Earliest examples I am personally aware of are the shareware and “mission pack” model of the 1990s. DOOM basically was given away for free with the idea that you play Episode 1 and then send iD money to get the disks of Episodes 2 and 3 in the mail. Not sure if they did a BBS/FTP server for that (or Episode 4), but Star Crusader is very much a game that even did the in game advertisement of their DLC. I have fond memories of working my ass off one summer so I had enough money to mail a check to some random dude so he would mail me back login information so I could download the mission pack and see what happened to Roman Alexandria when he was abducted by that ship.
The “expansion pack” model that people praise was the exact same thing, just using store shelves to distribute. Because games were big enough that it was viable to expect players to drive down to Radio Shack and pick up a copy. And the main issue with that is that it meant we needed MUCH coarser grain content because it needed to justify a physical disc printing and distribution. Everyone rightfully shits on Oblivion’s horse armor. But the actual DLC burst that Oblivion had was… not horrible. Whereas the Fallout 3 DLC model was downright amazing for giving us 3 (5?) different mini areas and quest chains. No one DLC was a full expansion (well, people say The Pitt was but they are idiots) but it meant that we got the kind of variety that we had all been wanting ever since we got tired of spending two hours in a single biome in Diablo 2.
Which gets us to where we are now. Some studios do dogshit DLC. Others do good. The Larian model has generally been to NOT do DLC but to instead release an Enhanced Edition one or two years later. I assume with the licensing and the added funding for BG3 they don’t think they will need to but, time will tell.
But, personally? I would LOVE BG3: Throne of Bhaal. Not so much whatever the shitty BG1 expansion nobody played was.
*: and… there are a lot of arguments that stuff like basically every ARPG and RTS expansion pack were overpriced as hell by modern standards. Which is funny since those are the ones that are most praised.
Edit: The difference being with shareware you didn’t have to pay any money to try the game. Basically the game was the demo as well as a full game, and once you played the first part of it for free, and you decided you liked it, then you paid and the rest of the game you already had was unlocked.
As opposed to an f2p game with DLC? Or buying a full game and, once you played the first part of it, you decided you liked it, then you paid and the rest of the game you already had was unlocked.
I LOVE ARPGs but I am well aware that the Blizzard/Diablo model is almost exactly what people rage against. Diablo 2, Diablo 3, Dungeon Siege 1, Dungeon Siege 2, and plenty of others all followed the model of releasing the first 3-4 acts and then releasing the 4th/5th act for 30 bucks a year later.
Then please, stop me from being “intellectually dishonest”
What is the distinction between a Free to play game with paid expansion packs and DLC and a copy of a game that came on a CD that tells me where I can send a money order to to buy extra content?
Oh, am I being “intellectually dishonest” because I am not respecting the branding? Is that the distinction?
“buying a full game and, once you played the first part of it, you decided you liked it, then you paid and the rest of the game you already had was unlocked.”
“Free to play game with paid expansion packs and DLC”
Right there. There’s the blatant dishonesty. You’ve just described two different scenarios while attempting to portray them as the same.
I think wizards of the coast will demand more products that are part of baldur’s gate 3. Tbf, baldur’s gate 1 and 2 are known for their expansions. I wouldn’t be opposed to an expansion or two.
Expansion packs are the grandparents of DLC. They took something great and corrupted it to try and wring us for all we’re worth.
Actually, DLC is the grandparents of DLC.
Earliest examples I am personally aware of are the shareware and “mission pack” model of the 1990s. DOOM basically was given away for free with the idea that you play Episode 1 and then send iD money to get the disks of Episodes 2 and 3 in the mail. Not sure if they did a BBS/FTP server for that (or Episode 4), but Star Crusader is very much a game that even did the in game advertisement of their DLC. I have fond memories of working my ass off one summer so I had enough money to mail a check to some random dude so he would mail me back login information so I could download the mission pack and see what happened to Roman Alexandria when he was abducted by that ship.
The “expansion pack” model that people praise was the exact same thing, just using store shelves to distribute. Because games were big enough that it was viable to expect players to drive down to Radio Shack and pick up a copy. And the main issue with that is that it meant we needed MUCH coarser grain content because it needed to justify a physical disc printing and distribution. Everyone rightfully shits on Oblivion’s horse armor. But the actual DLC burst that Oblivion had was… not horrible. Whereas the Fallout 3 DLC model was downright amazing for giving us 3 (5?) different mini areas and quest chains. No one DLC was a full expansion (well, people say The Pitt was but they are idiots) but it meant that we got the kind of variety that we had all been wanting ever since we got tired of spending two hours in a single biome in Diablo 2.
Which gets us to where we are now. Some studios do dogshit DLC. Others do good. The Larian model has generally been to NOT do DLC but to instead release an Enhanced Edition one or two years later. I assume with the licensing and the added funding for BG3 they don’t think they will need to but, time will tell.
But, personally? I would LOVE BG3: Throne of Bhaal. Not so much whatever the shitty BG1 expansion nobody played was.
*: and… there are a lot of arguments that stuff like basically every ARPG and RTS expansion pack were overpriced as hell by modern standards. Which is funny since those are the ones that are most praised.
That was Shareware, not DLC.
Edit: The difference being with shareware you didn’t have to pay any money to try the game. Basically the game was the demo as well as a full game, and once you played the first part of it for free, and you decided you liked it, then you paid and the rest of the game you already had was unlocked.
As opposed to an f2p game with DLC? Or buying a full game and, once you played the first part of it, you decided you liked it, then you paid and the rest of the game you already had was unlocked.
I LOVE ARPGs but I am well aware that the Blizzard/Diablo model is almost exactly what people rage against. Diablo 2, Diablo 3, Dungeon Siege 1, Dungeon Siege 2, and plenty of others all followed the model of releasing the first 3-4 acts and then releasing the 4th/5th act for 30 bucks a year later.
You’re being purposely confusing and intellectually dishonest, in an attempt to control the narrative.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shareware
Then please, stop me from being “intellectually dishonest”
What is the distinction between a Free to play game with paid expansion packs and DLC and a copy of a game that came on a CD that tells me where I can send a money order to to buy extra content?
Oh, am I being “intellectually dishonest” because I am not respecting the branding? Is that the distinction?
“buying a full game and, once you played the first part of it, you decided you liked it, then you paid and the rest of the game you already had was unlocked.”
“Free to play game with paid expansion packs and DLC”
Right there. There’s the blatant dishonesty. You’ve just described two different scenarios while attempting to portray them as the same.
You’re welcome. Now go away.
I think wizards of the coast will demand more products that are part of baldur’s gate 3. Tbf, baldur’s gate 1 and 2 are known for their expansions. I wouldn’t be opposed to an expansion or two.