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 are never enough. So long as you have a viable playerbase to support further creation of content, keep creating that content.
There is no 'right answer' here, for reasons that have already been pointed out.
An expansion is needed when some 'critical mass' of players has consumed enough of the content that they are starting to get bored. I'm sure there are some statistical analyses that have been done to suggest how many players that is, but I don't know the answer. My personal preference is that the world will be rich & complex enough that we won't need an expansion for at least 2 years after release (and eventually after the previous expansion). Longer would be better to me. I expect to purchase expansion packs.
As far as DLCs go, I think of them as much smaller and included in the sub price. How many? As many as VR can comfortably turn out. With the caveat many have mentioned, that I'd much prefer quality over quantity.
For comparison, my first MMO was AC. They only released 2 expansion packs over 17 years of the game's life. However, they released new content in monthly patches, 12 times a year, for nearly 15 straight years. Included in your sub. While the occasional glitch snuck in with a patch and earned plenty of gripes, I never heard anyone complain about getting new content every month.
FlushingToiletScreamingShower said: As long as quality remains high, why limit content?
Pretty much my opinion, but you should keep in mind that some might not appreciate paying extra every few months or falling behind. Either make expansion content unneccessary to enjoy most of the game like warhammer, or only release it every year or less like every mmo.
Personally, id rather not see any DLC.
I'm much more interested in full expansions that have had the same level of passion and care poured into them as the base game.
If we are talking proper big expansions like the original EQ ones then one every 18 months or so.
What is most important is that:
- The 'Top 20%' of people have a max. of ~6 months between finishing all zones and when expansion is released
-- There are also some very long / hard quests that act as a sink in this period AND/OR some smaller releases / DLC to lower the gap
- The 'main' group of people don't run out of content before expansion is released
- That mudinflation is kept under control. Ideally equiptment drops max. of one level per expansion from
-- BEST (top 1%) / VERY GOOD (Top 5%) / GOOD (Top 10%) / ABOVE AVERAGE (Top 25%) / COMMON / VENDOR
-- e.g. if you getthe best weapon in the base game , it would still be in the top 5% of weapons in expansion , and even three expansions later (4 years) would still be better than was commonly availible.
My main issue with expansions is the ever-increasing level cap. I don't think more content is a bad thing but the way new content is implemented is.
My personal thoughts are that if your world is a living breathing entity then it is going to undergo evolution and change over time. Adding new areas is great but not evolving the base world is a wasted oppertunity. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a situation where players are reset to level one and are forced to experience a world that has undergone a drastic change. The players would be able to keep items and personal progress from previous expansions but some areas would no longer be accessible or would have changed drastically. For example, I could see a situation where Black Rose Keep might be overrun by vampires and the mobs encountered there would be drastically different vs what they are at launch. I could see an earthquake collapsing tunnels in a dungeon but also opening up new ones that lead to areas that were long forgotten.
I really love the concept of what WoW Cataclysm tried to do with its world revamp, but the issue was that very few people got to experience it in its entirety. People who were already at the max level really didn't have the need to go into the revamped zones, and there were faster ways to level up new characters that bypassed most of the new world. In my honest opinion, it was a great revamp for the world and fit the theme of the expansion, but it was wasted development time based on the number of people who actually had a reason to play through that content.
I've got no issue with a steady stream of expansions. Annually seems about right.
What I have issues with is when an expansion increases the level cap, and the only level appropriate content is found in that expansion's zones. This becomes an issue when leveling alts, because it becomes monotonous and repetitious doing the same content for each alt. Higher level quests and mobs need to be added all around the world, not just in the expansion zones.
This is more of a long-term planning issue.
SIMPLE:
You have too many XPACS/DLC's when a new player (especially a long retired player comes back) logs into the game and there is so much stuff going on that they can't grasp it all.
I went back to retail WoW about 3 times and each time was worse and worse. I played up the original classic and a little bit of TBC (or was it the one after), but when I tried to go back around the panda expac, the game was completely changed. Skill trees were all kinds of messed up, the classes didn't even look like themselves. I was bombarded by all these new things like garrisons, and the mythic dungeons, and the epic/mythic weapon thing, and this and that from 3 expacs ago, and this new thing you had to level up to be "good" from 2 expacs ago, and these 3 new professions that happend 5 xpacs ago, etc etc etc etc. It was just overwhelming and just made it easier to just log back out.
Nobody gonna mention Turbine and Asherons Call which ran subscription based from 1999-2015 and literally put in monthly updates (maybe just 2 new quests or dungeons each time along with some bug fixes) and only had 2 actual "separate purchase" expanions over that entire time (Dark Majesty expansion in 2001 or 2002, and Throne of Destinyt expansion in 2005)? Personally I loved this as a way to make the game feel fresh and new on a regular basis, and save expansions for something actually big/world altering. While I understand games like ESO and others put out a full expansion each year, this is by no means the only way to regularly add new content to a game.
DakmorKavu said:Nobody gonna mention Turbine and Asherons Call which ran subscription based from 1999-2015 and literally put in monthly updates (maybe just 2 new quests or dungeons each time along with some bug fixes) and only had 2 actual "separate purchase" expanions over that entire time (Dark Majesty expansion in 2001 or 2002, and Throne of Destinyt expansion in 2005)? Personally I loved this as a way to make the game feel fresh and new on a regular basis, and save expansions for something actually big/world altering. While I understand games like ESO and others put out a full expansion each year, this is by no means the only way to regularly add new content to a game.
I'm a fan of Asheron's Call 2; AC1 to a lesser extent. I have used certain aspects of AC2 as a reference in a few posts here. Particularly it's 'player music system' and the way surveying/harvesting was done in that game. As far as adding content to the game, I tend to have disdain for anything but full expansions, because I've seen too many of the more frequent content additions devolve into a gimmicky, "Hey look, we added 2 new mounts, a new set of horse armor, and a wizards tower" kind of thing. If you are going to add new content to the game, do it right. I don't want to see these underwhelming money grab type of additions whipped together by a skeleton crew.
Nephele said: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.
I agree with you on points #4 and #5, but disagree with you on point #6 (I know you said this before becoming a dev).
I think it's a conflict of interest (business reasons) for developers to release an expansion while not giving players "more power". I'm not saying I'm against releasing an expansion without giving players more power, it's just a conflict of interest. Why? Because you have to sell expansions when you release them, else, what's the point of investing in them? I don’t think players will buy expansions to just add more to what they already have, power wise.
Therefore, I believe the only solution to #4 or #5 is to increase the level cap each expansion, but only release expansions once every 2 years or so.
Reason being, seeing my earlier point, if you have to give players more power for business reasons to sell the expansion, raising the cap allows you to give players more power without mudflating the existing game.
For example; if a game has a level range of 1-50 and you release an expansion with better items with no level increase, now what’s good at 50 pre-expansion gets pushed down to like level 45 or 40, because level 50 players now have better items. – Following my rule, if you increase the level to 55, you can still give players new items with more power - at level’s 51-55. Then, if you do want to add ‘more of the same’, you can add more content for pre-50’s levels but you don’t have to make the items better for the same level as pre-expansion. You are still giving them more power with the increase level range thus giving them a reason to buy.
In closing, mudflation will happen in either system but I think it would be slower in my recommendation.
bigdogchris - I am inclined to agree with Nephele's point 6 for the same reasons I agree with points 4 and 5. VR may find it necessary to raise level caps for the reasons you give and, if so, fine, but there are often other alternatives.
1. Offer different incentives to encourage us to buy an expansion. Perhaps with a choice of packages from reasonably priced to rather expensive. A new race may not be too burdensome to crank out every few years. A new class may not be too burdensome. Many of us will buy access to new areas of the world even without these things. Of course, expansions in other games often include cosmetic items, mounts, housing items and other things that do not make the characters stronger.
LOTRO often offers xp boosts - as in an earing that increases xp by 25% up to a certain level. This would be a terrible idea at launch - we want progress to be slow. In two or four years an item "to help new characters catch up to the levels of most existing characters and be able to do that content" may not run afoul of basic tenets. These can raise nice amounts of cash.
2. There are many reasons for feeling point 6 is important. My number one reason which has been reinforced by experience in other games as the level caps go up and up is simply the discouragement factor for new players and creation of new characters. The longer it takes to get to maximum level the harder it is and the more time it will take - other things being equal. Of course, VR can always offer boosts to maximum level or maximum level -10 as part of an expansion package. For a single character.
dorotea said:2. There are many reasons for feeling point 6 is important. My number one reason which has been reinforced by experience in other games as the level caps go up and up is simply the discouragement factor for new players and creation of new characters. The longer it takes to get to maximum level the harder it is and the more time it will take - other things being equal.
I agree with you about the discouragement factor of a higher cap. But that's why you have to be careful with how often you release expansions. If you release an expansion every 2 years with a 5 level increase, after 10 years you have raised the cap to 75 (from 50). I don't think it's that out of reach for new players considering at launch there are already 50 they have to get through to begin with.
But one thing you are not factoring in here is how the world is designed, which is another passion point for me. In a lot of these games, the developers are releasing expansions that pull players away from the starting areas of the game. So yeah, when new players log in they have a few more levels to get to max out, but also are dealing with an empty world because all the players are in far-off lands -never to return home.
If the expansions are not designed to remove players from the starting areas, so that all adventures start from your home city - even at max level - when new players start they will always see others are still playing and encourage themselves to keep playing.
There can not be too many expansions. Pantheon is perfectly set up for this, with the idea of parts of other worlds impacting Terminus. I do agree with Neph. 1 - 6. There is no need to raise the level cap by very much at all. Expansions should cost money. $30-$50. I don't think you can fund expansions out of current income. If we want more classes, and more content, that costs money.
Every 12-18 months.
Don't invalidate old content and items (new expansion gear in the first group dungeon with better drops than the previous raid content).
Don't create brand new convenience zones in the new area that everyone uses instead, turning the old cities into ghost towns.
More horizontal progression than vertical, don't increase the level cap every expansion.
AC and EVE have both done free expansions as part of their subscriptions for a long time.
DakmorKavu said: Nobody gonna mention Turbine and Asherons Call which ran subscription based from 1999-2015 and literally put in monthly updates (maybe just 2 new quests or dungeons each time along with some bug fixes) and only had 2 actual "separate purchase" expanions over that entire time (Dark Majesty expansion in 2001 or 2002, and Throne of Destinyt expansion in 2005)? Personally I loved this as a way to make the game feel fresh and new on a regular basis, and save expansions for something actually big/world altering. While I understand games like ESO and others put out a full expansion each year, this is by no means the only way to regularly add new content to a game.
Jothany said: For comparison, my first MMO was AC. They only released 2 expansion packs over 17 years of the game's life. However, they released new content in monthly patches, 12 times a year, for nearly 15 straight years. Included in your sub. While the occasional glitch snuck in with a patch and earned plenty of gripes, I never heard anyone complain about getting new content every month.
It's cool. Once a thread reaches several pages, I often don't want to read every reply before I comment :) Nice to see another citizen of Dereth. What server did you play on? I was on Solclaim.