What if Destiny was $95 with 2 FREE expansions?

I'm wondering about price and value perception here.

Currently
Destiny - $60 - Standard edition at release
Expansion Pass - $34.99 - 2 Expansions
Limited Edition - $99 - Includes Expansion Pass + Steelbook case and extras
Ghost Edition - $149 - As Limited + Ghost Model and more extras

What if
Destiny - $95 - Full game + 2 FREE Expansions in 2016!
Limited - $99 - As above + Steelbook case and Digital and Physical extras
Ghost Edition - $149 - As above + Ghost Model and EVEN MORE extras

If you want all of Destiny, you're going to be getting the Expansion Pass. With not only multiplayer maps, but also story missions, co-op activities and new gear, they're going to be much more valuable to more people than Halo map packs ever were.

That is already $95 spent on this game. Instead of bothering with extra cards with codes on them (so fiddly and annoying), why not just raise the buy-in price and then let every copy access the Expansions as soon as they're released?

That gives much more $ per copy for the eager Day Oners and a lot more headroom to discount it overtime. If Steam Sales have taught us anything, it's that gamers love a (perceived) bargain. e.g. a $95 Destiny could be 37% off and still be $60.

Sometimes I think the only reason this hasn't happened yet is that no-one has had the balls to try it. No one has had the requisite confidence in their game and their fans reaction to it.

The industry seems to have got it into their collective heads that success must be DAY 1 OR DIE. That pre-order numbers are god and you can't upset the status quo. EA might struggle with something like this, but I think Bungie's quality bar is high enough that they could pull it off if they tried.

Obviously the Day 1 sales would be way down, but if the revenue is up then what does it matter? How many wouldn't buy, and would continue not to buy through successive discounts, compared to everyone paying $60 on launch day?

This would totally change the comparative price of the LE and Ghost Editions as well. Instead of having to really dig around inside the LE's content list and find the Expansion Pass there to justify most of the price difference, it just becomes a simple $5 upgrade (like Halo 2 to Halo 2 LE was). The Ghost Edition, instead of being 2.5x the price of the regular edition, is just 1.6x the price instead.

A lot of games, especially the big ones (like Halo), have had this massive peak of activity at launch, a sharp initial decline, then a long slow decline to their inevitable death. I think it might actually be a good thing for the game's health (and server stability :P) to split this peak up over time into coordinated stages of discount and get a fresh round of players in.

Have release at $95, then discount it 3 months later in time for Christmas and re-promote. Discount again at Expansion 1 release with a new round of promotion and discount a 3rd time at Expansion 2 with a final round of promotion. When Destiny 2 releases, offer a bundle that includes Destiny 1.

Think it would work?

locked

3689 views

It's a fairly complex issue which I won't fully get into [especially as the paragraphs got lost when I accidentally closed the tab].

Suffice to say, their would be uproar, it would creative a negativity that Acti & Bungie would be happier to avoid, as such a change would filter down to the masses, like the Xbox DRM details did.

--------------------------------------------------

My personal distaste for your suggestion comes from the fact is - what if I end up disliking Destiny? Like with the Halo 4 map pass, I was paying for the content I did not want in the end, but could not have really know their quality, or the quality of the game in advance.
We don't even know how substantial and necessary these expansions really are.

locked

3463 views

My personal distaste for your suggestion comes from the fact is - what if I end up disliking Destiny?

Sell your copy. There would be fewer in circulation so individual copies would retain their value better. Especially if codes for DLC can't be 'used up' by the original purchaser.

locked

3380 views

This is 89.99 and includes the expansions (I think--though the wording was very strange saying reservation for the DLC instead of included DLC, so correct me if I'm wrong).

It's just a shame that this edition is exclusively available for PS4 (as far as I can tell).

locked

3438 views

- No text -

locked

3374 views

This is 89.99 and includes the expansions (I think--though the wording was very strange saying reservation for the DLC instead of included DLC, so correct me if I'm wrong).

It's just a shame that this edition is exclusively available for PS4 (as far as I can tell).

Oh I've been assuming it'll be available on XB1 and that XB1 has not sorted out digital pre-orders yet and that is why we haven't seen it.

locked

3408 views

This is 89.99 and includes the expansions (I think--though the wording was very strange saying reservation for the DLC instead of included DLC, so correct me if I'm wrong).

It's just a shame that this edition is exclusively available for PS4 (as far as I can tell).

Seems to be available for PS3 as well.

locked

3398 views

It's not enough to chase after a carrot on the stick, now sometimes there's not even a carrot.

locked

3427 views

- No text -

locked

3375 views

Buying a season pass is buying content that doesn't exist. So, there's really no carrot. There's the promise that there will be a carrot, a mystery carrot with unknown characteristics, but there is no carrot.

locked

3417 views

- No text -

locked

3370 views

Yeah, that's another silly thing we do, but at least we're given enough information and media to make a generally informed decision. Plus the preorder minimum is 1/12 the total cost, not 100% up front.

locked

3403 views

Yeah, that's another silly thing we do, but at least we're given enough information and media to make a generally informed decision. Plus the preorder minimum is 1/12 the total cost, not 100% up front.

$0 from some retailers.

locked

3424 views

Yeah, that's another silly thing we do, but at least we're given enough information and media to make a generally informed decision. Plus the preorder minimum is 1/12 the total cost, not 100% up front.

Paying for pre-orders is optional. Pre-ordering itself is optional. There are fans who do feel like they have enough info to make an informed decision about the expansions. It's like when the Beatles announced they would have a new album coming out in December, 1965. A lot of people were positive they wanted to buy it before they knew what the cover looked like. Others could hold off until they'd heard more.

One could say it's horrible that people are so willing to commit on so little information, but on the other hand, it's only horrible when people ending up feeling unhappy with their purchase, and at that point, pre-orders for the next thing will drop off. Being able to fill seats because of your track record is a good thing for artistic endeavors, especially those that require significant expense to produce. The creators get more leverage, which translates into more artistic freedom given by the financiers, who want to keep the goose happy.

locked

3434 views

Yeah, that's another silly thing we do, but at least we're given enough information and media to make a generally informed decision. Plus the preorder minimum is 1/12 the total cost, not 100% up front.

Paying for pre-orders is optional. Pre-ordering itself is optional. There are fans who do feel like they have enough info to make an informed decision about the expansions. It's like when the Beatles announced they would have a new album coming out in December, 1965. A lot of people were positive they wanted to buy it before they knew what the cover looked like. Others could hold off until they'd heard more.

One could say it's horrible that people are so willing to commit on so little information, but on the other hand, it's only horrible when people ending up feeling unhappy with their purchase, and at that point, pre-orders for the next thing will drop off. Being able to fill seats because of your track record is a good thing for artistic endeavors, especially those that require significant expense to produce. The creators get more leverage, which translates into more artistic freedom given by the financiers, who want to keep the goose happy.

Pre-ordering a game implies a certain amount of content. Pre-ordering an album implies a certain amount of content. Season passes--you could be getting anything, nothing is certain.

locked

3453 views

Pre-ordering a game implies a certain amount of content. Pre-ordering an album implies a certain amount of content. Season passes--you could be getting anything, nothing is certain.

"Expand your Destiny adventure with brand new story missions, cooperative activities, competitive multiplayer arenas, and a wealth of all new weapons, armor, and gear to earn. "

That's from Amazon's description of the Xbox Limited Edition. That's not anything. The first two items alone provide enough info for me to make a purchasing decision (considered alongside what I know about the game, what I've played of the game, and my past experience with Bungie).

YMMV, and that's okay.

locked

3461 views

The $59 price point is sacrosanct in the industry and, even more importantly, within the psychological comfort zone for many gamers. This game is a new IP that NEEDS to sell to everyone who might have an interest, and that interest isn't (or hasn't been) as great as we might think here in the hothouse that is DBO. This isn't some boutique product like Steel Battalion. Also, from a strictly practical point of view, I don't think we should underestimate what a difference $30 makes to kids depending on allowances, college students depending on trade-in values, and the scores of people who have the budget to buy only one or two new games per year.

Edit: also meant to add, day one sales matter more than ever. There's too much competition for gamers' attention.

locked

3487 views

The $59 price point is sacrosanct in the industry and, even more importantly, within the psychological comfort zone for many gamers. This game is a new IP that NEEDS to sell to everyone who might have an interest, and that interest isn't (or hasn't been) as great as we might think here in the hothouse that is DBO. This isn't some boutique product like Steel Battalion. Also, from a strictly practical point of view, I don't think we should underestimate what a difference $30 makes to kids depending on allowances, college students depending on trade-in values, and the scores of people who have the budget to buy only one or two new games per year.

Edit: also meant to add, day one sales matter more than ever. There's too much competition for gamers' attention.

Yes - any deviation from the magic $60 is tempting the rage of gamers everywhere. Not to say that you don't have a point - it does seem that the "real" version of Destiny will cost about $100 bucks. The $60 + expansion pass just breaks it up into line-items...a technicality, really.

I used to affiliate the term "gamers" with terms like savvy, progressive, enlightened. The last couple of years have turned that perception directly on its head. "Gamers" it seems, has no single demographic, and en masse tends to be cranky, ill-tempered, resistant to change, and way too certain of game development judgement (yes, I realize the irony of that statement, I am part of the demographic).

IMO, an investment of, say, $40 for 100+ hours of entertainment is easily justified. Especially considering:

Beer at bar: $3.00 - $6.00 per
Movie at theater: $10-$20 per
Footlong meal at Subway: $7-$10
Tank of gas: $30-$60

Further, if one were to put away $2 per day for a year, they'd have enough to buy an new console and multiple games. Seems like a reasonable investment for a lot of entertainment.

However, Bluerunner's (I think) pointed out that $100 is a lot to pay for a game that he might not like. As a barrier for entry, that's pretty steep. By letting people at least get in at $60, your product can do the job of selling/justifying the expansions.

Good topic though. I was just thinking last night the Destiny (with it's extensive DLCs) is essentially the first $100 game.

locked

3408 views

The $59 price point is sacrosanct in the industry and, even more importantly, within the psychological comfort zone for many gamers.

I certainly don't believe the US market is special in this regard - not the same territory where people are saying they can't find places to pre-order the Ghost Edition mere days after it was announced.

As I mentioned in another thread, in the UK many new games are already breaking the previous norm of £40. Call of Duty began selling at £45 a few years ago and people still lapped it up. 8th gen games are frequently selling at £50.

This game is a new IP that NEEDS to sell to everyone who might have an interest,

Sell with a higher margin and you don't need to sell to as many people to make the same profit. This is economics 101, isn't it?

The ideal price isn't what it's actually worth, but the one that maximises the overall profit.

etc. etc.

Also, from a strictly practical point of view, I don't think we should underestimate what a difference $30 makes to kids depending on allowances, college students depending on trade-in values, and the scores of people who have the budget to buy only one or two new games per year.

If they're that price sensitive, they shouldn't be buying new games on release day in the first place. Get pre-owned games, rent, borrow or share. Have some bloody patience. About half my library was picked up way after release for steep discounts. I played a bunch more games in my youth by trading with my friends at school. Still have those discs, ya know.

locked

3432 views

The ideal price isn't what it's actually worth, but the one that maximises the overall profit.

Over what period of time, though? And maybe that's not the only measure here. Maybe a more important question for Bungie (and maybe for Activision, too, if the numbers work out) is how can they maximize the number of gamers playing their game?

etc. etc.

Also, from a strictly practical point of view, I don't think we should underestimate what a difference $30 makes to kids depending on allowances, college students depending on trade-in values, and the scores of people who have the budget to buy only one or two new games per year.

If they're that price sensitive, they shouldn't be buying new games on release day in the first place. Get pre-owned games, rent, borrow or share. Have some bloody patience. About half my library was picked up way after release for steep discounts. I played a bunch more games in my youth by trading with my friends at school. Still have those discs, ya know.

Sharing is caring, dude. I think they're aiming to change gaming. I think the goal is get everybody playing TOGETHER, including that huge mass of people who never do that. I've got a 50-something year-old friend at work who I recently found out was a gamer. He never plays with anyone. We've played a few games together now, and he's like a kid in a candy store. The idea is not to pick up the game in a dusty bin many months from now, and digest it like you might last summer's blockbuster movie. The point is to play it now, with everyone else.

locked

3423 views

Sharing is caring, dude. I think they're aiming to change gaming. I think the goal is get everybody playing TOGETHER, including that huge mass of people who never do that.

If they were, you wouldn't have four completely separate platforms. They would use their clout to either get interoperability, which is technically possible demonstrably between XBox 360 and PS3, or they would have made a unified platform.

The move to always online is about making sure used games are less attractive (since if you buy it years later, you have nobody to play with), and forcing you to buy DLC when all your friends are playing it. I am sure part of it is a creative decision, but part of it is strictly business as well. Especially when playing alone still requires a connection.

locked

3449 views

Sharing is caring, dude. I think they're aiming to change gaming. I think the goal is get everybody playing TOGETHER, including that huge mass of people who never do that.

If they were, you wouldn't have four completely separate platforms. They would use their clout to either get interoperability, which is technically possible demonstrably between XBox 360 and PS3, or they would have made a unified platform.

The move to always online is about making sure used games are less attractive (since if you buy it years later, you have nobody to play with), and forcing you to buy DLC when all your friends are playing it. I am sure part of it is a creative decision, but part of it is strictly business as well. Especially when playing alone still requires a connection.

I'm willing to bet Bungie would LOVE a unified platform. I think there's a limit to their clout.

If their creative vision was to create a shared, dynamic world, then requiring a connection is necessary to achieve it.

locked

3393 views

This has got me thinking... With the soon to be updated Bungie.net and the companion app you can look at your stats and swap around your loadout. And it'll work on any platform. What happens if you own Destiny on say 360 and One? That'd be the same Xbox Live account, right?

Just spin it from there and I'm sure we can make a half supported argument for true cross platform play! :p

locked

3374 views

This has got me thinking... With the soon to be updated Bungie.net and the companion app you can look at your stats and swap around your loadout. And it'll work on any platform. What happens if you own Destiny on say 360 and One? That'd be the same Xbox Live account, right?

Just spin it from there and I'm sure we can make a half supported argument for true cross platform play! :p

I'm curious to see how this works. We'll know Soon™.

locked

3354 views

Just spin it from there and I'm sure we can make a half supported argument for true cross platform play! :p

Well... an argument that it's technically possible, yes. But no one was denying that to begin with. The question has never been whether it's technically doable.

locked

3364 views

Sadly.

locked

3352 views

Like it's already been said, what if you don't want the DLC? They'd be forcing people to pay more money for something they don't want. It's better how it is now. If it ain't broke...

locked

3395 views

Like it's already been said, what if you don't want the DLC? They'd be forcing people to pay more money for something they don't want.

How can you possibly know you don't want them? If it was $60 with 2 included Expansions would you still argue that you're 'paying for stuff you don't want'?

Upping the price and including everything would be changing the proposition to be more total. i.e. Destiny is ALL OF THIS and you can be in or out at whatever price it is. A reaction against the perception of 'nickle and dimeing people to death' that is often thrown about with the rise of DLC. It also solves the awkwardness of DLC being relatively more expensive for the amount of content compared to the original game.

Do you think going the other way and breaking the game up more would be preferable?

Story mode: $20
Strikes and Raids: $20
PvP: $20
Expansion 1: $20
Expansion 2: $20

Perhaps you should pay by the mission, level or by the weapon? Completely a la carte! Nothing you don't want!

You want to argue that one? I'd love to read that.

It's better how it is now. If it ain't broke...

Heh. I'd also love to read an argument about how the games industry is perfect.

locked

3432 views

Like it's already been said, what if you don't want the DLC? They'd be forcing people to pay more money for something they don't want.

How can you possibly know you don't want them? If it was $60 with 2 included Expansions would you still argue that you're 'paying for stuff you don't want'?

Upping the price and including everything would be changing the proposition to be more total. i.e. Destiny is ALL OF THIS and you can be in or out at whatever price it is. A reaction against the perception of 'nickle and dimeing people to death' that is often thrown about with the rise of DLC. It also solves the awkwardness of DLC being relatively more expensive for the amount of content compared to the original game.

then you get to play the "what constitutes a full game" game. Let's say that destiny was $90, but it was marketed as "full game plus DLC." Then another publisher comes along and charges $90 for a game with no DLC, but they market as being "50% longer than a normal game" or something.

Over time people get used to the higher price point, then the incentive of "included DLC" goes away.

Then they start coming out with separate DLC again, and the price point raises to $120.

locked

3467 views

then you get to play the "what constitutes a full game" game.

The worst part is that there's now DLC for that game, too.

locked

3431 views

Made by non-union workers ahead of time!

locked

3418 views

What I mean is, if you force someone to buy the DLC, and they don't like the game, then they just paid extra for an add-on for a game they have no interest in. I know the gaming industry isn't perfect, but what I was referring to was the system in place now in which DLC is and optional purchase aside from the game. If you sold one version that came with the two add-ons separate from the default $60 copy, that would make more sense. Making a $90 version the cheapest, default version, is a bad idea.

locked

3446 views

If it were 60 bucks with the two expansions free, I could get behind that.

These expansions are planned, and already being worked on. Essentially, being part of the game, we are being sold a game that is not content complete, nor artistically complete.

If you are going to plan on DLC even before the game launches, it needs to be free, or else not present at all.

DLC is going to be a huge hang up for me down the road. I have not bought any since the time trial maps in Mirror's Edge back in 2008.

I want to play Destiny, however I wonder if a bundle down the road would be a better option, similar to how I got Human Revolution with the DLC included a year after release. If a PC version is announced before launch, I will absolutely wait.

The term expansion is being thrown around, but expansions are very different from DLC, and what's planned is DLC, not an expansion.

locked

3472 views

The term expansion is being thrown around, but expansions are very different from DLC, and what's planned is DLC, not an expansion.

Do you work at Bungie or Activision now?

locked

3417 views

The term expansion is being thrown around, but expansions are very different from DLC, and what's planned is DLC, not an expansion.

Do you work at Bungie or Activision now?

Mmmm okay. I suppose you are right. It's MOST LIKELY not a real expansion. I'd be happy to be wrong on this.

locked

3405 views

These expansions are planned, and already being worked on. Essentially, being part of the game, we are being sold a game that is not content complete, nor artistically complete.

How do you figure that Destiny won't be content and artistically complete as is? If it has a solid beginning, middle, end, and plenty to do, even without its DLC, then where does the line get drawn between complete and incomplete? That more than the initial release of Destiny is planned and being worked on is pretty much a "duh" statement what with the Destiny series having been envisioned as stretching across a ten year time frame. Seems pretty hard to use "it was worked on before the game shipped" as a criteria vs a series with a ten year plan...

I prefer to look at DLC in a cost / benefit context. Did I get my money's worth of enjoyment out of x or y DLC? If yes, what does it matter when it was released or when it was worked on?

locked

3419 views

I prefer to look at DLC in a cost / benefit context. Did I get my money's worth of enjoyment out of x or y DLC? If yes, what does it matter when it was released or when it was worked on?

In a sense yes, because it's not just a matter of money, but a matter of design philosophy. If the content is significant enough that it greatly changes the experience, then it is either an expansion pack, where large amounts of content that is properly integrated are delivered, whereas DLC sold in chunks tends not to be integrated, but rather a piecemeal kind of thing. If you can piecemeal things, then they aren;t really that integrated.

Let's use Brood War as an example. Can you imagine if instead of buying the Brood War expansion, you could instead buy new units as DLC individually? It wouldn't work. The moment a Zerg player buys Lurkers, and faces a Terran opponent who did not buy medics, the game becomes incredibly imbalanced.

Rather, all the units are delivered in one chunk to everybody, so they can be balanced around each other and create a new set of rules and a new metagame. This is what I mean when I say DLC does not promote cohesion in game design.

As Claude said, it's POSSIBLE that the 2 'expansions' will be proper expansions in that they deeply change the rules of the game, but I have doubts given the current partnership, and what Bungie has said about their content creation tools.

If they ARE, I'd be more than happy to pony up.

locked

3406 views

Brood War is a great example of an expansion done right, with it's good new story campaign along with it's changes to multiplayer, but I don't think it's the only way to make an expansion. The single best piece of DLC I ever bought was Mass Effect 3's Citadel DLC. It added very little in the way of new or novel gameplay, but it was extremely worth it to me because of the new, fun locations I got to visit, the characters I got to met up with again in completely different (non-combat) circumstances, and the wonderfully humorous, in-joke laden storyline it provided. In all it added three or so short combat missions and was 100% incidental to Mass Effect 3's main plot even though it was set well before that game's final missions. What I take from the Citadel DLC is a good expansion neither has to add new gameplay or affect the overall story to earn "good expansion" status.

I imagine that Destiny's two known expansions will be more like the Mass Effect 3 expansions. That they'll add a fair amount of new missions and self contained story without drastically changing either the gameplay or the overall storyline of the main game. I'd be totally ok with that, even if they are 90% complete right, because again, it doesn't matter that much to me when they are worked on, but if I enjoyed them vs the price I payed for them.

locked

3390 views

Brood War is a great example of an expansion done right, with it's good new story campaign along with it's changes to multiplayer, but I don't think it's the only way to make an expansion. The single best piece of DLC I ever bought was Mass Effect 3's Citadel DLC. It added very little in the way of new or novel gameplay, but it was extremely worth it to me because of the new, fun locations I got to visit, the characters I got to met up with again in completely different (non-combat) circumstances, and the wonderfully humorous, in-joke laden storyline it provided. In all it added three or so short combat missions and was 100% incidental to Mass Effect 3's main plot even though it was set well before that game's final missions. What I take from the Citadel DLC is a good expansion neither has to add new gameplay or affect the overall story to earn "good expansion" status.

The fact that it is optional though, means that it's integrated less than if it were part of the whole package. If it were part of the game as sold, then it could be woven even more closely into the story. Since it is optional, it cannot, or else it wouldn't make sense.

It's the difference between a new adventure every episode, and a show like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones. With DLC, you get something like Star Trek TNG. Sure each episode is great, but you're more limited than if you can run all the episodes together in a complete story. Breaking Bad was praised precisely because the narrative was tight, without anything superfluous, which is only possible if every episode is tightly integrated into the narrative. Remove anything, and it suffers greatly.

Remove DLC, and nothing suffers. Because you never had it at first anyway.

locked

3425 views

Brood War is a great example of an expansion done right, with it's good new story campaign along with it's changes to multiplayer, but I don't think it's the only way to make an expansion. The single best piece of DLC I ever bought was Mass Effect 3's Citadel DLC. It added very little in the way of new or novel gameplay, but it was extremely worth it to me because of the new, fun locations I got to visit, the characters I got to met up with again in completely different (non-combat) circumstances, and the wonderfully humorous, in-joke laden storyline it provided. In all it added three or so short combat missions and was 100% incidental to Mass Effect 3's main plot even though it was set well before that game's final missions. What I take from the Citadel DLC is a good expansion neither has to add new gameplay or affect the overall story to earn "good expansion" status.

The fact that it is optional though, means that it's integrated less than if it were part of the whole package

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I love well told story arc shows. My favorites would be Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica, but that kind of story structure is by no means the only way to do things, especially in video games.

Take Skyrim for example:

It had big, open world gameplay, many many quests to complete, and several larger storylines that affected the world. But it also had two great optional DLCs that affected the world just as much as the main storylines. The DLCs were just as well integrated as any other part of the game. They added new locations, new enemies, new gameplay, new weapons, new abilities, but they were only a positive for players. Not having the DLCs didn't break or confuse or diminish anything in the base game in the least. Neither DLC was critical to the main story, but then Skyrim's main story wasn't exactly critical to Skyrim either. Skyrim's fun came from being in the open world of Skyrim. You could complete a major story quest, that would end with real changes to the world, or you could at the start of the game turn around and go the "wrong" way and have fun doing something else. It wasn't a TV show with a middle, beginning, and end that had to be tightly maintained, but that's why I can load it up today and still find significant new to me content some two years later.

I think Destiny could very well be quite similar. The world is going to keep on spinning for the foreseeable future no matter what we do, mainly to allow brand new players to play with day one veterans. With no actual end, Bungie will be free to tell additional stories that might feel just as important and that are just as well integrated as the base game's main story without confusing anyone. All it takes is a little clever writing and a few preplanned hooks in the base game's world. Desinty's DLC could possibly be only a positive, just like Skyrim's was.

locked

3433 views

It had big, open world gameplay, many many quests to complete, and several larger storylines that affected the world. But it also had two great optional DLCs that affected the world just as much as the main storylines. The DLCs were just as well integrated as any other part of the game. They added new locations, new enemies, new gameplay, new weapons, new abilities, but they were only a positive for players. Not having the DLCs didn't break or confuse or diminish anything in the base game in the least. Neither DLC was critical to the main story, but then Skyrim's main story wasn't exactly critical to Skyrim either. Skyrim's fun came from being in the open world of Skyrim. You could complete a major story quest, that would end with real changes to the world, or you could at the start of the game turn around and go the "wrong" way and have fun doing something else. It wasn't a TV show with a middle, beginning, and end that had to be tightly maintained, but that's why I can load it up today and still find significant new to me content some two years later.

It's not always about story. It's about aesthetics, mechanics, the entire simulation. Think bigger. The integration has to encompass all of that.

locked

3412 views

It had big, open world gameplay, many many quests to complete, and several larger storylines that affected the world. But it also had two great optional DLCs that affected the world just as much as the main storylines. The DLCs were just as well integrated as any other part of the game. They added new locations, new enemies, new gameplay, new weapons, new abilities, but they were only a positive for players. Not having the DLCs didn't break or confuse or diminish anything in the base game in the least. Neither DLC was critical to the main story, but then Skyrim's main story wasn't exactly critical to Skyrim either. Skyrim's fun came from being in the open world of Skyrim. You could complete a major story quest, that would end with real changes to the world, or you could at the start of the game turn around and go the "wrong" way and have fun doing something else. It wasn't a TV show with a middle, beginning, and end that had to be tightly maintained, but that's why I can load it up today and still find significant new to me content some two years later.

It's not always about story. It's about aesthetics, mechanics, the entire simulation. Think bigger. The integration has to encompass all of that.

I'm not sure I get what you trying to say here. Both DLCs added significant new locations to explore with their own new aesthetics. They added new weapons to use, new gameplay mechanics to experience, and new story missions as fully voiced and animated and complex as any in the base game. They even did some cleaver things where they took some gameplay elements and subverted them to provide a nice surprise to the player while still being entirely consistent with the world and story. All in all, they complimented the base game, significantly extending it without getting in the way of it.

What bigger is there to think? I don't understand what you would want in expansions that these didn't provide.

locked

3448 views

What bigger is there to think? I don't understand what you would want in expansions that these didn't provide.

I feel like I'd need to play this Skyrim DLC you mention to continue this discussion, however that won't happen since I think Skyrim is a bad game.

locked

3362 views

What bigger is there to think? I don't understand what you would want in expansions that these didn't provide.

I feel like I'd need to play this Skyrim DLC you mention to continue this discussion, however that won't happen since I think Skyrim is a bad game.

Look, I've gotten myself in a lot of trouble around here recently, on Bungie Day, by posting while I was angry and right now I'm angry. At you. So I'll keep this short and controlled:

I don't appreciate being told to "think bigger" only to have it revealed that you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't played the game in question. Or maybe you've played it but don't trust me when I said the DLC was very well integrated? Next time just say so instead of bringing up the "aesthetics, mechanics, the entire simulation." Next time, show a little respect and don't waste my time by spouting meaningless crap you can't back up.

I'm done here. :/

locked

3382 views

What bigger is there to think? I don't understand what you would want in expansions that these didn't provide.

I feel like I'd need to play this Skyrim DLC you mention to continue this discussion, however that won't happen since I think Skyrim is a bad game.

Look, I've gotten myself in a lot of trouble around here recently, on Bungie Day, by posting while I was angry and right now I'm angry. At you. So I'll keep this short and controlled:

I don't appreciate being told to "think bigger" only to have it revealed that you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't played the game in question.

Did I say I haven't played it? I said I thought it was a bad game. BECAUSE I PLAYED IT AND IT WAS BAD.

Read what I say and do not jump to conclusions. I tried to even phrase it nicely ("I think it's a bad game"). Why bother when you don't even read.

Of course you might think the DLC is well integrated, because Skyrim was bad to begin with and itself not really that well put together. It's easy to add a piece of trash to a pile of garbage and have it not feel out of place, but toss a butterfinger wrapper on David and it will stand out and ruin the sculpture.

locked

3448 views

What bigger is there to think? I don't understand what you would want in expansions that these didn't provide.

I feel like I'd need to play this Skyrim DLC you mention to continue this discussion, however that won't happen since I think Skyrim is a bad game.

Look, I've gotten myself in a lot of trouble around here recently, on Bungie Day, by posting while I was angry and right now I'm angry. At you. So I'll keep this short and controlled:

I don't appreciate being told to "think bigger" only to have it revealed that you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't played the game in question.

Did I say I haven't played it? I said I thought it was a bad game. BECAUSE I PLAYED IT AND IT WAS BAD.

Read what I say and do not jump to conclusions. I tried to even phrase it nicely ("I think it's a bad game"). Why bother when you don't even read.

I said: "I don't appreciate being told to "think bigger" only to have it revealed that you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't played the game in question. Or maybe you've played it but don't trust me when I said the DLC was very well integrated?"

Note the part in italics. I allowed for you having played it. Cutting off someone's quote then accusing them of not reading and jumping to conclusions. Not cool.

Of course you might think the DLC is well integrated, because Skyrim was bad to begin with and itself not really that well put together. It's easy to add a piece of trash to a pile of garbage and have it not feel out of place, but toss a butterfinger wrapper on David and it will stand out and ruin the sculpture.

As to Skyrim, I think I get it now. You decided to switch to talking about your dislike of Skyrim's "aesthetics, mechanics, the entire simulation" in the middle of a discussion about DLC integration without telling me. That you went on to mention "The integration has to encompass all of that." certainly helped confuse your point. I disagree that Skyrim is a bad game, but that's largely beside the point. If you want to discuss the merits of Skyrim start a new thread...

Skyrim did DLC right. That's the point here. Destiny, in all likelihood, will be a much more solid game than Skyrim, but thanks to its similar ongoing "living world" gameplay it might be able to integrate DLC just as well as Skyrim did. Where new stories, gameplay, graphics, weapons, enemies, locations, etc can be added in a way that doesn't confuse or detract from the main game but in fact only adds to it and makes the core game better.

Do you disagree with that? Can Destiny's DLC be done right?

locked

3459 views

Destiny, in all likelihood, will be a much more solid game than Skyrim, but thanks to its similar ongoing "living world" gameplay it might be able to integrate DLC just as well as Skyrim did.

From what I know, have seen, and have played, Destiny's world is certainly not a 'living world'. That really doesn't accurately describe it.

Do you disagree with that? Can Destiny's DLC be done right?

Perhaps our definitions of done right are different. I would say no, if it's DLC it cannot be done right. If it is more similar to an expansion pack, then absolutely it can be done right.

locked

3413 views

Destiny, in all likelihood, will be a much more solid game than Skyrim, but thanks to its similar ongoing "living world" gameplay it might be able to integrate DLC just as well as Skyrim did.

That's what Bungie advertises it as, right? A changing world that players will want to come back to? You have an advantage over me via the alpha, but neither have played much story or seen the extend of the DLC packs.

From what I know, have seen, and have played, Destiny's world is certainly not a 'living world'. That really doesn't accurately describe it.

Do you disagree with that? Can Destiny's DLC be done right?

Perhaps our definitions of done right are different. I would say no, if it's DLC it cannot be done right. If it is more similar to an expansion pack, then absolutely it can be done right.

You're quibbling over words. Stop, think bigger, and focus on the ideas: Additional paid content that extends a game like Destiny that will likely have no ending. If the hangup is really me typing DLC vs expansion then their is nothing to discuss because you are being purposely disenginous.

locked

3441 views

You're quibbling over words. Stop, think bigger, and focus on the ideas: Additional paid content that extends a game like Destiny that will likely have no ending. If the hangup is really me typing DLC vs expansion then their is nothing to discuss because you are being purposely disenginous.

Those words mean something both to Cody, and in the general populace/lexicon. I think, gently, that you don't understand how expansions (in that they fundamentally change the fabric of the game) are different from DLC (add-ons that can ultimately be ignored). These words, I think clearly, represent two different modes of thinking.

Think back to Skyrim, and compare it to Civilzation V's "Brave New World" expansion. In Skyrim, from the moment you're in that cart on the way to be executed, does it matter AT ALL if you plan to even PLAY THROUGH Dragonborn, Dawnguard, or Hearthfire? Nope. You can play and play and play and more or less ignore it save the random vampire attacks and occassion unfamiliar orphan. The game doesn't even recognize you NOT doing them. Hell they are even called plug-ins. ;)

Now take Civ V. From even before turn one you're already considering what Ideology you'll take, how it'll affect victory conditions, how that impacts your Civ choice, map choice, the entire game is affected by that change. It's also impossible to ignore. Granted, you don't have to play with Brave New World, but don't you dare call it the same game as Vanilla, or Gods and Kings versions.

I imagine if I'm a developer, if someone says we're going to be making DLC, or making an expansion, my mind set is entirely different right from the get go because of how these terms have developed over the years.

locked

3418 views

Good explanation.

Do you see why I argue one is better than the other now? Video games ARE art, and in art you want nothing wasted, and everything to have a purpose.

To be fair, the Destiny content packs ARE billed as expansions, but given their publisher and their attitude towards content so far, I have my doubts.

We'll wait and see.

locked

3495 views

Good explanation.

Do you see why I argue one is better than the other now? Video games ARE art, and in art you want nothing wasted, and everything to have a purpose.

I'm sympathetic to this view, but there are different forms to consider with different requirements. There are loose, baggy monsters that are Henry James novels, and then there are the concise, perfectly cut small diamonds that are Raymond Carver short stories.

Destiny looks like it might be expansive and large in scope, and that means that some content might not be as important as other content, but it all adds to the whole.

Is the Lord of the Rings art? I'd say so. Is every page of those books absolutely necessary? Debatable, but I'd say that a good deal of what might be called superfluous content adds to the verisimilitude of the world created.

locked

3489 views

I fully agree with this post. It's a tough position because I also agree with Cody, though I have seen instances of DLC absolutely being a must-play and something that really changes the status quo within a game's story. I'm mostly thinking about Mass Effct. I hope that the gameplay and story elements translate properly and work well with whatever Bungie has planned.

locked

3408 views

I fully agree with this post. It's a tough position because I also agree with Cody, though I have seen instances of DLC absolutely being a must-play and something that really changes the status quo within a game's story. I'm mostly thinking about Mass Effct. I hope that the gameplay and story elements translate properly and work well with whatever Bungie has planned.

Dammit, I still haven't played the last few pieces of Mass Effect DLC. DLC can take away from a game, too. I loved BioShock Infinite before the DLC. Now I just like it.

locked

3456 views

I fully agree with this post. It's a tough position because I also agree with Cody, though I have seen instances of DLC absolutely being a must-play and something that really changes the status quo within a game's story. I'm mostly thinking about Mass Effct. I hope that the gameplay and story elements translate properly and work well with whatever Bungie has planned.

Dammit, I still haven't played the last few pieces of Mass Effect DLC. DLC can take away from a game, too. I loved BioShock Infinite before the DLC. Now I just like it.

Mass Effect has this sneaky way of building on the main game through the DLC. It's ultimately DLC, but within that little chunk the game is tweaked and expanded. They've said, especially with the Omega ME3 DLC, that lessons were taken from their multiplayer experience. Having played both to death, I think that shines through.

It makes the DLC more satisfying, because that little chunk is expansion-like. Almost third-way-ish. Skyrim doesn't do this though, because the fundamentals don't change with the DLC, though plenty of cool things are added.

locked

3441 views

What bigger is there to think? I don't understand what you would want in expansions that these didn't provide.

I feel like I'd need to play this Skyrim DLC you mention to continue this discussion, however that won't happen since I think Skyrim is a bad game.

Based on this, I would be utterly shocked if you enjoyed them. Dragonborn especially is "more of what you love about Skyrim." And well, if you don't love it... haha.

locked

3405 views

I prefer to look at DLC in a cost / benefit context. Did I get my money's worth of enjoyment out of x or y DLC? If yes, what does it matter when it was released or when it was worked on?

In a sense yes, because it's not just a matter of money, but a matter of design philosophy. If the content is significant enough that it greatly changes the experience, then it is either an expansion pack, where large amounts of content that is properly integrated are delivered, whereas DLC sold in chunks tends not to be integrated, but rather a piecemeal kind of thing. If you can piecemeal things, then they aren;t really that integrated.

Let's use Brood War as an example. Can you imagine if instead of buying the Brood War expansion, you could instead buy new units as DLC individually? It wouldn't work. The moment a Zerg player buys Lurkers, and faces a Terran opponent who did not buy medics, the game becomes incredibly imbalanced.

Rather, all the units are delivered in one chunk to everybody, so they can be balanced around each other and create a new set of rules and a new metagame. This is what I mean when I say DLC does not promote cohesion in game design.

As Claude said, it's POSSIBLE that the 2 'expansions' will be proper expansions in that they deeply change the rules of the game, but I have doubts given the current partnership, and what Bungie has said about their content creation tools.

If they ARE, I'd be more than happy to pony up.

I don't agree with your logic because it is dependent on the game being so monolithic in it's meaning and design that adding piecemeal content couldn't possibly be "well integrated".

locked

3368 views

These expansions are planned, and already being worked on. Essentially, being part of the game, we are being sold a game that is not content complete, nor artistically complete.

If you are going to plan on DLC even before the game launches, it needs to be free, or else not present at all.

That's not really how making a game works...

locked

3361 views

That's not really how making a game works...

It was for almost 40 years…

locked

3345 views

That's not really how making a game works...

It was for almost 40 years…

Barring the fact that gamedev has changed over 40 years ( I mean, even modern indie dev looks dramatically different than the one man productions of yestyear) the idea that you can't take large chunks of content from pre production to ship in a couple months time while still finishing the rest of the game seems like a pretty well established fact.

locked

3356 views

That's not really how making a game works...

It was for almost 40 years…

Barring the fact that gamedev has changed over 40 years ( I mean, even modern indie dev looks dramatically different than the one man productions of yestyear) the idea that you can't take large chunks of content from pre production to ship in a couple months time while still finishing the rest of the game seems like a pretty well established fact.

And why do they insist folks keep working during that time? It's because of the backwards and inefficient way that game studios are managed. If it worked like the film industry, where you are hired, do your work, then leave when your work is done, then you wouldn't have artists and programmers sitting idle getting paid for nothing, thus requiring they work on content that can't be shipped with the game.

Throw in unions to cover healthcare, retirement, working conditions, and overtime.

One of these days the concept of a game development studio where you have permanent staff will be a thing of the past. Ken Levine will just hire people to make his game on a per project basis.

locked

3423 views

Barring the fact that gamedev has changed over 40 years ( I mean, even modern indie dev looks dramatically different than the one man productions of yestyear) the idea that you can't take large chunks of content from pre production to ship in a couple months time while still finishing the rest of the game seems like a pretty well established fact.

And why do they insist folks keep working during that time? It's because of the backwards and inefficient way that game studios are managed. If it worked like the film industry, where you are hired, do your work, then leave when your work is done, then you wouldn't have artists and programmers sitting idle getting paid for nothing, thus requiring they work on content that can't be shipped with the game.

Throw in unions to cover healthcare, retirement, working conditions, and overtime.

One of these days the concept of a game development studio where you have permanent staff will be a thing of the past. Ken Levine will just hire people to make his game on a per project basis.

That... seems like a bit much. Is that really how it works with movies? I heard about companies forming and disbanding a lot, but no permanent employees anywhere? That seems unlikely, surely the larger companies have permanent employees-- and yes, I mean besides CEOs and managers. Regardless, it doesn't address other creative industries (which I would go into more detail about, but frankly I don't understand the industry side that well).
That's not to say I'm not in favor of unions or rules protecting retirement, working conditions, and all that, game developers deserve to have their rights and interests represented and protected like other workers in the free world, I'm just talking about the turnover (if that's the right term).

locked

3356 views

That... seems like a bit much. Is that really how it works with movies? I heard about companies forming and disbanding a lot, but no permanent employees anywhere? That seems unlikely, surely the larger companies have permanent employees-- and yes, I mean besides CEOs and managers. Regardless, it doesn't address other creative industries (which I would go into more detail about, but frankly I don't understand the industry side that well).

When a film is made, a company is (usually) formed, usually with the film title. So if I'm working on Blue Harvest, a company 'Blue Harvest LLC' will form. This is the entity that pays me, and what's on my checks. The company is backed financially by either a studio, or independent investors.

The company exists only to produce the film. Unless you want to work on one film all your life, then nobody is a permanent employee.

Back in the days when the Studio system dominated Hollywood, this was different. Fox or MGM would pay you, but you worked for them and only them (unless you were loaned out). You didn't have a ton of choice and had to take scripts the studios had. There's a reason why this is no longer how movies are made :-p

locked

3377 views

That's not really how making a game works...

It was for almost 40 years…

Barring the fact that gamedev has changed over 40 years ( I mean, even modern indie dev looks dramatically different than the one man productions of yestyear) the idea that you can't take large chunks of content from pre production to ship in a couple months time while still finishing the rest of the game seems like a pretty well established fact.

And why do they insist folks keep working during that time? It's because of the backwards and inefficient way that game studios are managed. If it worked like the film industry, where you are hired, do your work, then leave when your work is done, then you wouldn't have artists and programmers sitting idle getting paid for nothing, thus requiring they work on content that can't be shipped with the game.

Throw in unions to cover healthcare, retirement, working conditions, and overtime.

One of these days the concept of a game development studio where you have permanent staff will be a thing of the past. Ken Levine will just hire people to make his game on a per project basis.

While I think that makes a lot of sense for big budget AAA titles (Though, whether the AAA/Major motion picture model for games is something to expand is another issue), I don't think it answers the idea that turning around and building/integrating a DLC/Expansion that's still in pre production with 2 months till release is feasible. In fact, doesn't that just make the division between people doing pre production and production sharper, allowing for more situations like this?

locked

3321 views

That's not really how making a game works...

It was for almost 40 years…

Barring the fact that gamedev has changed over 40 years ( I mean, even modern indie dev looks dramatically different than the one man productions of yestyear) the idea that you can't take large chunks of content from pre production to ship in a couple months time while still finishing the rest of the game seems like a pretty well established fact.

And why do they insist folks keep working during that time? It's because of the backwards and inefficient way that game studios are managed. If it worked like the film industry, where you are hired, do your work, then leave when your work is done, then you wouldn't have artists and programmers sitting idle getting paid for nothing, thus requiring they work on content that can't be shipped with the game.

Throw in unions to cover healthcare, retirement, working conditions, and overtime.

One of these days the concept of a game development studio where you have permanent staff will be a thing of the past. Ken Levine will just hire people to make his game on a per project basis.

Seropian tried this with Wideload Games. Worked okay, I guess, but I remember reading an interview after the studio dissolved, saying the experiment wasn't really a success.

locked

3329 views

Seropian tried this with Wideload Games. Worked okay, I guess, but I remember reading an interview after the studio dissolved, saying the experiment wasn't really a success.

That's right, Wideload was trying something similar. (If you find that interview link that'd be great). I don't think it worked out for a few reasons. I'm guessing:

1. They were in Chicago, and most of the game development talent is not. He worked remotely with folks elsewhere, and that's really hard. In the film industry, working long distance in post rarely works out well. The producers, director, and editor are close to the rest of post.
2. The entire industry doesn't work this way, so the really talented people aren't being hired as contractors, leaving him with what he can get.

He specifically mentioned looking at the film industry for inspiration, and I think that these two things may have contributed to the 'failure'. I'm just guessing, but if you have the link that'd be great.

locked

3398 views

Seropian tried this with Wideload Games. Worked okay, I guess, but I remember reading an interview after the studio dissolved, saying the experiment wasn't really a success.

That's right, Wideload was trying something similar. (If you find that interview link that'd be great). I don't think it worked out for a few reasons. I'm guessing:

1. They were in Chicago, and most of the game development talent is not. He worked remotely with folks elsewhere, and that's really hard. In the film industry, working long distance in post rarely works out well. The producers, director, and editor are close to the rest of post.
2. The entire industry doesn't work this way, so the really talented people aren't being hired as contractors, leaving him with what he can get.

He specifically mentioned looking at the film industry for inspiration, and I think that these two things may have contributed to the 'failure'. I'm just guessing, but if you have the link that'd be great.

It's been years - I'd have no clue where to look. :(

locked

3436 views

If it were 60 bucks with the two expansions free, I could get behind that.

These expansions are planned, and already being worked on. Essentially, being part of the game, we are being sold a game that is not content complete, nor artistically complete.

If you are going to plan on DLC even before the game launches, it needs to be free, or else not present at all.

DLC is going to be a huge hang up for me down the road. I have not bought any since the time trial maps in Mirror's Edge back in 2008.

I want to play Destiny, however I wonder if a bundle down the road would be a better option, similar to how I got Human Revolution with the DLC included a year after release. If a PC version is announced before launch, I will absolutely wait.

The term expansion is being thrown around, but expansions are very different from DLC, and what's planned is DLC, not an expansion.

I love that the scope of something is purely based off of the release date in your world.

locked

3358 views

I'm surprised no one has pointed this out

Destiny - $95 - Full game + 2 FREE Expansions in 2016!
Limited - $99 - As above + Steelbook case and Digital and Physical extras
Ghost Edition - $149 - As above + Ghost Model and EVEN MORE extras

Why have three editions then, why not just have the $99 version and the $149 version, or move the $99 version down slightly in price and get rid of the lower one? Even if they're 9 or 10 dollars apart that argument still applies fairly well, it's not much compared to the prices of the different editions.

locked

3365 views

you are baking the cost of the DLC into the cost of the final product. Free implies that you get something at no additional cost. The common price point for a game is $60. Charging $35 more and saying that something is free not true.

"Free" DLC would mean throwing it in the regularly priced product, which obviously is not going to happen (unless they come out with a "Game of the Year" edition later on that has everything in it at reduced cost.

locked

3415 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

What if Destiny was $95 with 2 FREE expansions? (Destiny)