Thread: 17. Would you prefer downloadable content....

17. Would you prefer downloadable content....

  1. #1
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,513

    17. Would you prefer downloadable content....

    in the form of larger add-ons (collection of missions, mission types and units) or smaller packs that feature new units, smaller missions?

  2. #2
    definitely larger add ons - larger missions, multiple MP maps, et cetera

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by mortalstakes
    definitely larger add ons - larger missions, multiple MP maps, et cetera
    That's exactly what I want to see myself.

  4. #4
    Larger add-ons, more MP maps. I would prefer new maps and new scenarios over new units.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by mortalstakes
    definitely larger add ons - larger missions, multiple MP maps, et cetera
    Man! If you aren't the first one to post, you basically are just reposting what the first two guys said. But yeah, I agree with mortal and Scipio.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by Dremora Warlord
    Man! If you aren't the first one to post, you basically are just reposting what the first two guys said. But yeah, I agree with mortal and Scipio.

    Yeah, we are all repeating each other on some of these threads. It starts to seem silly at times. But I think it is important that we all do that, so that we can show whether or not a posted idea has any support. I try to post my replies irregardless of what others have already posted. It's better for the developers to weed out the duplicate ideas than it is for them to read our minds when we silently agree or disagree with another post,but don't post it.

    It seems like the response numbers on some of these topics are going down, but the developers won't know if the entire focus groups agrees on an idea if only a few of us post a response. Even a negative "I don't like that idea" response has value.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    25
    more maps, more maps and more maps.

    New units are great, but maps and scenarios add the most replay value.

    New game types are good too. Considering that the Single Player takes X amount of hours to complete and that people spend hundreds of hours online, than the bottom line equals MORE MORE MORE content for online play.

    It if I'm paying money for a game and it's use is done, than yes I'd pay for more content that keeps me playing while waiting for a sequel. I pay for another drink when my glass is empty at a bar. Why wouldn't I pay more for more content if it adds to the fun and keeps a game fresh?

    PC guys are in different boat than the console players as modding isn't part of the console landscape.

    That being said, the BS:M glass is just about empty. New content would be great, if not, it's just about time to wait till the new game comes out in 08 or 09.

  8. #8
    Obviously we'd like larger add-ons.......

    BUT LET ME MAKE A POINT-

    We're looking for a COMPLETE game here, BSM with its astounding potential and yet horrendous limitations almost felt like a demo, and the DLC that followed felt like a bad joke.

    Keir, we'd like to see a full and completed game released here that satisfies the wishes of the community (this forum being a great step) before DLC even crosses the devs minds. Aka say "Italian expansion pack" that might include 5-6 new units (Vittorio Veneto Class BB baby!) 5-6 new missions for $7-10 seems like something feasible.

  9. #9
    I try to add some "strategic" spin to it.
    Apart from the obvious logic that the extent of the content should match the price of the DLC there are a few strategies that can be followed here. Again the trick is that this whole DLC business works ONLY if the original game is successful. (or can someone give me a title which was a failure and DLC made it a huge success?)

    I see 3 different ways to produce DLC that can be interesting to the crowd:
    1. "Classical" - release some big chunk of additional functions+maps+new unit classes after 6-12 months the original launch. The KEY here is that it has to be massive, it has to deliver SIGNIFICANT improvements or should add at least a whole new campaign.

    2. "Patch mode" - adding a few extra units or 1-2 maps should be a free exercise on ANY platform. If Microsoft has an idiotic licensing on making content available on XboX Live, find a way around it or build the cost into the original price! These type of additions generally have a short attention span.
    The good idea is to couple them up with a major "fix patch" release so everybody gets it almost automatically.

    3. "Subscription mode" - if point #2 is financially not viable I can see a middle ground approach which is to say the players are subscribing to a DLC service. For a reasonable yearly or 6 months price it is promised that there will be some additional content made available on a regular basis (e.g. once a month). Again the key here is to make these additions strong enough so nobody feels they're subscribing to get the remaining parts of the original game. Under this mode the DEV team can slowly but surely enrich the content and even react to demands arising from it's subscribers.

    From my point of view I can see any of the 3 working just fine depending on if the publisher can find the "sweet spot" on the price/value ratio. Conceptually I won't be against considering any of them.

  10. #10
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,513
    Larger of course. In this case size really does matter. Everything written above says it all.

  11. #11
    I want large D/C packs. Very large, HUGE.


    That being said I'd like the packs split up for single player and multiplayer. I don't like single player and I'd be upset if I'm forced to buy content where some of what I'm paying for is single player stuff.


    For instance


    Online Pack: 5 new multiplayer maps, 15 new units, etc 600 MS Points

    Single Pack: 5 new Scenarios or Mission, 15 new units, etc 600 MS points

    Buy Both packs combined 1000 MS points.

  12. #12
    Im not to sure of making addons that are sold is the way to go, as it is really a bit of a de evolution of games. Adding new maps or modding for new units has been standard fare and free for gamers for the last ten years. Some accountant denying the community that feature just so they can score some pennys by selling what the community if given the tools could make for itself is a little loathsome in my very humble opinion.

    "The good lord made the wide open fields,
    then the devil invented barbed wire.

    some wise dude


    Errm sorry just realised my rant would be better on another DLC thread ... oooops.

    So my answer to this thread is either big or small is good, just make them free. Better still release the mod tools and map editor and yhe community will creat its own and the game i promise you will grow. Short term or long term goals thats really what edios must decide with its attitude to dlc. Short term profits by chargings for DLC or Long term good of the game which will only incrrease the Brand and Developers reputation and thus future sales and profits.

    Doggies 2 1/2 cents on the topic hehe

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by sblendo
    more maps, more maps and more maps.

    New units are great, but maps and scenarios add the most replay value.

    New game types are good too. Considering that the Single Player takes X amount of hours to complete and that people spend hundreds of hours online, than the bottom line equals MORE MORE MORE content for online play.

    It if I'm paying money for a game and it's use is done, than yes I'd pay for more content that keeps me playing while waiting for a sequel. I pay for another drink when my glass is empty at a bar. Why wouldn't I pay more for more content if it adds to the fun and keeps a game fresh?

    PC guys are in different boat than the console players as modding isn't part of the console landscape.

    That being said, the BS:M glass is just about empty. New content would be great, if not, it's just about time to wait till the new game comes out in 08 or 09.
    Agree with the above and...
    Have the Game that's released be a "Full" game one where gamers believe that the DLC wasn't taken "out" from it just for DLC use. Look at a Game like Oblivion, it was definetly a "Full" game and it's DLC added life and replay value.

    And continue to support Multiplayer, keep the online community fresh, release new maps every couple of months (throw us a bone or two as well like a couple of free ones, C&C3 had a single free Map and a purchase 3 map pack). This keeps the Initial Buyers Happy and makes the buy more appealing to Later Buyers.

  14. #14
    Have the Game that's released be a "Full" game one where gamers believe that the DLC wasn't taken "out" from it just for DLC use. Look at a Game like Oblivion, it was definetly a "Full" game and it's DLC added life and replay value.

    And continue to support Multiplayer, keep the online community fresh, release new maps every couple of months (throw us a bone or two as well like a couple of free ones, C&C3 had a single free Map and a purchase 3 map pack). This keeps the Initial Buyers Happy and makes the buy more appealing to Later Buyers.

    100% agree, i didnt like the "take a bit out" and sell it for extra cash DLC. And keeping the community wanting more with new releases is always a good sign.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by Sith Darthfoxx
    Agree with the above and...
    Have the Game that's released be a "Full" game one where gamers believe that the DLC wasn't taken "out" from it just for DLC use. Look at a Game like Oblivion, it was definetly a "Full" game and it's DLC added life and replay value.

    And continue to support Multiplayer, keep the online community fresh, release new maps every couple of months (throw us a bone or two as well like a couple of free ones, C&C3 had a single free Map and a purchase 3 map pack). This keeps the Initial Buyers Happy and makes the buy more appealing to Later Buyers.

    true, but the first BSM dlc was almost as bad as the horse armor

  16. #16
    I think downloadable content is an exellent way to adjust and grow the game.

    Expansion packs take time especially with a complex subject such as specific Naval theatres and campaigns, and the research and acumen needed will take polishing to fit with the game code and play.

    An series of campaings in the med, North Sea Campaigns in several parts, North Atlanttic West, North Atlantic Murmansk convoys, campaigns can focus on such things as German Raiders, assault landings, the possiblities are endless, and could really extend the potential for the series.

    I am a single player focus person myself as I like to think things through on a strategic AND a tactical level and to use the resources of the game to its fullest takes some knowledge of actualy tactics, unit characteristics, different Naval Forces' doctrine, which varied widely in that era, even though there were strong trends and conflicts among the "big gun" battleship admirals in all the major fleets as opposed to the growing adherents of sub warfare, air power, etc. Also logistics plays a major role in skilled and best use of units and strategy. So while I enjoy playing with others and have done naval wargaming in other modes for years for many eras, I would strongly encourage support for both multiplayer and single player in downloadable content packs.