When are DLCs going to stop?

[TheMystic6]

Just when I thought we were done with the DLC hoarding, we get another map we have to pay for. Now, I'm not bothered because of the quality of the DLCs, many of them are worth it. However, the issue is that the DLCs combined are worth over twice as much as the base game. This tells me that the devs have been putting more content into DLCs rather than in the base game. DLCs are meant to expand on a game, not be the actual game themselves. I would have much rather seen a $60 price tag on the game, with the what are now DLCs being free updates instead.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen a single free content update that has been significant, other than bug fixes. All the significant new content so far has come through DLC. Even the free DLCs. They are so small, why not just make them content updates? I'm not complaining that they are free, just that it's unorganized to make every content update on your DLC wall. Half of those DLCs should not be on that DLC page, and should be in the base game.

I want to be able to play this game and have fun without having to go through hundreds of paywalls. That was why I bought it. The previous game of theHunter was an interesting game, but I couldn't play it with all of the subscriptions and microtransactions. I thought this game would fix that. But instead of keeping their promise of no microtransactions, they just call them DLCs now. I want to be able to play what I payed for when I bought the game. But if what I payed for only equates to less than half of the game's full content, how is that fair?

Devs, please change this somehow. Right now, since I haven't bought all of the DLC, it almost feels like I'm playing a demo. I would like to be able to have access to the full game without having to throw my wallet into the fire. My suggestion would be to change the base game's price tag to $40+, then combine some of the DLCs, (e.g. all the duck stuff) and finally, remove half of the DLCs and slap them in the base game. I mean, seriously.. What kind of hunting game makes you pay for an ATV and a tent? Especially with how slow the walking speed in this game is, it sure feels like a cheaty way to squeeze more money out of us. If you need to keep any DLC, keep the maps. They are the only thing so far that I can see as justifiable. They are actual expansions, and not just content updates with a price tag. I hope someone out there listens, I don't want to see this game end like the previous one.

[southofpegasus]

Originally posted by TheMystic6:

Originally posted by southofpegasus:

MORE FRIES AND SODA PLEASE
by
southofpegasus

This is not a good analogy. Without the ATVs and Tents, the order is basically incomplete. A better setup would be someone ordering a combo meal with burger, fries, and drink, and only receiving the burger and drink, not fries.

It's the perfect analogy illustrating the silliness in the notion that the purchase of a product should entitle one to infinite free product moving forward. Saying ATV's and/or tents should be a base requirement for hunting is like saying a Hawaiian pizza from Domino's is not a complete Hawaiian pizza because it didn't come with mushrooms or jalapenos when the reality is dough, sauce, cheese, pineapple, and ham do indeed constitute a Hawaiian pizza. Maybe some mushrooms and/or jalapenos would enhance the flavor but they're certainly not base ingredients and as such Domino's should not be required to include them in the base price.

[TheMystic6]

Originally posted by southofpegasus:

Originally posted by TheMystic6:

This is not a good analogy. Without the ATVs and Tents, the order is basically incomplete. A better setup would be someone ordering a combo meal with burger, fries, and drink, and only receiving the burger and drink, not fries.

It's the perfect analogy illustrating the silliness in the notion that the purchase of a product should entitle one to infinite free product moving forward. Saying ATV's and/or tents should be a base requirement for hunting is like saying a Hawaiian pizza from Domino's is not a complete Hawaiian pizza because it didn't come with mushrooms or jalapenos when the reality is dough, sauce, cheese, pineapple, and ham do indeed constitute a Hawaiian pizza. Maybe some mushrooms and/or jalapenos would enhance the flavor but they're certainly not base ingredients and as such Domino's should not be required to include them in the base price.

You're missing my point. I don't want infinite free updates. I want fixes for the updates already released.

And also, ATV's and Tents should be in a hunting simulator. A better way for them to make their money off of this would be different colors or something for the ATVs/Tents, cosmetics we can buy. Being able to move quickly in a hunting game SHOULD be a CORE feature, not something we have to pay for. ATVs and tents are not the jalapenos and mushrooms of a hawaiian pizza, they are the pineapple and ham.

[PicSoul]

Originally posted by TheMystic6:

Originally posted by cbrrrman:

I'm fine with the Dev's adding DLC's that appeal to others.
But I really don't like the added bugs that tend to come with them and affect the base game in that process.

I realize folk don't need to buy into every DLC that is offered. ( I don't )
But ya gotta download them either way in order to stay updated and current,
...as some patches (updates) can affect the primary game and it's functions.

As long as the Dev's utilize some QC before releasing the DLC's to the game I'm good.
But more commonly it seems most players end up having bugs or game issues when most every DLC is added in initially.

That's another thing. I don't like having to download all this extra content I will never have access to because I refuse to buy it. If I can't use it, why are they forcing me to download it? The DLCs should be seperate downloads.

This is done because even if you don't own a DLC map you can join a MP game that is using it. Almost all of the DLC is sharable in MP sessions.

[TheMystic6]

Limit the DLC to maps and cosmetics. That would be the best. Plus, cosmetics are easy to make, and plenty of people will buy them for cheap prices. That would leave the devs with some surplus money to fix more issues. You could make cosmetic DLCs for almost everything. Weapons, gear, clothing, atvs, tents, blinds, even decorations. The maps I am happy with most of the time, they are large and $8 is a good price for them. But core features should not be sold as DLC.

[southofpegasus]

Originally posted by TheMystic6:

You're missing my point. I don't want infinite free updates. I want fixes for the updates already released.

Your OP reads entirely different. In it you claim that there has been no meaningful free content added aside from bug fixes despite the fact they've added free content such as, off the top of my head, a bow, backpacks, jackrabbits, ducks, geese, and most recently gemsbok. You assert that ATV's and tents should have been free. You say that half the DLC's should have been included in the base game. You claim the maps are the only content that should be able to be charged for. It sure sounds like you expect a lot of free stuff. It sounds like you expect all animals, weapons, and accessories to be free.

I can agree they need to put more effort into bug fixes. My stance on that, however, is that they need to install actual, functioning quality assurance and quality control systems that would allow them to catch and fix bugs prior to new content release. No other industry gets away with the lack of quality control the gaming industry currently enjoys now that they aren't limited to hard copy sales. Personally, after the buggy Vurhonga Savanna release, I made the decision not to purchase any new content unless, perhaps, it shows up in an 80% or more off sale. I've just grown tired of being an unpaid beta tester so I feel your pain there.

Originally posted by TheMystic6:

And also, ATV's and Tents should be in a hunting simulator. A better way for them to make their money off of this would be different colors or something for the ATVs/Tents, cosmetics we can buy. Being able to move quickly in a hunting game SHOULD be a CORE feature, not something we have to pay for. ATVs and tents are not the jalapenos and mushrooms of a hawaiian pizza, they are the pineapple and ham.

This is simply an opinion and in no way reality. I don't know anything about you, your age, whether or not you hunt in real life, anything, but what I do know is that ATV's and/or tents are most certainly not a base requirement for hunting and in no way comparable to the pineapple and ham of a Hawaiian pizza. I have hunted quite a lot in my years and all that's required to hunt is a place to hunt, something to hunt, and something to hunt with. Those are the core elements of hunting. Everything else, tents and ATV's included, are just added luxuries. In fact, where I'm from, ATV's and tents are strictly prohibited on most all public hunting lands. When ATV's are allowed they require permits and are generally not allowed off road. The only exception is for disabled hunters with the proper permits. I could understand ATV's and tents being a requirement if these COTW reserves were the size of Interior Alaska or Siberia but they're not. They can easily be walked across in little time and have plenty of outpost which we can fast travel between. I've never once had to spend more than a few minutes walking to a hunting location in this game on any reserve and thus I can't see any justification in calling tents and/or ATV's core requirement.

[TheMystic6]

Your OP reads entirely different. In it you claim that there has been no meaningful free content added aside from bug fixes despite the fact they've added free content such as, off the top of my head, a bow, backpacks, jackrabbits, ducks, geese, and most recently gemsbok. You assert that ATV's and tents should have been free. You say that half the DLC's should have been included in the base game. You claim the maps are the only content that should be able to be charged for. It sure sounds like you expect a lot of free stuff. It sounds like you expect all animals, weapons, and accessories to be free.

All the free content you listed is not significant.. a couple animals, a single weapon, and the ducks and geese and stuff you have to pay for the proper equipment. Backpacks are not significant. Every other game that was successful that ive seen has had much more content given via updates, and less as DLC. Again, the price of the combined DLC does not often exceed the list price of the game.

I apologize for my OP not being quite as clear as I wanted it to be.

Also, let me rephrase my argument on quads/tents.. DLC should not make any game any easier... it should only expand the game. I know this game isnt really competitive, but if it were, that would be clearly labeled pay to win. But since it isnt competitive, we can instead label it pay to make the game easier, which doesnt seem right to me.

This game is meant to be a simulator. Hunting simulators should touch on most of the aspects of real hunting. Where I am from, nobody in their right minds goes out hunting without a tent, ground blind, or tree stand to stay in. Also, if you've ever been on a hunting trip to the pacific northwest (places like Alaska, western canada, etc.) Nobody goes hunting without some sort of vehicle (usually a quad or a snowmobile) to bring their gear out and bring their kill back.

I do not expect new animals to be free, I expect them to come with new maps, which are fine as DLCs. I dont expect all new weapons and accessories to be free, but most of them should be. All good games that I have played have released significant content for free, and lots of it.

[southofpegasus]

Originally posted by TheMystic6:

All the free content you listed is not significant.. a couple animals, a single weapon, and the ducks and geese and stuff you have to pay for the proper equipment. Backpacks are not significant. Every other game that was successful that ive seen has had much more content given via updates, and less as DLC. Again, the price of the combined DLC does not often exceed the list price of the game.

I apologize for my OP not being quite as clear as I wanted it to be.

Also, let me rephrase my argument on quads/tents.. DLC should not make any game any easier... it should only expand the game. I know this game isnt really competitive, but if it were, that would be clearly labeled pay to win. But since it isnt competitive, we can instead label it pay to make the game easier, which doesnt seem right to me.

This game is meant to be a simulator. Hunting simulators should touch on most of the aspects of real hunting. Where I am from, nobody in their right minds goes out hunting without a tent, ground blind, or tree stand to stay in. Also, if you've ever been on a hunting trip to the pacific northwest (places like Alaska, western canada, etc.) Nobody goes hunting without some sort of vehicle (usually a quad or a snowmobile) to bring their gear out and bring their kill back.

I do not expect new animals to be free, I expect them to come with new maps, which are fine as DLCs. I dont expect all new weapons and accessories to be free, but most of them should be. All good games that I have played have released significant content for free, and lots of it.

The supposed quality or significance of free content and the supposed necessity or lack there of regarding base game content is mostly opinion and we could debate these to infinity and not change one simple fact, many people are going to, like you, argue for more and more free stuff despite getting countless hours of entertainment for what amounts to pennies on the hour (fractions of a cent for many) while many others are going to continue to be totally fine paying for additional content knowing that's the only way to continue to getting additional content.

As for all these other successful games that pump out free content... exactly what successful non early access, non "free to play"/pay to play games are you playing that consistently and continually release high levels of free content that is not community made mods and/or DLC's whose combined price do not exceed that of the base game?

theHunter: Call of the Wild - base game 19.99 - combined DLC to date 43.92

American Truck Simulator - base game 19.99 - combined DLC's 49.89

Cities: Skylines - base game 29.99 - combined DLC's 140.84

Civ V - base game 29.99 - combined DLC's 119.35

Civ VI - base game 59.99 - combined DLC's 107.92

Euro Truck Simulator - base game 19.99 - combined DLC's 183.37

Farming Simulator 17 - base game 24.99 - combined DLC's 57.96

FarCry 4 - base game 29.99 - combined DLC's 67.45

FarCry 5 practically brand new - base game 59.99 - and already combined DLC's 69.95

Crusader Kings 11 - base game 39.99 - combined DLC's 301.72

ARK: Survival Evolved - base game 49.99 - combined DLC's 104.96

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - base game 39.99 - combined DLC's 54.97

Monster Hunter: World - base game 59.99 - combined DLC's 118.64

Rising Storm 2: Vietnam - base game 29.99 - combined DLC's 75.91

And on and on and on. Continued development and release of new content, regardless of whether one thinks it is significant or thinks it should have been in the base game or thinks it could have been a little less buggy upon release takes a capital investment that requires a return.

[cbrrrman]

Originally posted by southofpegasus:

but what I do know is that ATV's and/or tents are most certainly not a base requirement for hunting

...I'll agree. Not required.

Once the newness wears off and the towers have all been opened...
The ATV DLC seems less then useful and I rarely roll mine now a days.

But I gotta say... I like having my Tent DLC. And IMHO is a useful tool to have.
The best DLC I have bought into anyways. ATV DLC = not so much.

[TheMystic6]

As for all these other successful games that pump out free content... exactly what successful non early access, non "free to play"/pay to play games are you playing that consistently and continually release high levels of free content that is not community made mods and/or DLC's whose combined price do not exceed that of the base game?

Some of the games you listed have bundle offers for DLCs that significantly lower their combined cost. Yes, that includes COTW.. my main point is how many other games offer, sometimes even weekly, free content updates.. ARK and Rust are two good examples. And if you want another game with a small audience that still gives lots of free content, simpleplanes. Back before Keen basically abandoned it, Space Engineers. I mostly play early access games.

Another point to make, many of the games you listed (that I know of) have much larger DLCs that are much more significant. COTW could have done a whole bird hunting expansion that would have been great for $15-20. But instead they add tiny little chunks at a time, when they could probably make a lot more money if they grouped some of the DLCs together and organized better.

And where did you get $105 for ARK DLCs? Theres 3 of them at $20, thats $60. I think you are adding the bundle prices in aswell.. Witcher 3 combined DLCs is $30.

[southofpegasus]

Originally posted by TheMystic6:

Some of the games you listed have bundle offers for DLCs that significantly lower their combined cost. Yes, that includes COTW.. my main point is how many other games offer, sometimes even weekly, free content updates.. ARK and Rust are two good examples. And if you want another game with a small audience that still gives lots of free content, simpleplanes. Back before Keen basically abandoned it, Space Engineers. I mostly play early access games.

Another point to make, many of the games you listed (that I know of) have much larger DLCs that are much more significant. COTW could have done a whole bird hunting expansion that would have been great for $15-20. But instead they add tiny little chunks at a time, when they could probably make a lot more money if they grouped some of the DLCs together and organized better.

And where did you get $105 for ARK DLCs? Theres 3 of them at $20, thats $60. I think you are adding the bundle prices in aswell.. Witcher 3 combined DLCs is $30.

The DLC pricing on all games I mentioned are straight from the Steam store page. Below all available DLC for each game is a total cost for all combined DLC for that game. If the math there is wrong that is a Steam error.

I don't know that ARK and Rust are great arguments. ARK has continued income from DLC. Rust is an extremely popular game that has sold millions of copies and continues to make money from game sales and item/skin sales. If you look at these numbers [rust.facepunch.com] from March of 2017 extrapolate a little for the time since then and make a rough estimate it means Rust has brought in something like 200 million dollars in roughly 5 years time. That means they basically have a 40 million dollar a year budget. Of course they can offer "free" stuff because the free stuff has already been bought. Most games, including COTW, don't have the player base to generate that kind of income sans DLC sales.

[TheMystic6]

Originally posted by southofpegasus:

Originally posted by TheMystic6:

Some of the games you listed have bundle offers for DLCs that significantly lower their combined cost. Yes, that includes COTW.. my main point is how many other games offer, sometimes even weekly, free content updates.. ARK and Rust are two good examples. And if you want another game with a small audience that still gives lots of free content, simpleplanes. Back before Keen basically abandoned it, Space Engineers. I mostly play early access games.

Another point to make, many of the games you listed (that I know of) have much larger DLCs that are much more significant. COTW could have done a whole bird hunting expansion that would have been great for $15-20. But instead they add tiny little chunks at a time, when they could probably make a lot more money if they grouped some of the DLCs together and organized better.

And where did you get $105 for ARK DLCs? Theres 3 of them at $20, thats $60. I think you are adding the bundle prices in aswell.. Witcher 3 combined DLCs is $30.

The DLC pricing on all games I mentioned are straight from the Steam store page. Below all available DLC for each game is a total cost for all combined DLC for that game. If the math there is wrong that is a Steam error.

I don't know that ARK and Rust are great arguments. ARK has continued income from DLC. Rust is an extremely popular game that has sold millions of copies and continues to make money from game sales and item/skin sales. If you look at these numbers [rust.facepunch.com] from March of 2017 extrapolate a little for the time since then and make a rough estimate it means Rust has brought in something like 200 million dollars in roughly 5 years time. That means they basically have a 40 million dollar a year budget. Of course they can offer "free" stuff because the free stuff has already been bought. Most games, including COTW, don't have the player base to generate that kind of income sans DLC sales.

ARK has continued income from DLC, but it has 3 large, very significant DLCs. They all 3 change/expand the game massively, and the devs aren't planning on making any more DLC anytime soon. Those are what DLCs should be. Rust does get money from its item/skin sales, and COTW could do the same if they set that up. Albeit not nearly as much since it doesn't have the player base, but it could still sell cosmetic packs as DLC. Cosmetics are easy to make and can offer profit if done right. The popularity arguments are fair, but what about the other two titles I mentioned? You probably haven't heard of them. They are really small games, yet they continue to give us new content. (well, space engineers, not so much anymore, but they used to before Keen started focusing on medieval engineers)

Also, the DLC pricing on steam must not include the fact that you can buy the bundles. Steam must be including the bundle price in the total DLC, which is wrong. ARK has 3 DLCs at $20 ea. or you can buy the season pass for all 3 for $45. That is how it got $105, although really it is $45.

[southofpegasus]

Originally posted by TheMystic6:

ARK has continued income from DLC, but it has 3 large, very significant DLCs. They all 3 change/expand the game massively, and the devs aren't planning on making any more DLC anytime soon. Those are what DLCs should be. Rust does get money from its item/skin sales, and COTW could do the same if they set that up. Albeit not nearly as much since it doesn't have the player base, but it could still sell cosmetic packs as DLC. Cosmetics are easy to make and can offer profit if done right. The popularity arguments are fair, but what about the other two titles I mentioned? You probably haven't heard of them. They are really small games, yet they continue to give us new content. (well, space engineers, not so much anymore, but they used to before Keen started focusing on medieval engineers)

Also, the DLC pricing on steam must not include the fact that you can buy the bundles. Steam must be including the bundle price in the total DLC, which is wrong. ARK has 3 DLCs at $20 ea. or you can buy the season pass for all 3 for $45. That is how it got $105, although really it is $45.

If COTW went that route it would basically be a prettier Classic and, in the long run, likely be more expensive for players who wanted all the content.

Don't know anything about Space Engineers but, if it's been abandoned, it's pretty much irrelevant in a conversation about games that continue to offer content, free or otherwise. As for SimplePlanes there's no comparison between it and COTW. The assets in that game are elementary compared to the assets in COTW. It's like comparing a kindergartner's drawing to a Rembrandt painting. Even the most inexperienced modeler could make those kinds of assets without too much difficulty. I'm sure anything they're adding in SImplePlanes is just some random stuff they do in their spare time when they're not working on the newer SimpleRockets2 and whatever other project/s they may be considering after SimpleRockets2.

[Malker]

Originally posted by Ivory:

I partially agree with you, unfortunately I don't think they're going to change the way they do things. People keep buying their content and that is all the incentive the devs need, despite the myriad of flaws and complaints. I'm guilty of this as well. Also the fact that CoTW is by far the best hunting "simulator" out there.

The lack of competition means we either content ourselves with what we have or stop playing altogether, which I'm not going to do because I enjoy the game and in 150 hours of gaming I've only experience a couple of minor problems... except lately with the AMD crashes. So we're strapped for alternatives here.

DLCs are easy to tackle - don't like 'em, don't buy 'em. But when the problem lies with the game itself and the developers... which seems to be your case... what else can I tell besides looking for greener pastures elsewhere? You said it yourself - they don't seem to care about their community, so the fact you stuck around pretty much tells me you still care about the game hope something will change.

Sure I care about the game and I hope things change. Otherwise all the peepz here and me wouldn't raise their voices. Unless there is real competition at eye level EW are not going to get out of their comfort zone. Sure the people are buying their stuff the success is theirs. I won't unless there is a a major price drop or a sale. There is so much potential in this game but the develepoment towards it is really slow. They are holding back content to make money and this attitude is pestering me. The hunting lodge is one of the things that almost everyone wants. It's part of classic, it's predecessor. Why not in CoTW? Instead they implement a watered down version in the latest DLC. It's a cheeky skin game.

[cbrrrman]

" we can instead label it pay to make the game easier "

pay for ?

The only thing that makes the game easier is earning Perks and Skills.
You can't buy those in a DLC or anything that I know of.

[TheMystic6]

Originally posted by southofpegasus:

Originally posted by TheMystic6:

ARK has continued income from DLC, but it has 3 large, very significant DLCs. They all 3 change/expand the game massively, and the devs aren't planning on making any more DLC anytime soon. Those are what DLCs should be. Rust does get money from its item/skin sales, and COTW could do the same if they set that up. Albeit not nearly as much since it doesn't have the player base, but it could still sell cosmetic packs as DLC. Cosmetics are easy to make and can offer profit if done right. The popularity arguments are fair, but what about the other two titles I mentioned? You probably haven't heard of them. They are really small games, yet they continue to give us new content. (well, space engineers, not so much anymore, but they used to before Keen started focusing on medieval engineers)

Also, the DLC pricing on steam must not include the fact that you can buy the bundles. Steam must be including the bundle price in the total DLC, which is wrong. ARK has 3 DLCs at $20 ea. or you can buy the season pass for all 3 for $45. That is how it got $105, although really it is $45.

If COTW went that route it would basically be a prettier Classic and, in the long run, likely be more expensive for players who wanted all the content.

Don't know anything about Space Engineers but, if it's been abandoned, it's pretty much irrelevant in a conversation about games that continue to offer content, free or otherwise. As for SimplePlanes there's no comparison between it and COTW. The assets in that game are elementary compared to the assets in COTW. It's like comparing a kindergartner's drawing to a Rembrandt painting. Even the most inexperienced modeler could make those kinds of assets without too much difficulty. I'm sure anything they're adding in SImplePlanes is just some random stuff they do in their spare time when they're not working on the newer SimpleRockets2 and whatever other project/s they may be considering after SimpleRockets2.

How would it end up like classic? Classic was full of microtransactions for things that are very important.. selling cosmetics doesnt change anything except the look of something.

Originally posted by cbrrrman:

" we can instead label it pay to make the game easier "

pay for ?

The only thing that makes the game easier is earning Perks and Skills.
You can't buy those in a DLC or anything that I know of.

Quads and tents make the game much easier. The travel part at least. Maybe not just easier but faster as well.