Poll: Do you ever miss classical expansion pack methods?

[Jiggle Counter]

Just for this topic, I've ended up splitting the terms, Expansion Packs, and DLC, from one another. But only because of what they traditionally brought to the table in terms of content. Not for their politically correct terms, or going into any deep analysis of digital distributions between eras in time.
Just keeping in the sense that Expansion Pack essentially means, "One gigantic bundle of extra content" And DLC refering to tiny pieces of addon content, or even in-game purchases.

Again, to me, traditionally, an Expansion Pack was one gigantic addon. For example, Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows Of Amn, and it's expansion pack, Throne Of Bhaal.

With the Throne Of Bhaal expansion, it was like a whole extra game.

Imagine you bought Fallout 3, and instead of buying Fallout: New Vegas as a standalone game, it came as an Expansion Pack. Priced cheaper than a standalone game because of the shared game engine, textures, etc.

With DLC however, they seem more often than not, tiny, in comparison to an Expansion Packs of long ago.

Stuff like map packs for multiplayer, a small group of cars, extra clothes, a gun or a sword, armour for your horse, extra colours, etc.

I mean, the amount of times I've gone into a game and found a huge list of DLC, all sold individually for a tiny price, and it's usually for something stupid like a shoe or a helmet. Stuff I wish either came in the original game considering how tiny it is, or stuff I wish they just threw into one gigantic expansion pack and released it all together.

What do you prefer?

And keep in mind this isn't one of those, "Choice A is superior and should replace choice B, and choice B should die"

I'm just asking what method of adding content do you personally prefer?

 

[Mezahmay]

They each have their benefits and drawbacks. The old expansion model was a huge chunk of content that all generally worked well together and was polished to a shine (in my experience, anyway.) The individual DLC model can still have those benefits, but probably costs more as a whole and takes longer to release if you keep an eye on it from the start. You also have a chance to get sections of DLC you don't like if you buy them as a bundle, which can feel like a loss of value. However, if you wait you can save on the total cost for the game and DLC or you can choose to not buy them.

I personally prefer individual sections of DLC in most cases since it allows me to spend what I want for the content I want, but it's really hard to pass up old legitimate expansion packs like Reaper of Souls.

 

[Something Amyss]

Like the poster above, I feel they both have their benefits.

As a Rock Band fan, I really appreciate the ability to buy things a la cart. The big down side to this is that people will take what used to be a five dollar expansion and sell it off as like 20 one dollar pieces. For big content updates, I don't mind paying ten or twenty bucks, but if it's just a loose collection of stuff, I'd rather buy individual pieces for a fair price.

The biggest problem is getting a fair price.

 

[Clearwaters]

When I buy smaller DLC like weapons or costumes I feel obligated to always use the stuff I paid extra money for instead of switching things up a lot like I usually do when I play games. Sure that's more of a problem on my part, but it's the main reason why I prefer Expansion pack type methods since they add in things in a much more "natural" way.

 

[Frission]

I would normally say that they're tools and should thus be judged as such, but frankly I dislike the way DLC's have been handled, since it feels like instead of getting a whole game, you're just getting bits and pieces of it. I would vastly prefer that we returned to expansion packs, since I can actually see the logic of buying those, since they're large extensions to the game.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Why can't we have both?

When I think expansion packs, I think Starcraft Brood War, or Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction or all those amazing Mass Effect 1-3 story add ons or what have you. Something that either builds upon what we already have(ie lets you use the same characters) or is just a new story using the same game mechanics. Those I'm willing to pay up to $20 or so.

For a DLC, I think extra weapons, armor, or a single new character like Kasumi or Javik. Something that adds to already established 'on disk' gameplay. And I'm actually okay with both, as long as the prices are kept relative to the product. DLC should never be more than $5. Ever. Whereas an expansion pack I'd say should never be less than $10 because then it feels less like an expansion and more like paying for cut content that was at one point already included.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Any one remember Skyrim: Dragonborn? If that's not an expansion pack then i don't know what is.
While the argument over the merits of DLC and the rather dubious business practices are perfectly valid, DLC at its purest form is essentially just expansion packs of arbitrary size. It can be anything from a single gun skin, to an entirely new area filled with new enemies, new items, new music, new characters, new story, etc.

So in that respect, I would say that DLC done right is better than expansion packs.

 

[Methodia Chicken]

I miss the times when expansion packs were delivered in injections direct through the bloodstream containing massive quantities of storyline and game play updated including 23 gigabytes of Bruce lee's face staring impassively at the player slowly mouthing the words "brie cheese" over and over again.

but dlc is nice too. I like giving EA my petty cash. makes me feel like a an upper class pimp

 

[G00N3R7883]

I strongly prefer the old expansion packs. NeverWinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer was particularly awesome, probably the best example I can think of.

I think the player gets better value for money and its more exciting for me to play one long story than multiple short stories that don't really connect to each other. (And I can't even put into words how little I care about costume or item DLC).

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I appreciate the "a la carte" method that DLC allows, not to mention that they are still releasing things that would be large enough to fall under the category of "expansion pack" (X-Com: Enemy within and Skyrim: Dragonborn are two examples). They're also still maintaining the smaller downloads for just little trinkets you can add as well. I think we have the best of both worlds now.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

I never really got into DLC; The game is usually fine without spending a few more dollars making someone look a bit different or having a slightly different gun. The only time I really saw the use for it was with Rock Band or Trials, games where a new track was a substantial gain.

Similarly, I like expansion packs because they add something significant to the game. If NV was an expansion for Fallout 3, that would be ridiculously cool, but something that big and different deserves it's own game. However, the NV expansions (Honest Hearts, Old World Blues, Dead Money, and Lonesome Road) were fantastic pieces that added story, weapons, companions, and everything else you would want from an expansion, giving you at least 5-10 more hours of gameplay apiece.

 

[Shiftygiant]

Whilst I miss the classic expansion pack, I wouldn't necessarily say they are gone; Fallout New Vegas, with The Lonesome Road and Old Wold Blues (Among others) comes to mind. However, I do wish that more games would have proper Expansion packs, an Example being Call Of Duty- when I buy a 'expansion pack', I expect more story, not just a new map for the Multiplayer (Although the Zombie stuff was nice, I guess).

 

[visiblenoise]

I usually play games more for the overall experience, rather than any specific gameplay elements, so I'm not a fan of tiny DLC bits, especially those new weapon/skin/character ones. Even story DLC is annoying to me because it often feels like it's just milking all the hard work that was put into the main game's tools/engine. Not to mention that it's rare that I find a game world so compelling that I would pay just to have an extra morsel of story.

 

[Boolanger]

I don't have a problem with either but I don't ever go looking to purchase DLC and really only every get it if its is included in whatever I buy. I don't really care for little items if they mattered then they would be in the game already.

Expansions for Xcom, Skyrim, Fallout, Dragon age, Civ etc. on the other hand will be a buy if I enjoyed the game. Give me more world/story to enjoy and I'm in. I don't really care for extra characters unless they would be curial to the game and if they are I would be at odds to buy it or not cause they should have been in the game in the 1st place if they truly mattered.

With that said I'm not really into multiplayer much, I would think I would be more inclined to go for smaller dlc pack if I were.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

A little bit. An expansion pack promises a revamp of gameplay, or a siginificant addition of content, whereas DLC can vary wildly.

Expansion packs were cool. Dragon Age Awakening was particularly good, and tried to explore an interesting, alternative narrative to the one in Origins, and benefited because of it.

 

[Lunar Templar]

There's room for both really, and theres nothing 'wrong' with ether, it's all in how they've been used.

 

[Reed Spacer]

I prefr DLC to actually add something to a game.

I do not care if I can give my character a new costume.

I do nt care if I can give my vehicle 'an awesome paintjob',

If I download something, I prefer it to be something that has an actual purpose, as oppsed to frivilous garbage like this.