Paid DLC in X4

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
Sandalpocalypse
Posts: 4447
Joined: Tue, 2. Dec 03, 22:28
x4

Post by Sandalpocalypse » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 17:01

The problem there is largely economic imo. X games have a limited fanbase as is, and late game content would only even be played by a relatively small fraction of that small fanbase. So when allocating scarce resources its hard to blame Egosoft for not developing endgame too much, especially when the rich modding scene of earlier games contributed greatly to endgame.

Ideally that sort of endgame content can develop naturally from the sandbox, i.e. the player builds an empire then declares war on the Paranid. In x3 there were many problems with this, such as the nature of the jumpgate network. In XR it is much more potentially interesting but still limited in its interactivity by Jobsfile-style spawning.
Irrational factors are clearly at work.

Vector_Gorgoth
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat, 23. Mar 13, 01:49
x3ap

Post by Vector_Gorgoth » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 18:51

Rei Ayanami wrote:
Vector_Gorgoth wrote: td;dr: I don't want to have something that should have been included in the base game costing additional money.
The question is : What does "should have been included in the first game" really mean? That's a highly subjective topic.
It's only slightly subjective, and only in certain respects.

The bare, naked minimum is that a game should not have less content or fewer features than its predecessors. Expansions are somewhat exempt from this (assuming they're priced as expansions, and not as full games).
If X3 allows fleet control, logistics, automated trading, station building, complexes, ship equipping and remote control, commodities trade, stock market, piracy, lasers/missiles, semi-dynamic economy, etc. -- then X4 is not "feature complete" unless it has the same features (if a feature is removed, it needs to be replaced with another feature which is at least as desirable as the first). That's the bare "don't insult me, here" minimum - but most of the time, a sequel is expected to have MORE features than its predecessor, and for good reason - the development team (hopefully) learnt how to implement the set of features in the prior game; it should not take more effort for them to reimplement them in a sequel; if they're able to reuse or extend the engine from the predecessor, then there's even less reason for them to remove stuff or skimp on new features.

Likewise, the overall size and variation of campaigns and missions available shouldn't be less; it doesn't have to be more (though that's nice), because that stuff takes the same amount of work every time, but it shouldn't decrease, either.

Then there are other considerations: for a game with no predecessors, it needs to be "feature complete" - ANYTHING advertised in the pre-release hype should be included for only the base cost of the game; no exceptions. In other words, the game should deliver on the "vision" communicated to the players pre-release before the developers even THINK about charging for additional content. Anything required to make the game playable (and not hideously tedious or repetitive) is mandatory. Anything required to make the game actually fun for people who don't have obsessive-compulsive tendencies is mandatory.

After that, it's a bit more subjective. The selection of, e.g., ships and weapons in a space game, should be robust in the base package or in free updates/DLC. If a race has only a few playable ships, and you have to pay to get something approaching the selection in a previous game, that's another insult to the players. Likewise, weapons, missiles, upgrades, etc. However, the specific criteria are harder to nail down - especially when counting or considering redundant or seemingly identical items in a previous game, or stuff nobody used, etc.

Another case where being forced to pay is unacceptable is where an "oh duh!" feature is thought up post-release and implementing it is very technically simple. The turbo booster is a good example of that sort of thing - even though in that case it was a player mod, it could have been hacked together by a good dev in an afternoon, if they'd thought of it (assuming the scripting in this game isn't totally insane - I haven't looked at it much).

User avatar
Sandalpocalypse
Posts: 4447
Joined: Tue, 2. Dec 03, 22:28
x4

Post by Sandalpocalypse » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 19:55

A great number of sequels have less content and less features than their predecessors. For example, Dawn of War II had fewer factions and less campaign content than Dawn of War I.

MMOs that have received sequels - or comparing new MMOs to older MMOs - are also a case in point. Newer games typically have way less content than older ones that have received additions.
Irrational factors are clearly at work.

User avatar
The Q
Pancake Award Winner 2017
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri, 20. Nov 09, 21:02

Post by The Q » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 20:47

Vector_Gorgoth wrote:
Rei Ayanami wrote:
Vector_Gorgoth wrote: td;dr: I don't want to have something that should have been included in the base game costing additional money.
The question is : What does "should have been included in the first game" really mean? That's a highly subjective topic.
It's only slightly subjective, and only in certain respects.

The bare, naked minimum is that a game should not have less content or fewer features than its predecessors. Expansions are somewhat exempt from this (assuming they're priced as expansions, and not as full games).
If X3 allows fleet control, logistics, automated trading, station building, complexes, ship equipping and remote control, commodities trade, stock market, piracy, lasers/missiles, semi-dynamic economy, etc. -- then X4 is not "feature complete" unless it has the same features (if a feature is removed, it needs to be replaced with another feature which is at least as desirable as the first). That's the bare "don't insult me, here" minimum - but most of the time, a sequel is expected to have MORE features than its predecessor, and for good reason - the development team (hopefully) learnt how to implement the set of features in the prior game; it should not take more effort for them to reimplement them in a sequel; if they're able to reuse or extend the engine from the predecessor, then there's even less reason for them to remove stuff or skimp on new features.
I’m afraid but I severly disagree with this, which brings us back to the initial statement of subjectivity regarding the term “feature complete“. The realisation that a feature is not as fun as thought or doesn’t work as good as intended can always lead to it being removed. Also removing features in order to streamline interaction possibilities, interface and controls can mean a lot of improvement. Thus the number of features and functionalities has no real impact on what constitutes a “feature complete“ game at release. Or in other words quality always trumps quantity.

Meeting expectactions which are created during the pre-release campaign is what I would agree with. Although, this is a tricky thing too, as everyone awaits different levels of feature implementation based on what was promised. If they would avertise an epic story, then I, as someone who has played a couple of X games already, would expect a good plot in the 5 to 7 hours range (without too much ware hauling) at best. Someone who is used to playing Bioware games may expect something completely different though.

As for seemingly simple features being available in paid DLCs, while I can understand the sentiment of wanting to have these for free, the reality of programming and developing games is that even simple features require development time to be made. Of course, when I buy a game I somewhat expect that next to bug fixes also some of these little features will be implemented for free and are part of patches. However, realistically this cannot go on forever. The ongoing argument about modders being able to do things in their sparetime too, doesn’t really strike me as a counter argument. Continuing this thought the whole service industry would have hard time making money. Also you will find that “hacking things together“ is not what developers want to do. This is also why in most case, when a mod idea was implemented into the game, it was really just the idea that was adapted and not the actually code. (I’m not sure whether your Turbo Booster example was an actual reference to X Rebirth, as the Booster was part of X Rebirth from the beginning. Actually, I cannot think of any X game where I had to pay to get a Booster addon of some sort.)
Morkonan, Emperor of the Unaffiliated Territories of the Principality of OFF-TOPIC, wrote:I have come to answer your questions! The answers are "Yes" and "Probably" as well as "No" and "Maybe", but I'm not sure in which order they should be given.
xkcd: Duty calls

RAVEN.myst
Posts: 2585
Joined: Mon, 20. Jun 11, 13:16
x3tc

Post by RAVEN.myst » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 21:31

Sandalpocalypse wrote:A great number of sequels have less content and less features than their predecessors. For example, Dawn of War II had fewer factions and less campaign content than Dawn of War I.

MMOs that have received sequels - or comparing new MMOs to older MMOs - are also a case in point. Newer games typically have way less content than older ones that have received additions.
Sadly, all too true. Working as a gaming journalist for nigh on 2 decades, I saw this happening for quite some time, a gradual but inexorable attrition of content yet accompanied by rising pricing/monetization. Essentially, a consumeristic trend born of gaming's success as an entertainment medium, "maturing" from a niche one to a mainstream one. Unfortunately, this has led to widespread dumbing down of titles more or less across the board, as well as shortening of content duration in order to:
- Create a vacuum to be filled with paid DLC later
- Make the titles more "consumable" - reduce a title's longevity and you end up increasing turn-over for subsequent titles (appealing to what I call "the ADD generation")
All too often, this practice is covered up by the excuse that the story-driven content is "merely a tutorial/springboard" and that the game's focus is intended to be "multiplayer-centric". A particularly disgusting example of this was Modern Warfare 2, whose entire campaign can be finished quite easily in just a few hours - when I tested that on release (yes, a good number of years ago, now), I at that point abandoned that franchise entirely (though, to be fair, I had never been an enthusiast in any case - but this was the final nail in the coffin.) Also, game makers are increasingly relying on bling to dazzle and seduce their attention-deficient audiences into short-lived purchases, and to distract them from whatever game/s they may have been playing at the time (after all, they want to increase turnover - which is understandable to a degree - doesn't mean I have to like it, though, or participate therein. :D heheheh)

Consequently, as a result of this trend, I have found myself falling back more and more on older classics (the X3s and also X2 being significant contributors in this regard, as well as some other highly time-intensive older games), and no longer investing funds in new titles, finding that the return on investment has become dismally poor of late. (In my opinion, btw, the first Dawn of War is far superior to the second.) Luckily, at around the time I made this decision, I also moved out of gaming journalism - or perhaps it wasn't luck but an inevitability, as my views became increasingly incompatible...
-
Boron passenger: "You must hurry - my testicles are drying out!"
-
Born on Lave, raised on Freeport 7...
-
The Write Stuff

Rei Ayanami
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Post by Rei Ayanami » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 21:55

Vector_Gorgoth wrote:The bare, naked minimum is that a game should not have less content or fewer features than its predecessors.

If X3 allows fleet control, logistics, automated trading, station building, complexes, ship equipping and remote control, commodities trade, stock market, piracy, lasers/missiles, semi-dynamic economy, etc. -- then X4 is not "feature complete" unless it has the same features (if a feature is removed, it needs to be replaced with another feature which is at least as desirable as the first). That's the bare "don't insult me, here" minimum.
What if a game is so overeloaded with features where the sequel having less features but making these kept features so much better actually makes the game better?
What if a feature was implemented in the predecessor but totally unneeded or even unwanted by the player base?

For example i'd totally be fine if for X4 they scrapped the idea of me having to search and hire a competent pilot for each of my small ships and i wouldn't mind if they didn't replace it with anything.
Then there are other considerations: for a game with no predecessors, it needs to be "feature complete" - ANYTHING advertised in the pre-release hype should be included for only the base cost of the game; no exceptions. In other words, the game should deliver on the "vision" communicated to the players pre-release
I disagree.
From experience i can tell you that during game development there are tons of ideas that pop up "wouldn't be that cool?" "yea, we should definitely try that" and which, during interviews about the game, gets mentioned as a planned feature. But then it turns out, after implementing a prototype of that idea, that the feature - when used ingame - isn't really that fun so it gets scrapped. Should game devs still implement these features even though it turns out that they were not fun, just because they said they planned to have that feature ingame?
Another case where being forced to pay is unacceptable is where an "oh duh!" feature is thought up post-release and implementing it is very technically simple.
That i wholeheartedly agree with.

Sparky Sparkycorp
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 8074
Joined: Tue, 30. Mar 04, 12:28
x4

Post by Sparky Sparkycorp » Fri, 11. Aug 17, 23:38

X4 isn't out yet so this seems a little premature to me personally. That said, DLCs for X Rebirth were substantive (unique settings with unique mechanics) with the first offered free for a while, and the second tryable pre-purchase via a free demo. Sure, Egosoft could introduce gold ammo (intentional Eve reference) but the signs are not bad in that regard.

Graaf
Posts: 4155
Joined: Fri, 9. Jan 04, 16:36
x3tc

Post by Graaf » Sat, 12. Aug 17, 10:28

Lets look at Rebirth then:
Rebirth (30) + TO (10) + HOL (10)
So for 2/3 of the games current price you can double the amount of space you play in? That makes TO extremely expensive for just 1 system.

But if I use HOL price/system, who is willing to pay an additional 450 to get the other missing systems from X3?

User avatar
Sandalpocalypse
Posts: 4447
Joined: Tue, 2. Dec 03, 22:28
x4

Post by Sandalpocalypse » Sat, 12. Aug 17, 10:40

RAVEN.myst wrote:
Sandalpocalypse wrote:A great number of sequels have less content and less features than their predecessors. For example, Dawn of War II had fewer factions and less campaign content than Dawn of War I.

MMOs that have received sequels - or comparing new MMOs to older MMOs - are also a case in point. Newer games typically have way less content than older ones that have received additions.
Sadly, all too true. Working as a gaming journalist for nigh on 2 decades, I saw this happening for quite some time, a gradual but inexorable attrition of content yet accompanied by rising pricing/monetization. Essentially, a consumeristic trend born of gaming's success as an entertainment medium, "maturing" from a niche one to a mainstream one. Unfortunately, this has led to widespread dumbing down of titles more or less across the board, as well as shortening of content duration in order to:
- Create a vacuum to be filled with paid DLC later
- Make the titles more "consumable" - reduce a title's longevity and you end up increasing turn-over for subsequent titles (appealing to what I call "the ADD generation")
All too often, this practice is covered up by the excuse that the story-driven content is "merely a tutorial/springboard" and that the game's focus is intended to be "multiplayer-centric". A particularly disgusting example of this was Modern Warfare 2, whose entire campaign can be finished quite easily in just a few hours - when I tested that on release (yes, a good number of years ago, now), I at that point abandoned that franchise entirely (though, to be fair, I had never been an enthusiast in any case - but this was the final nail in the coffin.) Also, game makers are increasingly relying on bling to dazzle and seduce their attention-deficient audiences into short-lived purchases, and to distract them from whatever game/s they may have been playing at the time (after all, they want to increase turnover - which is understandable to a degree - doesn't mean I have to like it, though, or participate therein. :D heheheh)

Consequently, as a result of this trend, I have found myself falling back more and more on older classics (the X3s and also X2 being significant contributors in this regard, as well as some other highly time-intensive older games), and no longer investing funds in new titles, finding that the return on investment has become dismally poor of late. (In my opinion, btw, the first Dawn of War is far superior to the second.) Luckily, at around the time I made this decision, I also moved out of gaming journalism - or perhaps it wasn't luck but an inevitability, as my views became increasingly incompatible...
Games are cheap now though. It is actually remarkable how cheap games continue to be. An AAA game that cost $60USD in 2000 cost is equivalent to $85USD today. And decent computer hardware is cheap to acquire as well. Gaming is cheaper than its ever been, except for subscription models.
Irrational factors are clearly at work.

Sparky Sparkycorp
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 8074
Joined: Tue, 30. Mar 04, 12:28
x4

Post by Sparky Sparkycorp » Sat, 12. Aug 17, 13:58

Graaf wrote: That makes TO extremely expensive for just 1 system.

But if I use HOL price/system, who is willing to pay an additional 450 to get the other missing systems from X3?
Comparing system counts between Rebirth and earlier games looks even more inappropriate than comparing sector counts.

RAVEN.myst
Posts: 2585
Joined: Mon, 20. Jun 11, 13:16
x3tc

Post by RAVEN.myst » Sat, 12. Aug 17, 14:56

Sandalpocalypse wrote:Games are cheap now though. It is actually remarkable how cheap games continue to be. An AAA game that cost $60USD in 2000 cost is equivalent to $85USD today. And decent computer hardware is cheap to acquire as well. Gaming is cheaper than its ever been, except for subscription models.
In the First World, perhaps. But certainly not where I live, unfortunately. Game price increases (along with the hardware needed to run them, but that's incidental in any case), outpace local cost of living increase and inflation rates (which are themselves quite high and compounded by a gradual but steady decline in total savings among the low and middle economic classes) by a considerable margin. (This is a point that comes up regularly on various gaming forums - people tend to only consider their own local situations and not envision what things are like elsewhere - perfectly understandable, of course, as that's what's relevant to them; but the trap here is to think that local truths are universally applicable - they are not.)

As for subscription models, yes, I think even in the First World these are becoming passe and no longer sustainable - I have seen a number of sub-based MMOs trying various F2P models (with or without P2W elements, variously) in order to survive and continue, in recent years. (Needless to say, in light of my previous paragraph, sub-based games in my country of residence have been inaccessible to any but the wealthy since the start - especially given the deplorably primitive and *even more expensive* Internot infrastructure here - not a typo, that, btw. ;) )
-
Boron passenger: "You must hurry - my testicles are drying out!"
-
Born on Lave, raised on Freeport 7...
-
The Write Stuff

Graaf
Posts: 4155
Joined: Fri, 9. Jan 04, 16:36
x3tc

Post by Graaf » Sat, 12. Aug 17, 17:28

Sparky Sparkycorp wrote:
Graaf wrote: That makes TO extremely expensive for just 1 system.

But if I use HOL price/system, who is willing to pay an additional 450 to get the other missing systems from X3?
Comparing system counts between Rebirth and earlier games looks even more inappropriate than comparing sector counts.
I am merely comparing the number of areas that are linked by jumpgates.

User avatar
X2-Illuminatus
Moderator (Deutsch)
Moderator (Deutsch)
Posts: 24950
Joined: Sun, 2. Apr 06, 16:38
x4

Post by X2-Illuminatus » Sat, 12. Aug 17, 18:23

Graaf wrote:
Sparky Sparkycorp wrote:
Graaf wrote: That makes TO extremely expensive for just 1 system.

But if I use HOL price/system, who is willing to pay an additional 450 to get the other missing systems from X3?
Comparing system counts between Rebirth and earlier games looks even more inappropriate than comparing sector counts.
I am merely comparing the number of areas that are linked by jumpgates.
And these areas are called systems in X Rebirth and sectors in X3, which are vastly different in design and size. ;)
Nun verfügbar! X3: Farnham's Legacy - Ein neues Kapitel für einen alten Favoriten

Die komplette X-Roman-Reihe jetzt als Kindle E-Books! (Farnhams Legende, Nopileos, X3: Yoshiko, X3: Hüter der Tore, X3: Wächter der Erde)

Neuauflage der fünf X-Romane als Taschenbuch

The official X-novels Farnham's Legend, Nopileos, X3: Yoshiko as Kindle e-books!

Graaf
Posts: 4155
Joined: Fri, 9. Jan 04, 16:36
x3tc

Post by Graaf » Sat, 12. Aug 17, 22:56

X2-Illuminatus wrote:And these areas are called systems in X Rebirth and sectors in X3, which are vastly different in design and size. ;)
So Albion, Home of Light, Omicron Lyrae & Maelstrom are different locations in Rebirth compared to X3?


Maybe I should try another example:
As an stand-alone expansion a la X3, you are going to have to pay for Rebirth 2 (aka X4) because they can't make multiple players ships working with the current Rebirth mechanics.

But should "the real X4" have all the races from X3 or are you going to have to pay even more to get the Boron and Paranid? Or DLC to make all ships pilotable?

User avatar
spankahontis
Posts: 3242
Joined: Tue, 2. Nov 10, 21:47
x4

Post by spankahontis » Sun, 13. Aug 17, 03:39

Nanook wrote:
spankahontis wrote:Why not just return to the classic Expansion Pack model?....
Kindly explain the differences between an "expansion pack" and "paid DLC"? The only difference I see is that one comes in a box and the other gets downloaded from the internet. :wink:

Expansion packs have everything from tons of new scripts, content, quests, ships and a whole host of other features worthy of a 25-40 pound price tag.

The other is a tiny increase of the original game, a new System, a bunch of new ships, basically a sprinkle of change.

And yeah, I prefer my games in retail, box form, so I can take it back if i'm not satisfied.
Not this 2 hour guarantee from Steam, I don't like the thought of owning something that is physically not in my Hand that Steam could revoke if it wanted to.

User avatar
Santi
Moderator (DevNet)
Moderator (DevNet)
Posts: 4046
Joined: Tue, 13. Feb 07, 21:06
x4

Post by Santi » Sun, 13. Aug 17, 05:53

Graaf wrote:Maybe I should try another example:
As an stand-alone expansion a la X3, you are going to have to pay for Rebirth 2 (aka X4) because they can't make multiple players ships working with the current Rebirth mechanics.

But should "the real X4" have all the races from X3 or are you going to have to pay even more to get the Boron and Paranid? Or DLC to make all ships pilotable?
X4 will have multiple flyable ships, nothing to do with X Rebirth where from day one Egosoft make it clear that only one ship will be flyable.
A por ellos que son pocos y cobardes

Graaf
Posts: 4155
Joined: Fri, 9. Jan 04, 16:36
x3tc

Post by Graaf » Sun, 13. Aug 17, 08:36

Santi wrote:
Graaf wrote:Maybe I should try another example:
As an stand-alone expansion a la X3, you are going to have to pay for Rebirth 2 (aka X4) because they can't make multiple players ships working with the current Rebirth mechanics.

But should "the real X4" have all the races from X3 or are you going to have to pay even more to get the Boron and Paranid? Or DLC to make all ships pilotable?
X4 will have multiple flyable ships, nothing to do with X Rebirth where from day one Egosoft make it clear that only one ship will be flyable.
Nothing to do with Rebirth? It's mostly savegame-incompatibility that requires it to be a new game. I highly doubt that they are going to be making a whole new game.
X4 as they like to call it will most likely just be Rebirth 2, the same game you already have with the ability to fly a few more uninteresting ships.

User avatar
MegaJohnny
Posts: 2195
Joined: Wed, 4. Jun 08, 22:30
x4

Post by MegaJohnny » Sun, 13. Aug 17, 15:36

Graaf wrote:
X2-Illuminatus wrote:And these areas are called systems in X Rebirth and sectors in X3, which are vastly different in design and size. ;)
So Albion, Home of Light, Omicron Lyrae & Maelstrom are different locations in Rebirth compared to X3?
Lore-wise, no. Gameplay-wise, yes, and I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply otherwise.

User avatar
Nikola515
Posts: 3187
Joined: Fri, 4. May 12, 07:40
x4

Post by Nikola515 » Sun, 13. Aug 17, 16:18

I'm pretty sure X4 is going to be XR on steroids... But ill still be waiting until we get some info later this month. As far as we know only S/M ships to pilot and tubes as highways. And we will be able to build stations how ever we want. Perhaps it will be more like complexes where we can build ice refinery with solar panels for example ??? I hope they explain more about this... Anyway hoping for the best and expecting worse ;)
It's not world hunger because we can't feed poor,it's because there will never be enough to feed the rich .....

Sparky Sparkycorp
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 8074
Joined: Tue, 30. Mar 04, 12:28
x4

Post by Sparky Sparkycorp » Sun, 13. Aug 17, 17:34

Nikola515 wrote:we will be able to build stations how ever we want. Perhaps it will be more like complexes where we can build ice refinery with solar panels for example ??? I hope they explain more about this... Anyway hoping for the best and expecting worse ;)
Strictly speaking, Bernd said "[X4] will give you full freedom when building stations from individual modules". Being able to build stations however we want is a possible interpretation. Another could be freedom on the order of module construction, from preset lists of modules.

Edit: I don't have a view on what is more likely. Just wanted to mention the alternative in case we expect something that wasn't promised.

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”