Why DLC in EA ? Am I missing something ???

[DeLastOne]

I've been following this game in Early Access and noticed they’re already adding content via DLCs. This seems like a bad move. I'm really hesitant about buying a game that hasn’t even reached version 1.0 yet. Isn’t Early Access supposed to be about refining the core game, balancing mechanics, and incorporating player feedback?

Introducing paid DLCs during Early Access feels off for a few reasons:

Incomplete Core Experience: The base game isn’t finished yet. Adding DLC content before the core game reaches 1.0 might divert resources from essential improvements and bug fixes.

Player Trust: We invest in EA games expecting our feedback will shape the final product. Introducing DLCs now feels like a cash grab and undermines trust.

Focus on Feedback: Early Access should prioritize player feedback to improve the core game. DLCs might shift focus away from this, resulting in a less polished final product.

Economic Pressure: Players might feel pressured to buy DLCs to experience the "complete" game, even before the base game is finalized. This can create a fragmented experience and reduce overall satisfaction.

Community Division: Releasing DLCs early can divide the community between those who purchase the additional content and those who don’t, affecting multiplayer experiences and community cohesion.

What do you all think? Does anyone else feel the same way?

[Urk_da_WAAAGH!]

Trying to have a important opinion when you don't even own the game is something.

No, the DLC does not make for a incomplete core experience, first development teams don't usually are a one does all kind of thing, if the coding team is busy with something else it is more than reasonable for the asset team to work on something that may boost the revenue for the project, second, the equipment added by the DLC is mostly airborne variants of existing equipment like the BMD for example, there's no mechanic or a entire type of unit that is dlc exclusivea and needed extensive work.

No, it only undermines trust if the player does not understand anything about development, I don't know why I should trust them less if while they are busy implementing modding tools that is a coding heavy job their other team/teams work on something else, it makes no sense.

Player feedback only goes so far, they have a internal roadmap that they have to work based on that while it is adapted to some player feedback (while they did a lot already) they also have to work on their internal roadmap. Also, the DLC pretty much was player feedback as some people wanted to play with those airborne variants and suggested the idea.

You last two "points" barely make any sense, looks more like you run out of ideas or what is more probable, you don't know what you are talking about because you don't actually own the game.

Signed: someone that actually follows the game since they released for early access and also didn't bought the DLC because didn't feel like doing so as it only adds a few equipment pieces that you only use if you want to.

[DeLastOne]

Thank you for your input, Urk_da_WAAAGH!. I appreciate hearing from someone who has followed the game closely. However, I believe there are still valid concerns worth discussing.

Firstly, it seems you missed my main point: I'm really hesitant about buying the game. There are plenty of examples of indie studios offering support packages clearly marked as skins or just for funding. Adding a DLC with gameplay content before the game hits 1.0 is concerning for potential buyers like myself. If you’re okay with being milked for extra cash, that's your choice. I'll continue to follow the development and see if this trend continues before making a purchase.

Secondly, regarding trust, it's not just about understanding development but also about managing community expectations. Players invest in EA games with the hope that their feedback will significantly shape the final product. If they see DLCs being prioritized, it can feel like a shift in focus away from core improvements, regardless of the actual development process.

Regarding player feedback, while internal roadmaps are important, balancing them with community expectations is equally crucial. The suggestion for airborne variants could indeed come from player feedback, but the timing of releasing paid content during EA can still be contentious.

As for the last points, I understand your perspective since the game is single-player. Economic pressure and community division might be less of an issue here. However, having to pay extra for content before the game is fully developed can still create a fragmented experience and reduce overall satisfaction for many potential buyers.

According to the Steam page, the Eastern Airborne Forces DLC adds several gameplay elements, including new airborne units, unique equipment, and additional missions. These additions potentially enhance the core gameplay experience, raising concerns that such content should be included in the main game rather than as paid DLC during Early Access.

I appreciate your perspective and understand that not everyone may feel the same way. My post aims to raise these concerns for discussion within the community.

[Sleepysteve]

I have been following the game for a long time and been on the fence about buying it. I agree, DLC in EA is extremely off putting.