money for extra content; it's just that before DLC, you had to pay the entire cost of a game again unless you became savvy enough to wait for the later release. Prime examples are Capcom's fighting games (Street Fighter 2, anyone?) and the Tales of series (which many times requires other systems to get the extra content). Heck, even the main series Pokemon games requires two different games in order to get access to everything, what with version exclusives and trade evolutions. If anything, DLC has the potential to fix this practice, as new content for a game can be only $5, maybe $10 dollars rather than $50 or $60.

And I can't help but think you are saying - or at least, you're implying - it has to be, if the price (Or lack thereof) is the "difference between great DLC and amazing DLC," despite the content not changing at all, and that it would immediately iron out all of the problems on your list, which I feel it wouldn't.

As for the general topic, I feel that as long as the content is priced appropriately, it's fine. Things like pre-order bonuses tend to be cosmetic or, in the case of things like "double EXP for such and such a time!", can be seen as a reward from the devs for buying day one, hence the name "pre-order bonus". Day-1 DLC and cut-content-as-DLC can be irritating, but can be worth it if it's free or heavily discounted for a period of time. Even microtransactions can be priced well, such as if the base game is free or everything can be done in-game, with the payments being tiny boosts rather than major changes. In exchange, if done right, DLC can help prolong the life of multiplayer-centric games (Smash Bros., Mario Kart, and Splatoon, to name a few) or provide incentive to play single-player games in new ways (Super Luigi U and Shovel Knight).

[Magical CC]

Good post. When you have to pay 2 dollars to paint your character in black color, you know something is wrong here. It's not the dlc that is the problem, it's the main game that has to have enough contents right from the first place. If it is just character skins, new weapons or characters as long as they are not expected to be in the main game. Black is one of the most basic color that you could expect to be able to choose (if the game allows you to change color) and yet it's a dlc!?

Edited October 18, 2015 by Magical CC

[Zera]

First, the DLC for Professor Layton is literally just one puzzle a week, something so inconsequential in comparison to the main game...

Professor Layton and the: Curious Village Diabolical Box Unwound Future

Included Puzzles: 135 153 168

Weekly Puzzles: 27 33 33

Percentage Increase: 20% 21.5% 19.5%

I dunno about you, but 20% extra content sounds pretty consequential to me.

Second, the DLC for Shovel Knight is free is because they were stretch goals that were met. Had the backers not paid for it during the campaign, there's not even a guarantee we would have gotten them, let alone for free.

But what about players other than the backers? They didn't pay for it. What does Yacht Club Games think about this?

You also assert that making DLC takes away time from that actual development time of the main game. This is also running off the assumption that the DLC is planned as well as made during the development time. Is there, however, any proof that this is the case?

I never said anything like that. I've read (I don't remember where) that some developers continue making content if the game is finished early, but "Oh wait! We gotta get paid for our work!" and so now there's paid DLC. Before modern DLC was invented, this would become additional content for the main game, and you'd simply have a slightly bigger game. Nowadays, it's paid DLC, especially if it's from a AAA publisher.

And you really can't use the "back in the day" argument when developers back them still charged extra money for extra content; it's just that before DLC, you had to pay the entire cost of a game again unless you became savvy enough to wait for the later release. Prime examples are Capcom's fighting games (Street Fighter 2, anyone?) and the Tales of series (which many times requires other systems to get the extra content). Heck, even the main series Pokemon games requires two different games in order to get access to everything, what with version exclusives and trade evolutions. If anything, DLC has the potential to fix this practice, as new content for a game can be only $5, maybe $10 dollars rather than $50 or $60.

Now you're comparing DLC with multiple game versions. I agree that the latter is infinitely worse.

And I can't help but think you are saying - or at least, you're implying - it has to be, if the price (Or lack thereof) is the "difference between great DLC and amazing DLC," despite the content not changing at all, and that it would immediately iron out all of the problems on your list, which I feel it wouldn't.

Let's go over my list, shall we?

1. Thou shalt not cut away content from thy game for DLC. If it's free, it is essentially part of the main game.

2. Thou shalt not charge for content that is already on the disc. Not charging.

3. Thou shalt not charge for consumable items like power-ups. Not charging.

4. Thou shalt not have micro-transactions in a purchased game. Not charging.

5. Thou shalt not give a multiplayer advantage to those who bought DLC. Not charging.

6. Thou shalt not charge to skip a designated waiting period before play. Not charging.

7. Thou shalt not constantly remind the player about the DLC they haven't bought. Not charging.

8. Thou shalt not charge more than $1 per character skin. Not charging.

9. Thou shalt not have DLC that is a worse price-to-content ratio than the game itself. INFINITE content-to-price ratio.

As you can see, making the DLC free automatically fulfills the first nine commandments.