Why must this game have 250$ in DLC's

[wellsilver]

WHY Cant we just play a game with all of the features the DLC's have for 23$ instead of 250$??? I dont want to haved to buy 250$ in DLC's just so im not bored after playing the same game with no meaningful updates for years

[magicISO Sweden]

did pay 20 euro for 32 dlc on humble bundle i think it was in june

[buda atum]

Originally posted by wellsilver:

WHY Cant we just play a game with all of the features the DLC's have for 23$ instead of 250$??? I dont want to haved to buy 250$ in DLC's just so im not bored after playing the same game with no meaningful updates for years

Same reason you don't drive a Lamborghini for the price of a Prius I guess. And thankfully you don't have to drive a Lamborghini if you are happy driving a Prius. Walking is even much cheaper so you don't have to drive at all. And for this Lamborghini there's often sales at Prius prices if you keep an eye out.

Sorry for my lack of sympathy. Some like the game so much they've spent lots of $$$ more to get a computer that plays it decently enough.

[Dannage]

On the plus side, each of the DLCs comes with a free update to the base game, so you get to play with a portion of new toys every 9 months or so.

The way I do this is waiting for new DLC to come out. The first weekend that a new DLC is on sale, normally about 33% off, the older DLCs are either 50% or 67% off... Sometimes even 75%... I haven't bought Airports yet, but will be getting it when Parks and Plazas goes on sale, and should pick it up for under £5.

And otherwise, give thanks and praise to the ridiculously well supported modding and workshop contributing community, who make so many cool maps, assets, props, mods and so on.

I still hold that this beats all the other city builder games, that still seem to insist everything needs to be on a square grid with no curves anywhere...

[ebrumby]

Shows that the developer keeps providing us with additional content. Development isn't free you know. Also, none are required. If you are on a PC, there is tons of free stuff in the workshop. These always go on sale for 1/2 price sooner or later.

[NoirMoutton]

Cities Skylines was first launched in March 2015, more than seven years ago. Since that time the developers have had time to create a range of new innovative DLC packs, mostly in response to requests from fans. Colossal Order like any business require income to keep the company solvent, pay bills and wages for staff. They need a steady income stream. The creativity and experimentation and skills required for the game development is down to organic growth over an extended period of time- JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PRODUCT which is refined and improved. It also maintains a healthy interest in the game. I've been playing this game since day 1 and have CHOSEN to purchase each DLC set when it was launched. NO ONE FORCED ME. The game will continue to function perfectly if you chose NOT to buy any DLC pack. If you've come to the game "late`' then lucky you- as you will be able to take advantage of the regular heavily discounted promotions here on Steam, saving LOTS of money- IF YOU CHOSE TO BUY THE DLC. Please folks stop whining apply a degree of common sense before sounding off with a diatribe of nonsense about the price structure. Cities Skylines is no different from any other game by any other company who are trying to stay afloat.

[sternenstaub70]

Originally posted by wellsilver:

WHY Cant we just play a game with all of the features the DLC's have for 23$ instead of 250$??? I dont want to haved to buy 250$ in DLC's just so im not bored after playing the same game with no meaningful updates for years

it's that much because most DLCs were released about yearly, as others already mentioned.
If you buy them in the same speed as they get released it's maybe $10-20 per year, that's not that much.
Also you really do not need ALL DLCs. Trust me, in the end you would have them but not using them.
And there are sometimes bundles available which are way cheaper than buying each DLC at full price.

Btw $250 is actually CHEAP if you compare with other games with lots of DLCs.
For example look at Europa Universalis, it's about $400 for all the DLCs.

[Tsubame ⭐]

That is not how economics work.

The game was released complete at the time of release.

Developers cannot keep adding free content to a game indefinitely if it does not generate income to them. You have expansion packs or microtransactions available for that.

If you do not wish to buy them you are free to keep playing the base game. Lots of mods and most of them do not need any DLCs.

Other than that the choice is abandon the game and start a new sequel.

[MarkJohnson]

Originally posted by wellsilver:

WHY Cant we just play a game with all of the features the DLC's have for 23$ instead of 250$??? I dont want to haved to buy 250$ in DLC's just so im not bored after playing the same game with no meaningful updates for years

I typically only play the base game with additional workshop to add some extra content that I want.

I have been playing this way sine release and own all DLC. I probably paid more than $250 and it was worth every penny to me.

If you can explain your playstyle, maybe we can help advise you on the workshop that may help you the most.

Myself, I like finding ways to figure out how the AI works. When released I had 9 cities going all at once on different maps. Then building them all together so I can compare and contrast the cities and figure out the rules and behaviors quickly.

Now, I mostly help others fix their imbalanced cities and hope then can continue to larger cities.

[azuarc]

If we frame our games in terms of dollars of enjoyment per hour, how much is 800 hours worth? Because that's how much I've accrued since discovering this game back in February.

[joeball123]

To what others have said, I would add that:
1. Paradox (the publisher) appears to have a policy of pushing a lot of DLCs for its games - many of which don't actually do much of anything gameplay-relevant, like all the various unit packs for Crusader Kings II and Hearts of Iron IV, but are priced to tempt people to buy them anyways because, well, it's only a few dollars. The various Radio Station DLCs for Cities: Skylines certainly fall into this category, and a number of the Content Creator Packs probably do as well - for example, a lot of the stuff added by CCPs that provide district themes is to my understanding only cosmetically different from what comes with the base game. These kinds of things also often get rolled into packages, whether because they're not selling individually or because someone wanted to claim a higher face value for all the stuff in the package so as to make the package sound like a better deal than it actually is.

(I am not saying you shouldn't buy these kinds of DLCs, just that you should look at what the DLC is actually offering and decide whether or not it's something you actually care about before you include it in the list of things you're going to buy as part of the 'full package.')

2. The move to digital distribution removed a lot of the incentive for games to become cheaper as they age. Digital distributors don't really have an inventory that they need to store until they sell or discard it, so the incentive to cut prices just to get things off the shelves is gone, and on top of that digitial distribution basically killed the (legal) second-hand games market so there's no need for primary distributors to cut prices later in a game's life to compete with used-games vendors.

3. Most of the people who buy expansions and DLCs for games already had the base game and older expansions/DLCs, so while "sticker shock" might drive away new customers it probably doesn't really hurt sales overall, because most of the people who buy these things bought all the pieces in five- or ten- or fifteen-dollar increments as the various bits and pieces came out over the years rather than in one big several-hundred-dollar chunk.

4. It is very likely that most new sales of an old game and its old expansions/DLCs will occur around the release of a new expansion/DLC, because that's when the old game is most visible to potential new customers. Publishers and distributors realize this and, as a result, tend to put the base game, and usually also older expansions and DLCs, on sale around the time when new expansions/DLCs release, so potential customers who look at the game when a new expansion/DLC releases see a relatively-palatable ~$10 base game and ~$40-$60 for the 'full package' rather than the ~$250-$300 'regular price' for buying everything all in one go. People who are picking up the game and DLCs at other times, meanwhile, likely already had at least the base game and are just collecting the bits and pieces that they don't yet have but want to get, so they get to pay full price.

[AimlessArrow]

"The various Radio Station DLCs for Cities: Skylines certainly fall into this category, and a number of the Content Creator Packs probably do as well -"

Yeah, radio stations and some of the DLC's are worthless, and I wouldnt touch them, even if they would be in the base game.
Im happy with CCP-buildings though. I cannot stand the non-descript vanilla buildings, and those in the packs are modelled from RL structures.

[Bright Idea]

Originally posted by wellsilver:

WHY Cant we just play a game with all of the features the DLC's have for 23$ instead of 250$??? I dont want to haved to buy 250$ in DLC's just so im not bored after playing the same game with no meaningful updates for years

Because they've trapped us original players into buying this DLC rubbish. The dev's released 2-3 DLC's every year since the game's inception, each one with linked achievements, that can only be obtained through purchasing said DLC's. There are so many DLC's now, they are destroying the game and making it crap with rushed jobs and cash grabs. The game's now doubled up with similar systems/features, with poor balance and buggy programming. They rely too heavily on 3rd party modders, to create great fixes for poor game design, which then become broken with every single new DLC release. Consequently, dedicated player's game saves get destroyed as well, often relying on 1000's of mods that all need to be fixed again and again and again and repeat 30+ times more. We need to stop buying this rubbish, so they can get on with CS2.

Edit: the only problem with my suggestion is they'll do it to us again with CS2! So don't be trapped again and look the fool. Fool us once, shame on the dev; fool us twice ......? Also consider, when they finally release CS2, CS1 will be completely trashed by too many useless DLC's and consequently become frustrating/unplayable. It will also be too expensive to be a competitor to the new game as you've alluded to. So that's why.

[an entire Roman legion]

Originally posted by wellsilver:

WHY Cant we just play a game with all of the features the DLC's have for 23$ instead of 250$??? I dont want to haved to buy 250$ in DLC's just so im not bored after playing the same game with no meaningful updates for years

"I want stuff but I want if for free reEEEEEEEEEE"

funny thing with people like OP is, they think THEY are the humble one :D

[omnius]

Having so many DLC's is just the Paradox ripoff to bilk players into wasting too much money for too little game. I bought the first disappointing DLC and never wasted time or money on any of the others. The music DLC's are the worst ripoff, amateurish elevator music that does nothing to enhance the game play. Every time they puked out a DLC things changed and players who do not buy the DLC's are given the problems of the DLC without the solutions. It's why I stopped playing many years ago. Hoping that the DLC's are done and the game becomes stable. Cities I built years ago no longer function, they lose 40% of population within minutes of running the clock.

Unreasonable to think all this should go for $23. I do not buy games with DLC any longer thanks to the Paradox ripoff. Put out a good game for $60 or $70 and then put out another new version of the game with newer updated features.

[MonkehMaster]

honestly cant understand anyone that defends dlc practices and pricing of said dlc(s) from devs like this, i agree nothings free and devs need to make money, but creating so many tiny dlc(s) with barely anything content wise and the way they price them, is not at all good, nor worth defending and on that note, games shouldnt cost hundreds of dollars.

majority of this stuff could have been in the base game (which includes the ripoff music dlc(s)), along with any "fixes" they put into said dlc(s) (assuming said fixes are fixing something in the base game).

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

i agree OP, the dlc practice some of these game devs/publishers use and pricing them, to make a game cost hundreds is horrible, i can see making money, but reducing your base game to nothing only to push the rest of it as dlc to make triple+ the amount of money you would have made....