Too many is when older content (starting cities, etc) become disconnected and irrelevant.
Creative horizontal expansion needs to be balanced against vertical expansion.
It all depends on how the game is monetized. If I am paying 15-20 a month for access to the server I expect all but truly major expansions to be included with the subscription fee and even those are debatable. Conversely a $0-5 a month access fee with every month or two a $10 DLC comes out that is truly optional could work in theory but I think would be a bad fit with Pantheon. Pantheon is pitched as being open world and immersive so having literal pay walls to content for certain players doesn’t seem to match the game play goals. DLC also end up being sudo pay to win as it encourages developers to keep jumping the shark of the content to fuel DLC purchases.
I believe what would work best for Pantheon would be a $15-20 a month access fee with a commitment to add a respectable chunk of horizontal content every 3 months and a large expansion with a small degree of vertical progression ever 24-36 months. The quad annual content could be 2 added areas and 2 added systems per year rather than 4 added areas with system updates coming continually.
Grayel said:Too many is when older content (starting cities, etc) become disconnected and irrelevant.
Creative horizontal expansion needs to be balanced against vertical expansion.
Amen! This above all else. I hate when my home starter zones because useless and never visited again.
Kilsin said:Community Debate - How many DLC's and Expansions are too many, where should a games company draw the line, in your opinion? #MMORPG #CommunityMatters
There is no such thing as too many, provided the expansions make sense with respect to the lore/history of the world. Not knowing where the game is going is one of the biggest failings of game development. Developers must always plan for the day the game does end make every effort to make that last expansion the end-all-be-all of the game. Basically go out with a bang. Of course this requires very long term planning. Hopefully VR is taking the long-game approach.
When I look back at the EQ1 expansions, it is my opinion that Planes of Power came way too early. Here we have the players facing off against the very gods that created the world, powerful beings second only to The Nameless...only to be seen as mewling peons just a few expansions later when the inevitable 'gotta make things bigger and badder' forced the developers to create even more powerful creatures.
Kilsin said:Community Debate - How many DLC's and Expansions are too many, where should a games company draw the line, in your opinion? #MMORPG #CommunityMatters
The number isn't important, as long as it doesn't make the older content obsolete and turn all of us into virtual gods in the game. Some vertical progression is fine, and arguably necessary, but I'd personally like to see more horizontal expansion, especially if the game takes off like I think and hope it will. That will give us more reasons to explore more classes, so we can see all of the world.
Vandraad said:There is no such thing as too many, provided the expansions make sense with respect to the lore/history of the world. Not knowing where the game is going is one of the biggest failings of game development. Developers must always plan for the day the game does end make every effort to make that last expansion the end-all-be-all of the game. Basically go out with a bang. Of course this requires very long term planning. Hopefully VR is taking the long-game approach.
When I look back at the EQ1 expansions, it is my opinion that Planes of Power came way too early. Here we have the players facing off against the very gods that created the world, powerful beings second only to The Nameless...only to be seen as mewling peons just a few expansions later when the inevitable 'gotta make things bigger and badder' forced the developers to create even more powerful creatures.
I would really like to see us *never* be able to kill the gods. The only exception to this would possibly be if they were descended to high mortal, and even then it should be no light undertaking (like the avatars from the Luclin era of EQ). Sorry for the mini-derail, this is just something that's always bugged me.
Expansions are fine so long as they do not take a drastically wrong turn on a good game. Expansions can either improve a good game, or expansions can be a good game’s downfall. History has proved that carefully thought-out and planned expansions can be immersive, while absurd expansions can lead to substantial subscription losses.
Let‘s not make the same mistakes with Pantheon. I‘d say less expansions (with care and thought) instead of going “expansion crazy.” #communitymatters
Kilsin said:Community Debate - How many DLC's and Expansions are too many, where should a games company draw the line, in your opinion? #MMORPG #CommunityMatters
I don't really have a problem with DLC and expansions as long as they're good and add something of substance. In the MMO world the more is usually the better. In the single player type realm, I detest the laziness that is carving out base game content to sell as DLC. The Mass Effect trilogy is one of my favorite series of all time but BioWare was one of the most egregious with this practice with that series. So very much of the DLC of 2 and 3 were carved out ofd the base game rather than developed to expand the story. But I've come to expect no less from EA.
If an MMORPG is going to do DLC and expansions, I'd say a good cadence would probably be a DLC every 2-3 months with an expansion every 6 months to a year. The DLCs should probably all be focused on building up to the expansion's release by setting the stage. Long as there's enough time to make quality content rather than opting for quantity over quality, all should be fine. Though DLCs might be a hard sell for some given many MMORPGs cover those as content updates included with their subscription.
I don't think there is a number. It seems more that at a certain point every MMO reaches an expansion that changes the feel or design of the world/game, that feels out of place or like the game has strayed too far from the original path. That doesn't necessarily mean whichever MMO has failed or soured at that point, just that it takes a marked turn and no longer feels like the game it once was to those who had been around for awhile.
For EQ the first major turn was Luclin/Cats on the Moon.
For WoW I would say it was Cataclysm (interestingly also the third expansion, like EQ) and really hammered home with the following Pandaria.
None, so long as there is a VRI world design Admin overseer or someone -a Phan- that has played and knows where all the dead-ends are in the world.
By dead-ends I mean places where it seems things should be beyond that point so when an expansion or DLC is planned, they can say- Ah! use THAT spot, this place that this one world creator we hired in the early days created and rage-quit for some reason 5 years ago and left THIS zoneline open or unfinished.
Every 18 months is good.
*edit*
Also realize- New players will choose to play BECAUSE of a new expansion. So think of expansions as being a campaign to advertise the game all over again. IF a new player comes in BECAUSE of the hype on the new expansion what are their expectations? to be able to see the new expansion? or to play the old established game in the hopes of running into the new expansion? Established players will want to consume (<- I hate that word) new content so the trick is to create a new expansion that builds on the existing world and at the same time, adds new experiences (including visual- like zones?)
I'd say expansions are hardly "too much" when they respect the following requirements :
1) Make sense lorewise, internally and externally of itself.
2) Doesn't make previous content obsolete (Modern MMO never respect this)
3) Doesn't force people into leaving previous content
4 )Doesn't split people
Following thoses trends, I'm open for any expansion, but I've rarelly seen any of them respecting thoses requirements. Wow expansions allways broke 2 & 3, and started breaking 1 not long after.
Even EQ's "best" expansion provided better places than previous continents, which ultimately filled kurn's tower and made other maps empty.
For DLC I'm more torn, because they are small pockets of content and you risk them from beeing less bought than "expansions", and if it's the case you will have a harder time finding parties there.
Whatever the rate, don't make the mistake of having the current expansion's group content so difficult it requires the previous expansion's raid gear to complete. We don't need gear inflation to be that dramatic in order for new content to be compelling.
The other major pitfall is having each expansion introduce so many new time sinks and grinds, in order to keep those at the bleeding edge engaged, you down the road end up with content being unobtainable because people don't have the years and years of time available to them to catch up. There needs to be a careful eye, if not on current content and the lengths it takes to complete it, on previous content having mechanics and systems toned down, worked around, or removed if they were originally implemented merely as time sinks.
More content is great, and of course it is necessary to keep a game going, but I would like to see more ways to keep content current rather than continually spreading out the world and succumbing to endless mudflation on gear. 5-10 new zones every year quickly results in a largely empty world.
All for expansions if they do not trivialize what game before. Most games release expansions and everything you have done before becomes worthless. I would be happy with just additional content to explore, kill, raid, quest etc which is of the same level which already exists. Don't make it easier to travel, don't make previous gear worthless.
Just a thought would be adding significant content by just adding something to the perception system whereas players with high perception suddenly start discovering new pathways to unexplored zones or additions to existing dungeons or new dungeons all together. The new content may be slightly more difficult than currently exists, gear may be slightly (2-3%) better, but not enough that you have to completely reoutfit your character to complete the content.
And never ever make new major cities. Everything always has to tie back to the originals.
Great question.
I think that too many expansions can cause casual leaning "core" players to be turned off. EQ II tried banging away with releasing "micro-expansions" at launch and it didn't work. I personally don't like the feeling of having to pull out my wallet every few months when I'm already paying a monthly sub. The reality is people are going to reluctantly purchase this content (because, let’s be honest, they’ll have to) if that is the model you adapt and I don’t see how reluctant purchases means happy players. I'm uncertain how many gamers get excited for bi-yearly paid DLC.
I’d rather expansions show up when people are ready and excited for them. I think one expansion per year to 18 months is about right. Every 2 years may be a bit too far apart and every 6 months is way to fast. EQ I made the 6-month mistake and it seems to have driven players away (it was the start of the end). Obviously, a good value is what players want, right? No one wants to feel nickel and dimed to death.
Expanding more on my first comment in this post, the other consideration is that even if DLC is marketed as “optional” I do not believe it will be perceived that away by players. From a business standpoint you need to make DLC/Expansions worth it for players to purchase, which basically means paying money for obtainable character upgrades. Therefore, many players will buy it and for those that don’t it will eventually be unofficially “required” if you want to keep up. I think that is a conflict of interest with what’s best for the game. So, by forcing yourself to only release expansions at a given rate that you find acceptable in a way it keeps yourself objective to what's best for the game vs the business.