Where did Expansion Packs go?

[tokie]

So, years ago we had expansion packs for PC games. These packs used the same game engine and merely added assets, e.g. extra levels/missions, weapons and characters. I'm thinking of things like the Half-Life 2 episodes, Doom 3 expansion, HL1 expansions, WC3 expansion, etc. They were fairly commonplace and usually took 12-18 months of development to pump out.

Today, expansion packs have been split into DLC and entirely new games. Looking at Modern Warfare 1 and Modern Warfare 2, what is so vastly different that could not have been released in an expansion pack? These games are taking 18-24 months to pump out, so basically a big expansion pack. Except with a $59.99 price instead of $29.99.

Can anyone come up with an answer better than merely money-grabbing?

 

[Red Storm]

Short answer: Greed.

Long answer: Developers/Publishers realized that there are a vast number of people/sheep out there who are more than happy to shell out $10 for a few items or an extra map or two, regardless if those extras are crap or not.

Unfortunately that's what it is, plain old money-grabbing.

 

[KaOTiK]

DLC is what happened, few games get a real expansion pack now. In fact the only one that immediately comes is the Dawn of War series, oh and Dragon Age.

Why would publisher bother with an expansion pack that added more of everything to the game when they can simply charge idiots who pay $15 for just a few maps.

 

[Martimus]

Digital distribution makes the cost of distributing content far lower than in the past, plus it makes it easier for your costumers to purchase that content. Because of this, you can now start distributing content to your costumers in smaller chunks than before, and can do so more often. This is where DLC is replacing Expansion packs, since it is now feasible to distribute extra content as it is completed, versus waiting until you have enough to justify boxing and shipping a large package to be sold at stores.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Console FPS's already suffer from fragmentation due to downloadable map-packs. Expansions would only exacerbate the problem.

Besides that, we've had the DA:O expansion, two Starcraft 2 expansions on the way, and umpteen Guitar Hero/Rock Band expansions. They've hardly vanished.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I think there was also consumer confusion over whether they needed the original game in order to play the expansion pack. DLC is simpler - it is very obviously only usable if you have the original game, except in a few rare cases like GTA IV.

 

[paperfist]

Can anyone come up with an answer better than merely money-grabbing?

There is no other answer.

Expansion packs died along with complex game play, 17 hour single player campaigns, $50.00 price points and PC exclusives designed around a keyboard and mouse.

 

[HarvardAce]

I agree that the short answer is that it makes more money, but before you go and dismiss it as completely bad for the consumer, I think it warrants a closer and more in-depth look.

First off, I think you can quite readily equate yesterday's "expansions" and today's "DLC." Expansions in the past were new content added onto the old game. As you said in your OP, it was new levels, missions, characters, etc., all bundled into an expansion. Today, DLC gives you the same thing, but as Martimus said, DLC gives developers/publishers the ability to push out small pieces at a time, rather than having to wait for a full expansion release. It also enables players to pick and choose what they want a la carte, instead of being forced into a decision to purchase the whole expansion or not. In general, I don't think the cost of an expansion's worth of DLC is that much different than what an expansion would cost.

If anything, it provides more value to the consumer, because now I might choose to purchase a few new multiplayer maps for $10 because I exclusively play the multiplayer version of the game. They may offer a new episode for single player for $10 as well. As a person who is only interested in multiplayer, I'd rather be able to spend the $10 on the multiplayer maps and not have to pay for the single player content than be forced to spend $20+ on an expansion that includes content that I won't use.

I'm not sure that MW1 and MW2 would fall under the "would have been an expansion in the old days," either. While I never played MW1, I believe that MW2 had upgrades to the engine/features of the game in addition to basic content that would be in an expansion. It really isn't much different than looking at the GTA series -- Vice City added more than just a new map and missions to play. If you think that GTA is too recent, then you can go back to the days of Doom 1 and Doom 2 -- at first glance, Doom 2 was just new content, but if you really look into it, there were a lot of changes under the hood as well which made it deserve its title as a new game. If you want an even more egregious historical example, look at each year's release of the next EA sports game -- in general you get a very small engine/features upgrade -- the bulk of the draw of a new game is the updated roster.

The bottom line is that there isn't much difference between "then" and "now." The biggest change is that a portion of the "expansion" content has been converted into DLC where you can pick up stuff a la carte, and in general I don't think there is a big difference in cost.

I think the true gripe is not that DLC is replacing expansions, but rather that companies are skimping on content in the original game and splitting out the content into DLC. That is where my gripe with the system is, and is where I believe that the companies are looking to pull in more revenue at the expense of the consumer. The real question to ask is if today's DLC would have been included at no additional cost in yesterday's original release, and unfortunately I think the answer to that question is a resounding yes.

Before we all jump off the deep end, however, keep in mind that the cost of video games has remained fairly constant for 20 years. When you factor in inflation, the cost of a new game plus some DLC is still probably less expensive than a single game back in the late 80's or early 90's.

 

[Red Storm]

There is no other answer.

Expansion packs died along with complex game play, 17 hour single player campaigns, $50.00 price points and PC exclusives designed around a keyboard and mouse.

You mean 50+ hour long campaigns right? 17 is today's "epic."

 

[DaveSimmons]

My guess is sales of expansion packs were poor compared to full games.

If the XP cost 25% as much as a full game to develop, it must sell 25% as much as the full game did -- if it's more like 5% of the sales then companies lose money compared to putting the effort into a full game.

If I were a developer I'd also be depressed by so few people seeing my work compared to full games -- if 20 times as many people will buy a full game then working on that instead would be much more satisfying.

 

[exar333]

The whole "GOTY" editions killed expansion packs. Why pay $50 + $30 + $30 when you can either just buy the $50 and wait for the GOTY at $30 or not buy and just get the $30 GOTY edition (Think Morrowind or the like here). Not to mention the GOTY also would include extra maps, downloadable stuff, etc. as well.

Now with DLC, this hasn't changed a lot, but I feel MORE comfortable buying the original edition because most DLC is crap and who cares if you get some crappy extra missions (in most cases) when they release a GOTY edition 6-9 months later.

Expansions seem to work best with a long-standing game like WoW or other MMOs where the core game essentially lasts forever and the expansions are evolving the game over time.

You probably will never see expansions like what BF1942 had anymore. They would be packaged as "new" games entirely. What you get (unfortunately IMHO) is that games are smaller and more distinct with crap DLC. How many expansions did you need to get for CS, for example? Compare that with all the CoD: MW/BO stuff, and you see a way to generate a lot more revenue for essentially the same content.

Last example, how much playtime did you get from Diablo2 or SC? A TON! Now SC2 is being released into 3 separate games. That said, with the depth of multiplayer, and supposed expansion of units in each, it could be worth it. But 10 years ago, I guarantee that would have been 1 $50 game and 2 $25-30 expansions instead of 3x$60 games.

 

[TBSN]

DLC replaced expansion packs.

 

[lupi]

why release an expansion at half price with 2/3 the content when you can release dlc at 1/3 the price and 1/10 the content.

 

[Sureshot324]

DLC replaced expansion packs.

This, but I think for a lot of games it's a bad thing to have several small DLC packs rather than one large expansion. Fallout 3 is a good example. After playing the shit out of it and being done with it, I don't want to come back to it a few months later to play one little mission. The whole point to the game was exploring the wasteland and having the freedom to do what you want. They should've made one large expansion that had a huge new area to explore.

 

[Schadenfroh]

DLC and shorter attention spans.

 

[Lonyo]

You mean 50+ hour long campaigns right? 17 is today's "epic."

Which FPS games had 50 hour long campaigns?

 

[BFG10K]

Which FPS games had 50 hour long campaigns?

Far Cry 2 is the last one I played (I spent ~60 hours).

 

[Sureshot324]

Far Cry 2 is the last one I played (I spent ~60 hours).

That doesn't count, since most of that time is just going back over the same areas.

 

[zerocool84]

Console FPS's already suffer from fragmentation due to downloadable map-packs. Expansions would only exacerbate the problem.

Besides that, we've had the DA:O expansion, two Starcraft 2 expansions on the way, and umpteen Guitar Hero/Rock Band expansions. They've hardly vanished.

Starcraft 2 games aren't expansions, neither are the guitar playing games. An expansion needs the original game, those don't.

 

[paperfist]

First off, I think you can quite readily equate yesterday's "expansions" and today's "DLC." Expansions in the past were new content added onto the old game. As you said in your OP, it was new levels, missions, characters, etc., all bundled into an expansion. Today, DLC gives you the same thing, but as Martimus said, DLC gives developers/publishers the ability to push out small pieces at a time, rather than having to wait for a full expansion release. It also enables players to pick and choose what they want a la carte, instead of being forced into a decision to purchase the whole expansion or not. In general, I don't think the cost of an expansion's worth of DLC is that much different than what an expansion would cost.

It's hard to pigeon hole this because each DLC is different from game to game.

Let's use Civilization IV as an example. The second expansion, Beyond the Sword had something like 18 new civilizations with 2 leaders each, a good chunk of scenarios, new wonders, and game play changes such as espionage and corporations. That was a full steak and lobster meal for $25.

Fast forward to today and not only is Civilization V set at higher price point (with bonus content) but the first DLC was $5 and it contained 2 civilizations with one leader each.

So sure they can push out smaller content but it's coming at a higher price overall.

Back in the day with Medal of Honor you could snag three pretty heavy duty expansions with maps, skins, and game play changes. They also added to the single player experience for what $25ish each? If you look at CoD they are putting out expansion packs in the form of new games for $60 a piece and then slathering on DLC. That's pretty disingenuous.

 

[Elcs]

Starcraft 2 games aren't expansions, neither are the guitar playing games. An expansion needs the original game, those don't.

DLC is what happened, few games get a real expansion pack now. In fact the only one that immediately comes is the Dawn of War series, oh and Dragon Age.

Dawn of War 1 had only one expansion pack, Winter Assault. This required the original Dawn of War to play and it eventually went 'Gold'. Both Dark Crusade and Soulstorm were 'standalone' expansions.

The same can be said for Chaos Rising and I believe the up and coming Retribution are both standalone expansion packs.

 

[Rezident]

Games cost money, most great games cost a lot of money.
If you want more development, money needs to get to devs.

I used to be totally anti-DLC but now I can see that it can work depending on fair pricing e.g. the first DLC I bought was for Just Cause 2 (only around €1.99 for new weapons, a very fair price, and I’d already gotten over 100 hours out of the game). I didn’t buy any DLC for COD:Modern Warfare 2 as it was too expensive (about €15 in Europe, no thanks).

Personally I like the way Valve did it with TF2: you can buy new items but you can also get them as free drops (unlikely but possible) or you can craft them. This seems ideal as people with no money (like my little bro) can still get some of the new items but people who can easily afford to support devs and who actually want to support good developers in the hope that they will make more great games, can get the items instantly.

 

[Lonyo]

That doesn't count, since most of that time is just going back over the same areas.

Indeed. You could make any FPS take 50 hours, just make it take an hour to get between level areas.

 

[Craig234]

I think there are a few factors.

- Expansion packs that require the original game reduce sales. Stand-alone 'expansion packs' can be be bought by any new customer, too.

- And if they're already going to make it a 'standalone expansion pack', which will customers pay more for: standalone expansion, or new game?

- Expansion pack tends to lock the new content in the old game engine. New game allows more updating, and more new content, a fresher game experience.

- They make money by selling more units, not by giving fewer loyal customers a really fun expansion, but by selling more to anyone.

- DLC is a really more profitable product for a game, less development cost, big return, as a poster said, '1/3 the price of an expansion, 1/10 the cost.'

- DLC also gives them a more flexible business model to react to sales, over committing to a 12-18 month major development.

- DLC is marketable as an affordable, bite-sized purchase.

 

[Anteaus]

I think there are a few factors.

- Expansion packs that require the original game reduce sales. Stand-alone 'expansion packs' can be be bought by any new customer, too.

- And if they're already going to make it a 'standalone expansion pack', which will customers pay more for: standalone expansion, or new game?

- Expansion pack tends to lock the new content in the old game engine. New game allows more updating, and more new content, a fresher game experience.

- They make money by selling more units, not by giving fewer loyal customers a really fun expansion, but by selling more to anyone.

- DLC is a really more profitable product for a game, less development cost, big return, as a poster said, '1/3 the price of an expansion, 1/10 the cost.'

- DLC also gives them a more flexible business model to react to sales, over committing to a 12-18 month major development.

- DLC is marketable as an affordable, bite-sized purchase.

On the flip side, DLC has a bad habit of reducing first day sales. I know people who will not buy a game at release with the knowledge that at some point in the future a "complete" edition that includes all DLC will come out at the same or lower price point. Fallout 3 and Dragon Age are examples. Even i'm getting to the point where its not in my best interest to buy a game immediately. Since many games are developed with first day sales in mind, this could impact which projects get green lighted in the future. Developers know that under most circumstances they are going to move the most units in the first month of release with diminishing returns through the life of the product.

DLC creates an unknown. What if the DLC sucks? Then you have a situation where many people will pass at initial release in order to get a better deal down the line with a combo pack, yet get deterred if the DLC sucks, yet they might have bought the game initially.

I agree that DLC offers a more reliable revenue stream than expansions, but well done expansions to good games will still be superior. DLC is no replacement for Throne of Bhaal and Mask of the Betrayer.

And of course there is the practice of selective omission. Some company's will simply leave out things in order to bring in additional money in the form of DLC. Obviously its not a universal practice, but it would be naive to say that it doesn't happen.