Does this mean VR is considering a DLC model?
Trasak said:
It would be nice/appreciated if each of these debate starter questions got a VR response a week or two after each post. Otherwise the threads are kinda just click bait.
Not only that, they're completely off topic. All they do is raise questions that never get answered. They have nothing to do with Pantheon itself. I don't understand why posts about when an official PANTHEON stream is going to be will be moved to the off topic forum but these posts that have nothing to do with the actual game are somehow acceptable?
Kilsin, if part of your job is to take feedback to the powers that be, please answer the questions that get asked every single time you make one of these posts, or stop making them.
The EverQuest path is the one to take here. Expansion --> purchase --> Expansion --> purchase --> Repeat
This is assuming the expansion has a large chunk of content and pushes the game forward. New haircuts etc just need to be patched in, as that's what our monthly sub pays for.
I prefer Expansion, that cost money, $39.99 etc and adds levels vs DLC. But DLC isn't always bad either. I like the way ESO has done some of their releases where DLC is free to subs, but expansions need to be purchased.
The expansions like Morrowind added a new class and content (not sure about levels) and Elsweyr add another class and content. (again, not sure if it added any levels) but I love how DLCs add a story and an objective etc without adding classes or levels. DLCs can be stuff like a new wing opened in a dungeon and a new threat can be found inside! Orcs of the North have disappeared and something new awaits! Little storylines basically.
Numbers should be low. I want a Very good Quality Expansion so no DLC until you have an absolutely killer expansion built. In Fact, you guys should already be looking at what is going to happen in the 1st expansion and what it brings to the game.
( do not make me wait a year (after initial release) to be a necro ;p
Sorry people get so hostile because you try to engage the community. Maybe quit asking them anyting. See if they like total silence better.
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
EQ had a perfect number of them to keep the game alive to this day, and it still is one of my favorite games ever... My first MMO in 1998 :)
Kilsin id be ok with one personally every year. I wouldnt want them to push the expansions out too fast. DLCs well depends what you mean by this? paid additional features for the game?
Offtopic note, i need to get involved in something... these pubg cheat fest games are driving me nuts lol
Vandraad said:Bah. Raise the monthly fee to $19.95 and give us every expansion for free. Hell, EVE online only charges $14.95 a month and does 2 expansion a year (1 at 6 months is a small expansion with the year-end expansion being quite large) at no additional cost.
Now that is one hard comparison. It depends on many factors not just because 1 company can do it. Sony never did that ever.... We got some decent expansions and some really crappy ones years later when Sony basically went poof. Just saying lots of factors can make or break that price range.
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
Although we are in a fantasy setting, there are some storylines or features that are just too far fetched. It can really feel off, when a new mechanic is implemented that takes the player too far away from their initial character experience.
Expansions can be on a rate of 1-2 a year. That's more then plenty for me.
And depending on the horizontal progression in the game and the rate that is been consumed by the players, I would even question if DLC are needed. When expansions dates are not being met, they can be a tool to push out some new things in a framed setting.
When a game has monthly DLC's or 3monthly expansions, it feels like the player is being thunneled into a race to consume it all before the next date is at their doorstep. Like someone already said, when you launch many new things on a frequent timeframe, you can undermine the value of that new content and in the long run the game itself.
Allow players to create memories in each part of the world, before painting over that piece of the world with new things. And again like others said, keep old content meaningful and give players a meaningful reason to cherish their hometowns or other parts of their consumed content in the game.
For me personally, DLC's have always felt more like; the dev's have missed something and added that in quickly using DLC. Long term planning and pacing of consumption by players is key and can prevent such short sighted unrollement tactics.
If you run short on funds and want to use DLC to cash in on a frequent base...I'll pass quickly. Just crank up the expansion price or subscription fees.
As long as additional content does not trivialize earlier content - the model of occasionally releasing free new content to paying subscribers and more occasionally releasing expansions that need to be purchased works fine.
Thus new content that is horizontal (no increase in level-cap, item statistics or character attributes) should be welcome at any time. Vertical expansions should be less frequent (and not increase the power of characters and items as much as current MMOs make a bad habit of doing).
bigdogchris said: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.
I think this is pretty accurate. It’s important that the playerbase knows there is something on the horizon in terms of future content to keep things fresh, but also shouldn’t be trivial, so a longer timeline is fine.
Crazzie said:Vandraad said:Bah. Raise the monthly fee to $19.95 and give us every expansion for free. Hell, EVE online only charges $14.95 a month and does 2 expansion a year (1 at 6 months is a small expansion with the year-end expansion being quite large) at no additional cost.
Now that is one hard comparison. It depends on many factors not just because 1 company can do it. Sony never did that ever.... We got some decent expansions and some really crappy ones years later when Sony basically went poof. Just saying lots of factors can make or break that price range.
How is that so difficult to understand? If we assume that Pantheon will have a monthly subscription of $14.95, it stands to reason that fee covers all operational costs, salaries, etc along with some profit. Any expansion work is already covered by that monthly cost otherwise they could not afford to produce an expansion. By a simple increase of the monthly fee by $5.00 increases the per-subscriber income by $60 per year, well above the typcal expansion costs we've seen in many games. That income is mostly guaranteed, where as a per-expansion cost is not.
There is also the concept that a monthly fee that is auto-paid, like a recurring charge on a credit card, is more often overlooked as a true expense. How many times have you had a subscription to something and thought to yourself "I should really cancel this" only to forget and not remember to actually do it until months later? Or one of those annuals that you forget about until a year later when you suddently see it show up? Contrast this with a fee that basically says "you either buy this or you cannot continue playing" is a blunt reminder for a portion of the playerbase to reasses their view of the game..should they continue or not.
I'm in the group that prefers that any expansion costs, however often they are released, be rolled into the monthly subscription. It is just easier to plan expenses by the customer and easier to predict income for the developers.
I'm late to the discussion - but... I don't think it's a matter of quantity. Quality is what counts.
We've had lots of discussions in this community about the expansion cycle in general, so I'll start there:
1) Expansions really should add significant amounts of new content to the world, always.
2) Expansions should also, whenever possible, add new types of gameplay to the world.
3) Expansions should not only be focused on high levels, but also include things for lower level players.
4) Expansions should not cause older content to become obsolete.
5) Expansions should not significantly increase player power to the point where older content and items no longer matter.
6) In general, level caps should be increased only rarely in expansions, not every time.
With those things in mind, I think the real question is what's a reasonable pace for VR to be able to deliver? I don't think any of us want to see micro-expansions where we get a couple of new zones and some quests and that's it. That necessarily means that expansions don't happen every few months, but probably a year or more between them. I think that's ok - expansions should feel significant, and when we get one, we should expect months of new stuff to do and explore.
As for how many expansions the game can handle before someone really should just start talking about making Pantheon 2? Heck if I know. Dozens, hopefully.
As far as DLCs go, I'm not quite sure where you draw the line between a DLC and an expansion. In my mind, a DLC might be something smaller - EQ2's experiment with Adventure Packs comes to mind. In general though I think it's better to avoid DLCs, and instead save those things for major expansions, where the content and features can be more fully fleshed out and integrated with the rest of the world, instead of being compartmentalized.
I am going to echo Vandraad as being on the side of expansions being built in to the monthly subscription - add an extra $5 per month. I will also add that having it automatic doesn't segregate the player base between those who have paid for an expansion and those who have not paid for the expansion - and all the necessary checks and balances to keep those two playerbases playing together at the same time. Not everyone will pay for an expansion at the same time (for whatever reason). So having it automatic eliminates that nuance.
As to the question about "too many?" If content is too slow the playerbase may quit between expansions and only rejoin when a new expansion comes out. So it should be paced to the majority of players pace in the game. If content is too fast then older content eventually just becomes a wasteland and the majority of players are playing at too fast a pace for the game to keep up. Not too slow and not too fast but closely matching the pace of the majority of the playerbase.
Personally, I would go with 1 per 12 - 18 months. But don't really have a basis for that since I haven't experienced Pantheon, yet. Nor have any idea what the pace of play and experience is going to be like. Hopefully it will be such the playerbase wants to experience everything.
muscoby said:I am going to echo Vandraad as being on the side of expansions being built in to the monthly subscription - add an extra $5 per month. I will also add that having it automatic doesn't segregate the player base between those who have paid for an expansion and those who have not paid for the expansion - and all the necessary checks and balances to keep those two playerbases playing together at the same time. Not everyone will pay for an expansion at the same time (for whatever reason). So having it automatic eliminates that nuance.
I'd rather just pay for the expansions than pay an additional $60-90+ dollars for each expansion (assuming 1 year to 18 months for each).
Also, tacking expansions into the price of monthly subs and having it automaticly added for all when released doesn't share the cost evenly among players. The more dedicated fans end up fronting by far the most money for others who might only drop a couple months in absorbing each new expansions content. I don't really want to feel like I am subsudizing someone elses cost.
Release one every year or two. Give yourselves the time to release an expansion that adds to the world/story line/introduces new locales. For additional income over time possibly consider optional limited time supporter packs during the month of your release birthday, summer, and winter. ie: Crate of Grim Dawn released a 2nd supporter pack that for less than $10 bucks gives the player a number of skins.
I'm in the camp where if you look at the subscription cost and a general trend in the software industry today of Software as a Service (SaaS), Netflix, Spotify, etc. Pantheon should fall in the category that some companies have been exploring as Gaming as a Service. That being said, a complete and well baked game that has minimalized the amount of bugs should be part of our subscription fee. I'm not in favor of DLC and if expansions are coming, then lump them in as part of the Gaming as a Service cost even if that means upping the sub to 18-20 a month.
I would be in the camp of 12-18 months for new DLCs, but the one to follow Vanilla should be at least 18 months out. As far as quantity, I'm fine with any amount as long as they don't constantly kill the meta to force you to reroll or redo chars.