What's your thought on EarlyAccess Games releasing paid DLCs?
Like, how does that make sense? The game isn't even "complete" yet but already started milking with DLCs and what not. Setting a very bad example here?

In case you're wondering, yes I'm talking about Ark: Survival Evolved, but this topic is aimed for a more general sense. Right now we have 1 developer doing it, and won't be long until everyone starts doing it. The DLC is already a "top seller" as per Steam.
So its a worrying trend in general becasue:
A.) Your game isn't fully polished/complete/released.
B.) And on top of that you are already releasing DLCs.

PS: This discussion is not intended to be whether the game Ark: Survival Evolved itself is good or not, I don't care if the game is good or bad. Its about shoddy business practices from developers.
< >
Showing 1-15 of 306 comments
Satoru Jan 31, 2017 @ 5:10pm 
Unturned is F2P but has paid DLC as a premium subscription

No paid DLC would mean no F2P game could possibly be on Early Access by this strict definition

You could not sell soundtracks separately by this definition

You could not sell premium content by this definition

You could not sell deluxe editions by this definition
Originally posted by Satoru:
Unturned is F2P but has paid DLC as a premium subscription

No paid DLC would mean no F2P game could possibly be on Early Access by this strict definition

You could not sell soundtracks separately by this definition

You could not sell premium content by this definition

You could not sell deluxe editions by this definition
No More Room in Hell sells their soundtrack... it's not even good!
Satoru Jan 31, 2017 @ 5:17pm 
Also you are totally free to not purchase the DLC for Ark

However by your own observation the DLC is in the top seller

The means that obviously a lot of people have no problem with the paid DLC for an Early Access game. So many people that it will hit the top seller list of Steam.

Thus despite your personal reservations about it, apparently many people don't have any issues with it. Thus is this a 'problem' thatn eeds to be 'solved' given that the audience for it gobbling it up like hot cakes.
Last edited by Satoru; Jan 31, 2017 @ 5:17pm
Black Mambo № 5 Jan 31, 2017 @ 5:20pm 
No More Room in Hell is also not a "Early Access" game.
My point is, your game is already in Early Access, F2P or not, so on top of that you are already releasing DLCs. Had Ark: Survival Evolved been based around a F2P model I could understand the need for "multi-tier packs". Something like in Dungeon Defenders 2 or even as you mentioned Unturned, for instance so that people can help support with the development.

However, here we have developers asking for more $$$ for an unfinished products by releasing a DLCs. That's messed up IMO. And sets a rather bad precedence.
Satoru Jan 31, 2017 @ 5:22pm 
Again its selling

Therefore no matter what you think the model apparently works. if it was as 'horrible' as you make it out to be no one would buy it. But apparently people don't have any issues iwth it.

Steam defines DLC to be any content. Thus you cannot 'ban DLC for Early Access' as that isn't actually what you're talking about anyway.
Black Mambo № 5 Jan 31, 2017 @ 5:32pm 
Yeah I get your point, in hindsight I think its more of a consumer mindset problem, as well as developers resorting to well... "not good" practices.
I mean undeniably it is a top seller, which obviously means people are buying it. Ideally, IMO that kind of model shouldn't be supported. I mean a game isn't even complete yet and there's already DLCs for it.

Of course, given Steam's rather broad definition of DLCs, they have the liberty to fit in whatever additional content they wish as a DLC. But of course "generally" for us gamers what DLC relates to is mostly meaningful content in game, say Witcher 3's DLC for example, or Far Harbor from Fallout 4. That is where I'm worried this kind of model and the obvious support to it might eventually end up hurting consumers.
Also I re-checked what the Ark DLC was about, its clearly not a sound-track or any "multi-tier pack" as you'd find in MMOs & F2Ps etc. They have clearly labeled it as "Expansion Pack"

Traditionally games have released as a completed version, and then followed by DLCs/Expansion packs. But this new trend of releasing Expansion Packs and DLCs for incomplete game is worrying. Much like pre-orders. :squirtmeh:
Gus the Crocodile Jan 31, 2017 @ 6:21pm 
Originally posted by Black Mambo № 5:
Like, how does that make sense? The game isn't even "complete" yet but already started milking with DLCs and what not. Setting a very bad example here?
Originally posted by Black Mambo № 5:
So its a worrying trend in general becasue:
A.) Your game isn't fully polished/complete/released.
B.) And on top of that you are already releasing DLCs.
Originally posted by Black Mambo № 5:
I mean a game isn't even complete yet and there's already DLCs for it.
You keep saying this as if it's self-evident that this is a problem, but, well, it's not self-evident at all. It's true, of course: these are incomplete games selling DLC, that's what's going on here. But...so what? You say it's "messed up", and a "bad precedent"; you're worried it might hurt customers. How? How is it bad, how might it hurt people?

I don't mean to be rude. It's just that these topics come up reasonably regularly, and mostly it seems like people don't have much of an argument beyond, as you mention, it not being "traditional".
Netflux Jan 31, 2017 @ 7:56pm 
There is nothing wrong with doing *anything* for more profit. A company solely exists to make profit.

Combining microtransactions and DLC would be a effective business strategy.
Black Blade Jan 31, 2017 @ 11:26pm 
Some users seem to have a problem with DLCs over all
so is it that or is it really relvent its Early Access?
The Devs pick to add something new they may have not pland for the game and there for selling it as a DLC
The game is more then playble without the DLC, and fun just as much
Its expanding on what there is, not taking away from it, so i honstly cant see the issue with it been Early Access or not
Cathal Feb 1, 2017 @ 5:32am 
In my opinion, the issue with DLC when a game is in Early Access is time management and project delivery.

Taking ARK as an example, since it is the most evident one of late. This game has been in Early Access for a long time, has missed it's initial release date and is still terribly optimised. For some reason, Studio Wildcard was still able to assign resources to DLC development as well as consult on a new VR game. Does this not mean that if they assigned full focus to their original game, it might have been done by now?

Besides this, the DLC for this game, according to many, promotes play to win, since many of the base game players are incapable of defending themselves when DLC players bring powerful dragons to vanilla servers. This forces these players to buy the DLC or risk being overthrown and all their progress destroyed by the "premium" bunch (please correct me if there's an option to disallow bringing DLC content to base game servers).
FPS Feb 1, 2017 @ 5:55am 
I don't like the idea, just as bad as day 1 DLCs, preorder exclusives and season passes.

But if people continue to buy them, the developers will continue to make them. Not much we can do about it.
Radene Feb 1, 2017 @ 6:03am 
I think it's poor form and a sign of skewed priorities. But that will stick around as long as businesses who do it stay in, eh, business.
Mivo Feb 1, 2017 @ 7:40am 
I disagree with the practice of releasing paid DLC before a game is out of Early Access. As Radene wrote, it displays that the priorities are off and that the focus is not on finishing the game. For me, it signals that a developer is not interested in completing and "releasing" the game.

I generally feel that Early Access should be better monitored, with stricter regulations, so that games don't permanently remain in EA. I also object to Early Access games going on sale.
x Feb 1, 2017 @ 9:33am 
i dont know what im doin here. just kidding early acces is nice :D but there a differences from "right" early acces and "fake" early acces... like some kikstarter games in hystorie..
Hextravert Feb 1, 2017 @ 9:54am 
I never made them promise to refrain from releasing DLC until the game is truly finished.

They could even put DLC on the store years before the actual game is for sale for all I care.

I don't give Early Access games any special treatment; i.e., I'll pay when I think it's worth it. :DEALWITHIT:

Originally posted by Black Mambo № 5:
What's your thought on EarlyAccess Games releasing paid DLCs?
< >
Showing 1-15 of 306 comments
Per page: 1530 50

Date Posted: Jan 31, 2017 @ 5:03pm
Posts: 306