Do all players need the DLC on Multiplayer?

[VexTary]

If I have all the DLC and I host a game, can a friend of mine, who doesn't have any of the DLC, join?

[76561199117848133]

Unfortunately not.

[Spectral B4dger]

Pretty much in line with all the other digital adaptations...
Only game that doesn't do that would be Tabletop Simulator (but that's not an actual digital adaptations per se)

[VexTary]

Originally posted by Spectral B4dger:

Pretty much in line with all the other digital adaptations...
Only game that doesn't do that would be Tabletop Simulator (but that's not an actual digital adaptations per se)

Actually there's a number of digital adaptations of tabletop games that allow players that doesn't have the DLC to join. Like Dominion, Talisman, Mystic Vale, and others.

But anyway. A real shame.

[OhNoes]

This is really disappointing. I don't mind buying the season pass edition. But there is no way I can convince my friends to spend over $20 on a board game.

[Supersquirrel]

This is a major mistake, I bought this game on mobile and convinced my girlfriend and friend to buy it. I am hoping to bring more and more friends into playing concordia together online but there is simply no way this is going to snowball if we are stuck playing the base game and maps.

My friends aren't going to drop money on the expansion content the way it is now, they wouldn't be playing the game if it wasn't for me pushing them too into it. You are only hurting yourself by losing out on the type of customer like one of my friends who might skeptically buy the game because I convince them too, play some of the expansion content and discover they love the expansion content enough to buy it themselves so they can play against bots and other people.

As it stands those friends are going to play two maps with no expansion content and get bored and never spend another penny on the game.

Why not make dlc and map lobbies joinable by people without the dlc? If anything it will drive people to join multiplayer lobbies when they otherwise might not and longterm that will help the growth of the game.

At the very least let me buy a more expensive season pass that lets me host lobbies with expansion content that anyone can join.

[Spectral B4dger]

So you're basically suggesting to create a business model where you can go asking your 5 friends: "Hey guys let's buy the DLCs together so we can all play the game and pay 1/5th each of what we would do if we're to purchase singularly".
Def can see you've the dev's best interest at heart!

[VexTary]

I mean, that's literally what a good number of devs do. There are many examples, board game or not, that only the host needs the DLC and anyone can join. Even the actual physical board games are like that.

And I don't see those devs going bankrupt because of that decision. If anything they make everyone happy. Disappointment leads to people responding with their wallet, by the way.

So I think it's wrong to talk like it would mean the end of the world for the devs if they would ever decide to add this, and whoever that thinks that they should doesn't care about them.

In the end it all depends to what the devs value the most.

[Spectral B4dger]

Originally posted by Vexxar Sayeha Al'Hara:

I mean, that's literally what a good number of devs do. There are many examples, board game or not, that only the host needs the DLC and anyone can join. Even the actual physical board games are like that.

And I don't see those devs going bankrupt because of that decision. If anything they make everyone happy. Disappointment leads to people responding with their wallet, by the way.

So I think it's wrong to talk like it would mean the end of the world for the devs if they would ever decide to add this, and whoever that thinks that they should doesn't care about them.

In the end it all depends to what the devs value the most.

What you say it's true: some devs do some others don't (to name a few: Root, Scythe, Star Realms, Race for the Galaxy, Ascension, Through The Ages etc etc ) but I don't think it's a MAJOR mistake as supersquirrel pointed out.
Devs won't go bankrupt but they have their reasons to require people to buy DLCs separately. In my opinion it's UNDOUBTEDLY true that if they add a host-pooling system they will see less revenue especially cause this is not a *massively* popular game and it doesn't cater as much as Gloomhaven for example.
Low player count + only host needs to have DLC = ppl less inclined to buy the DLC if they can play them for free online anyway.
I'd rather see the purchasing of Acram games and DLCs as a way of helping the team and make sure they can keep pumping out and create more quality product. We've seen that the team is quite receptive and pro-active. In fact they did improve by a good margin the game after launch, are still working on additional features and they listened / keep listening to community feedback.

[VexTary]

Originally posted by Spectral B4dger:

Originally posted by Vexxar Sayeha Al'Hara:

I mean, that's literally what a good number of devs do. There are many examples, board game or not, that only the host needs the DLC and anyone can join. Even the actual physical board games are like that.

And I don't see those devs going bankrupt because of that decision. If anything they make everyone happy. Disappointment leads to people responding with their wallet, by the way.

So I think it's wrong to talk like it would mean the end of the world for the devs if they would ever decide to add this, and whoever that thinks that they should doesn't care about them.

In the end it all depends to what the devs value the most.

What you say it's true: some devs do some others don't (to name a few: Root, Scythe, Star Realms, Race for the Galaxy, Ascension, Through The Ages etc etc :ooh:) but I don't think it's a MAJOR mistake as supersquirrel pointed out.
Devs won't go bankrupt but they have their reasons to require people to buy DLCs separately. In my opinion it's UNDOUBTEDLY true that if they add a host-pooling system they will see less revenue especially cause this is not a *massively* popular game and it doesn't cater as much as Gloomhaven for example.
Low player count + only host needs to have DLC = ppl less inclined to buy the DLC if they can play them for free online anyway.
I'd rather see the purchasing of Acram games and DLCs as a way of helping the team and make sure they can keep pumping out and create more quality product. We've seen that the team is quite receptive and pro-active. In fact they did improve by a good margin the game after launch, are still working on additional features and they listened / keep listening to community feedback.

Yeah, it's also not the end of the world not having DLC sharing. But while it's true they would be losing DLC revenue, the same could go for the actual base game. If a group of friends find out that you can only have the base game experience, unless everyone buys the DLC, they might choose altogether to not get anything at all. This I speak from experience, as me and another friend done that before.

In the end it's all a case by case scenario, and since it's such a niche market, those cases could mean a good chunk of revenue lost.

I'm not saying the devs are dumb or bad for not implementing it, even though I would 100% prefer if they did. Just saying that you can't look to one side of the coin without thinking about the other.

[Supersquirrel]

Originally posted by Spectral B4dger:

Originally posted by Vexxar Sayeha Al'Hara:

I mean, that's literally what a good number of devs do. There are many examples, board game or not, that only the host needs the DLC and anyone can join. Even the actual physical board games are like that.

And I don't see those devs going bankrupt because of that decision. If anything they make everyone happy. Disappointment leads to people responding with their wallet, by the way.

So I think it's wrong to talk like it would mean the end of the world for the devs if they would ever decide to add this, and whoever that thinks that they should doesn't care about them.

In the end it all depends to what the devs value the most.

What you say it's true: some devs do some others don't (to name a few: Root, Scythe, Star Realms, Race for the Galaxy, Ascension, Through The Ages etc etc :ooh:) but I don't think it's a MAJOR mistake as supersquirrel pointed out.
Devs won't go bankrupt but they have their reasons to require people to buy DLCs separately. In my opinion it's UNDOUBTEDLY true that if they add a host-pooling system they will see less revenue especially cause this is not a *massively* popular game and it doesn't cater as much as Gloomhaven for example.
Low player count + only host needs to have DLC = ppl less inclined to buy the DLC if they can play them for free online anyway.
I'd rather see the purchasing of Acram games and DLCs as a way of helping the team and make sure they can keep pumping out and create more quality product. We've seen that the team is quite receptive and pro-active. In fact they did improve by a good margin the game after launch, are still working on additional features and they listened / keep listening to community feedback.

The vast majority of plays in digital board game apps are offline with the AI, thus my original point that making it so only the host needs the dlc would likely drive players to play online and thus foster a more vibrant multiplayer scene which more than anything else will drive long term sales.

[Supersquirrel]

Originally posted by Vexxar Sayeha Al'Hara:

Originally posted by Spectral B4dger:

What you say it's true: some devs do some others don't (to name a few: Root, Scythe, Star Realms, Race for the Galaxy, Ascension, Through The Ages etc etc :ooh:) but I don't think it's a MAJOR mistake as supersquirrel pointed out.
Devs won't go bankrupt but they have their reasons to require people to buy DLCs separately. In my opinion it's UNDOUBTEDLY true that if they add a host-pooling system they will see less revenue especially cause this is not a *massively* popular game and it doesn't cater as much as Gloomhaven for example.
Low player count + only host needs to have DLC = ppl less inclined to buy the DLC if they can play them for free online anyway.
I'd rather see the purchasing of Acram games and DLCs as a way of helping the team and make sure they can keep pumping out and create more quality product. We've seen that the team is quite receptive and pro-active. In fact they did improve by a good margin the game after launch, are still working on additional features and they listened / keep listening to community feedback.

Yeah, it's also not the end of the world not having DLC sharing. But while it's true they would be losing DLC revenue, the same could go for the actual base game. If a group of friends find out that you can only have the base game experience, unless everyone buys the DLC, they might choose altogether to not get anything at all. This I speak from experience, as me and another friend done that before.

In the end it's all a case by case scenario, and since it's such a niche market, those cases could mean a good chunk of revenue lost.

I'm not saying the devs are dumb or bad for not implementing it, even though I would 100% prefer if they did. Just saying that you can't look to one side of the coin without thinking about the other.

"But while it's true they would be losing DLC revenue, the same could go for the actual base game. If a group of friends find out that you can only have the base game experience, unless everyone buys the DLC, they might choose altogether to not get anything at all. This I speak from experience, as me and another friend done that before."

This is precisely my point and is exactly the situation I am facing. Dividing the player base is a really bad idea, it is a better idea to give players who buy the DLC the privilege of hosting lobbies with the parameters and details they want that those who haven't bought the DLC can jump in on.

[Narkulus]

Bad decision and a missed opportunity for more DLC sales. Allowing the host to let base only owners join in playing DLC maps gives those base only owners the opportunity to try those maps out, possibly generating more DLC sales, not to mention keeping the lobby population strong.

[Code6]

Yeah, this is a real shame. It's most common for digital board games to allow everyone to play expansions if at least the host has them. See Dominion.

I hear Root does a happy medium where everyone gets access to most of the host's DLC, but each individual player only gets to play as an expansion faction they paid for. I guess that's not really applicable here.

I'm less likely to buy DLC if all my friends need to buy it, too. I might just choose to not buy it at all. VS if when I play with my friends we all get to play it, I'd be willing to pay more for the DLC.

Having an extra $10 payment so I can play DLC I paid for with my friends who didn't would also be reasonable. Although it'd be cleaner just to factor that price into the DLC always to make it less confusing.

I totally get not sharing the DLC when playing with strangers, and the system might not hugely differentiate friends from strangers here. So maybe only if the hosted game is at least password protected, the host's DLC is always playable even if joiners don't have it?