What should a good DLC/Expansion pack include?

[Proverbial Jon]

Fable 3: Traitors Keep

It is a REALLY good DLC, its almost better than the game itself!

Difficult, but not to difficlut, a good story, new enemies, great characters, fun missions and a twist you (I, atleast) wont see coming!

Seriously, you didn't see that one? I'm always looking out for twists along those lines. I had that DLC's number from the moment the situation was explained.

Although it was probably Fable's best DLC to date. New areas, characters and more stuff to do, it can't be such a bad thing. Plus plenty of things to collect, keeps the OCD inside happy.

OT: I would say a great DLC should be like a whole new game, only obviously smaller in size. We need new areas to explore, new characters to interact with and possibly a spin on the usual gameplay.

Mass Effect 2 tried hard but didn't quite get it right with Arrival. Project Overlord wasn't bad but the Hammerhead missions were a joke.

Look to Bethesda's Shivering Isles for the perfect example of DLC done right.

 

[gigastar]

This is the best example.

Yuri's Revenge is almost a whole game by today's standards.

Damn you, beat me to it.

But yeah, in an RTS Yuris Revenge added a whole new faction, significant changes and upgrades to the existing factions, new campaigns and more maps.

It may not sound quite as much today but in 2002 that was a whole other story.

 

[Something Amyss]

Enough content to justify the price?

Indeed. It's hard to quantify further. For a buck or two, I find a lot less content necessary or acceptable than a ten dollar pack.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

I'd like DLC to seperate Add-ons and Expansion packs.
With Add-ons, you pay a small amount of money for a small amount of content. Something that is literally just Added On to the vanilla game, map packs and costumes for example.

With Expansions, you pay a larger sum of money but get your money's worth in content. Rather than just adding something to the game, they build and expand upon it.

Its really not that hard a concept to grasp, but I hate it when devs make pay 200 Microsoft points for horse armor.

Add-ons:

Free DLC should be gimmicky stuff Like Santa Claus outfits for you character for example.
(Lots of this in Fable III)

Small DLC should include things like raised level cap, New quests/missions, multiplayer maps
(For example Saints Row 2 Ultor Exposed and Corporate warfare Or any COD DLC)

Expansion packs:

Medium DLC should have a completely experience, full with its own quests, items and such. (Undead nightmare from RDR for example)

Large DLC should be on a new full story line set in its own seperate fully fleshed out world.
(Shivering Isles of course)

 

[Lt. Rocky]

It may just be my personal taste, but I found Duke Nukem Forever: The Doctor Who Cloned Me expansion to be really good. Eighty times better than what the original was, if that's worth anything. It may have been shorter, but it was much better paced with a more reasonable plot and, naturally, enjoyable new dialogue from good ol' Duke. The new weapons were meh, but its easily overlooked from the hilarity of fighting Duke Nukem clones that behave like self-loving Terminators, as well as some the funniest things you'll ever see in a video game. Also, it ended on the moon...something the original diserved a good slap for missing. Its good to see Duke's still trying, and its more than liable evidence this isn't the end for him

 

[Joccaren]

DLC should contain a low pricetag (Get above $12 and you're pushing it) and add in small new things. A new NPC companion, a new mission - that sort of thing. The best sort of DLC is the Lair of the Shadow Broker sort - the sort that fixes some of the issues fans had with the game, adds something slightly different in and maintains a good atmosphere.
Expansions should be more... well, expansive. They should contain not just a new mission or two, but new weapons, new races, a new story, new maps - basically what CoD sells of each year as a new game SHOULD be sold as an expansion. The pricetag for these can range from $10 to $30 and still be reasonable.

 

[omicron1]

Yes:

No:

Civilization 5 exemplifies exactly what not to do with your expansion pack. Whereas Civ IV had packs with multiple new civilizations, random maps, and gameplay features for $40-$50, Civ 5 has individual civilizations (with a single map apiece) for $5 a pop. No new gameplay whatsoever, just what amounts to an expensive reskin of existing content. When compared to the bounty of riches Firaxis offered to its Civ IV players, 2K's attempts this time around seem anemic, uninspired, and insipid.

 

[zspartancats]

Just add zombies, cause we all love zombies! Just kidding.

A good DLC should extend the life of the game. Whether it be a new maps/areas or a whole new experience.

I truly hate those skin/costumes DLCs. I wish we could just unlock them for doing challenges or beating the game on hardest settings.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

A good DLC should provide a few more hours of enjoyment added to the original game. It doesn't matter if there a map pack like CoD or a massive expansion like TBoGT, as long as the person who bought it actually enjoys it and doesn't feel ripped off then it's fine.

 

[Lawbringer]

Spoiler: Yes:

Spoiler: No:

Civilization 5 exemplifies exactly what not to do with your expansion pack. Whereas Civ IV had packs with multiple new civilizations, random maps, and gameplay features for $40-$50, Civ 5 has individual civilizations (with a single map apiece) for $5 a pop. No new gameplay whatsoever, just what amounts to an expensive reskin of existing content. When compared to the bounty of riches Firaxis offered to its Civ IV players, 2K's attempts this time around seem anemic, uninspired, and insipid.

Thank you...thank you! As I was scrolling, I was picturing my response in my head and it was this exactly. Civ V was a major disappointment to me, not least due to the extremely underwhelming DLC. If the same proportion of actual effort required to create against price paid was applied to the main game, I would have to take out a mortgage to buy Civ V! Frankly, I consider this a travesty compared to the glory of the Civ IV expansions, which I happily would pay £15-20 a pop for. In fact, I liked them so much I paid for them all individually...then again for the 'complete' version on disc. Then they were on Steam, so I bought them all over again! Paid for them three times and I'm confident I still got a fairer deal than £2.99 PER FACTION!

I can't stress enough how much I lost faith in the Civilization games after nearly twenty years of happy marriage from this sad departure from creativity. Not a SINGLE new thing has gone into Civ V since its inception that the most basic of modders could not have done themselves (ie reskins, reskins, reskins...)

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Anything done before this generation is how to make an expansion pack. Most of the problem with DLC is that a lot of it is stuff that would have been in the game before this gen ie different costumes and weapon skins you would unlock by playing the game.

Even when there is DLC the price is usually way off for what it is and DLC does not depreciate at a reasonable rate. I mean like there is something horribly wrong with the DLC system when years later I can buy the game again in GOYE form for cheaper than buying the DLC separately. Buy the game twice makes it cheaper it makes sense I swear it does.

Some of the games you buy today could be considered expansions.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

DLC should provide a new experience that is worth the price, but beware! Though the addition should be a meaningful contribution to the piece, the original game MUST also be complete and worth the purchase price.

Starcraft: Broodwar comes to mind as a good example... the first game was well balanced and came to a satisfying conclusion, ranging over three racial campaigns of about 10 missions each. Broodwar was equally as long, added some new units that were themselves balanced, and came to an equally satisfying conclusion... it was FULLFILLING but not NECESSARY.

By contrast, DLC that only adds new equipment or abilities seems like a poor way to go. Either the new equipment breaks the game or it fits in perfectly... but leaves the original game without something that it really should have had from the word go. For example, in Dragon Age the first, a chest to store your stuff in (provided in one of the expansions) really should have been in the game to start with, given the vast number of gems and herbs and runes you were to hang on to for leveling up your armies. Making someone pay extra for something that is needed to make the experience a coherent whole in the first place is bad form.

Anyway, for my money your focus has to be on depriving neither the original game purchaser nor the buyer of the expansion of the value they have paid for. It's a pretty tall order.

 

[TheLoveableMuffin]

Good expansion packs should always offer something new to the experience we know. Though modern games seem to just add multiplayer maps now...which isn't exactly fun for those who don't like or play multiplayer.

 

[Berenzen]

Spoiler

What all expansions should try to attempt to attain. One of the best expansions out there. Love or hate Obsidian, MotB was a masterpiece, not very buggy, a tight story with massive amounts of symbolism.

Spoiler

A great set of DLC, that wasn't overpriced for the amount of game that they added. They added to the story, gave good rewards, and expanded upon the storyline of the game. While it wasn't needed, it really made the world seem even more alive.

Yeah, I realize I linked expansions and DLC to Obsidian games, but honestly, they make damn good expansions and DLC.

 

[JaceArveduin]

RTS wise, I think Rise of the Witch-King was pretty good, the gameplay was shook up some, they added in a new faction and some new units for existing factions, new maps, and tinkered with the create-a-hero some more (even if it was abused to hell)

Also going to second The Shivering Isles, all kinds of neat new things, and Sheogorath, who is epic.

 

[SweetLiquidSnake]

Some of the DLCs I've got that I loved are Shivering Isles for Oblivion since it's just huge and it adds all new items and enemies and places. Even knights of the nine was decent.

Fallout 3 and NV had some amazing ones such Broken Steel and Point Lookout, but some lame ones like Operation Anchorage and Dead Money.

Mass Effect's were kind of small but were really only there for bridging ME2 and 3.

Both Left 4 Deads had some lame DLC, just extra maps really, nothing new, well maybe mutations...

SVR 2011 had one that allowed you to unlock everything in one go, which was really nice.

Arkham City and Saints Row 3 have nothing but shit DLC, just adding challenge maps and 2-3 items, although both have some story based coming soon (finally).

I guess it just depends if it adds some great new stuff without taking away what you already love. Best DLC ever = Shivering Isles

 

[Cal Thomas]

See Painkiller: Battle Out of Hell. About a fourth as long as the actual game. Of course, they could probably just make a whole sequel instead, but still...

 

[Smooth Operator]

It should simply add good value for money, if you are asking $15 that is 25% of the games worth so it needs to bring 25% content on top, and a $30 expansion needs %50 extra content.

That is how it used to be done with expansion packs, they used the old game as a platform to bring you more and more content, now it's used as a platform to hustle money.
Just recently been playing EDF which is a cheap fun game, after finishing I check for DLC because new missions and abilities are really needed, and what do these fuckers sell... item packs and all items are procedurally fucking generated, you are asking money for writing down a couple of stats?! Are you completely fucking insane.

I was writing up the full list of sins dev's racked up with DLC but it's so depressing I don't even want to finish it.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Just do what Bethesda do! (except for that one DLC... you know the one I'm talking about) - but everything else, do that!

 

[Lt. Rocky]

See Painkiller: Battle Out of Hell. About a fourth as long as the actual game. Of course, they could probably just make a whole sequel instead, but still...

I was going to mention Painkiller. Battle Out of Hell (and Overdose, to an extent) were shining examples on how to make an expansion. Shame Resurrection or Redemption couldn't live up to them..

Both Left 4 Deads had some lame DLC, just extra maps really, nothing new, well maybe mutations...

I think it's safe to say the mediocrity of Left 4 Dead's add ons can be justified by the fact they didn't cost a dime. At least for the PC. They weren't harmful in anyway.