5 ms·

Game that promised no paid DLC ever, getting paid DLC 'to fund the development'

36 points by DocFeind 4y ago

tromp 4y ago
TIL that DLC means https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_content
colpabar 4y ago
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.
- drak0n1c 4y ago
  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.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Same for fancy watches, jewellery, a car that isn't white, designer clothes, or many many many other things humans do for seemingly no reason.
- Nexxxeh 4y ago
  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".)
rightbyte 4y ago
If you can't host your own server you have not really bought the game and are up for all kinds of mat pulls like this. Old Minecraft is an excellent example of owning the game. Earlier than that it was the norm.
- astrea 4y ago
  You can host your own server in Squad.
pixxel 4y ago
The game is called Squad (milsim FPS). milsim = military simulator
m3kw9 4y ago
Was a promise to never have paid dlc actually a draw? Pretty dumb love to promise supporting a game forever on a fixed fee
indigochill 4y ago
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.
politician 4y ago
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.
legitster 4y ago
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.
- earthling8118 4y ago
  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
- elabajaba 4y ago
  The vast majority of Squad servers are hosted by the community.
  - legitster 4y ago
    Can't hosted servers just not support the DLC then?
    - elabajaba 4y ago
      I doubt it, unless they choose to not update the game and stay on an old version (at which point no one would play on them anyways).
    - furi 4y ago
      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.
wolrah 4y ago
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.
- xcambar 4y ago
  The problem with DLC is the abuse of manipulative techniques on immature audiences. In other words, micro transactions targeted at kids and teenagers. New content? Fine. Fancy outfit sponsored by the latest brand? GTFo
  - to11mtm 4y ago
    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.
ozarker 4y ago
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.
- MattDemers 4y ago
  And apparently changed their CEO to someone whose primary experience was in mobile gaming.
MrYellowP 4y ago
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.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  If the company doesn't have a signature on a contract with you, it's not a promise, it's an advertising slogan.
Kukumber 4y ago
PUBG is another example, then you also have the countless Early Access games that stays in early access for over 5-6 years I feel like Valve needs to step up and clean this platform a little bit
slowmovintarget 4y ago
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.
Nexxxeh 4y ago
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.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  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.
ramijames 4y ago
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 points by DocFeind 4y ago

TIL that DLC means https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_content

colpabar 4y ago

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.

drak0n1c 4y ago
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.
lm28469 4y ago
Same for fancy watches, jewellery, a car that isn't white, designer clothes, or many many many other things humans do for seemingly no reason.
Nexxxeh 4y ago
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".)

rightbyte 4y ago

If you can't host your own server you have not really bought the game and are up for all kinds of mat pulls like this. Old Minecraft is an excellent example of owning the game. Earlier than that it was the norm.

astrea 4y ago
You can host your own server in Squad.

pixxel 4y ago

The game is called Squad (milsim FPS). milsim = military simulator

m3kw9 4y ago

Was a promise to never have paid dlc actually a draw? Pretty dumb love to promise supporting a game forever on a fixed fee

indigochill 4y ago

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.

politician 4y ago

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.

legitster 4y ago

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.

earthling8118 4y ago
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
elabajaba 4y ago
The vast majority of Squad servers are hosted by the community.
- legitster 4y ago
  Can't hosted servers just not support the DLC then?
  - elabajaba 4y ago
    I doubt it, unless they choose to not update the game and stay on an old version (at which point no one would play on them anyways).
  - furi 4y ago
    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.

wolrah 4y ago

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.

xcambar 4y ago
The problem with DLC is the abuse of manipulative techniques on immature audiences. In other words, micro transactions targeted at kids and teenagers. New content? Fine. Fancy outfit sponsored by the latest brand? GTFo
- to11mtm 4y ago
  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.

ozarker 4y ago

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.

MattDemers 4y ago
And apparently changed their CEO to someone whose primary experience was in mobile gaming.

MrYellowP 4y ago

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.

mrguyorama 4y ago
If the company doesn't have a signature on a contract with you, it's not a promise, it's an advertising slogan.

Kukumber 4y ago

PUBG is another example, then you also have the countless Early Access games that stays in early access for over 5-6 years I feel like Valve needs to step up and clean this platform a little bit

slowmovintarget 4y ago

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.

Nexxxeh 4y ago

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.

rightbyte 4y ago
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.

ramijames 4y ago

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.