Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
Combining microtransactions and DLC would be a effective business strategy.
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
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).
But if people continue to buy them, the developers will continue to make them. Not much we can do about it.
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.
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.