Idea: Small, paid DLC in addition to free DLC?

[Haagenti]

Now that you are on Steam, have you ever considered doing a mixture of unpaid and cheap-but-paid DLC?

The advantage of paid DLC is that:
1) It brings in some $, but much more important:
2) There is this railroad game on Steam (Railworks) that brings out some paid DLC every few days. This has the advantage that every time I look into their store on the steam application, or visit steampowered.com, I see the name of their game on the frontpage.

Repeated advertising that pays you as well. On the frontpage of the premier game-seller on the Internet. Just think about it.

[x4000]

Now that you are on Steam, have you ever considered doing a mixture of unpaid and cheap-but-paid DLC?

The advantage of paid DLC is that:
1) It brings in some $, but much more important:
2) There is this railroad game on Steam (Railworks) that brings out some paid DLC every few days. This has the advantage that every time I look into their store on the steam application, or visit steampowered.com, I see the name of their game on the frontpage.

Repeated advertising that pays you as well. On the frontpage of the premier game-seller on the Internet. Just think about it.

This is an interesting point, to be sure -- part of our success with Impulse in the early days was being consistently on their front page because of our weekly updates at the time.  The main issue I have with paid DLC is that it is then very hard to organize co-op games (since then it is incredibly granular as to who has what), and I'd feel like I was "nickel and diming" the playerbase.

We'll see what happens, exactly, but I'll keep what you said in mind -- you do have a good point.  There are very few games that I've played where lots of small paid DLC wasn't annoying, though, and I think a lot of the playerbase here feels the same way.  We'll see where it goes!

[laxrulz777]

Now that you are on Steam, have you ever considered doing a mixture of unpaid and cheap-but-paid DLC?

The advantage of paid DLC is that:
1) It brings in some $, but much more important:
2) There is this railroad game on Steam (Railworks) that brings out some paid DLC every few days. This has the advantage that every time I look into their store on the steam application, or visit steampowered.com, I see the name of their game on the frontpage.

Repeated advertising that pays you as well. On the frontpage of the premier game-seller on the Internet. Just think about it.

This is an interesting point, to be sure -- part of our success with Impulse in the early days was being consistently on their front page because of our weekly updates at the time.  The main issue I have with paid DLC is that it is then very hard to organize co-op games (since then it is incredibly granular as to who has what), and I'd feel like I was "nickel and diming" the playerbase.

We'll see what happens, exactly, but I'll keep what you said in mind -- you do have a good point.  There are very few games that I've played where lots of small paid DLC wasn't annoying, though, and I think a lot of the playerbase here feels the same way.  We'll see where it goes!

Every few days just seems like a giant hassle to me... But a goal of releasing "Ship packs" every month would be interesting... $2-4.99 (depending on the volume) that adds 3 new bonus ships, a couple new turrets and an economic ship (or two) would be very interesting...

The workaround for multiplayer is to allow freeriders I think. As long as everyone is updated current, then the host game's computer can determine the allowable units... Just a thought

[x4000]

The workaround for multiplayer is to allow freeriders I think. As long as everyone is updated current, then the host game's computer can determine the allowable units... Just a thought

That is a good point, there.  I'd rather allow freeriders than make things super complicated for everyone.

I guess we'll just kind of see where things go, and what level Steam sales wind up at.  We show up prominently in the indie and strategy sections either way, at least for a while.  And with monthly (free) patches, it seems like we might have the same effect of getting onto the front page of Steam, anyway.  Depending, using our existing methods of free DLC, we might be able to get the same marketing effect without gouging users or making multiplayer an undue hassle.

For yesterday, we had almost double the amount of sales we need for my (as modeled) "best case" financial scenario -- so far so good, then, without being on the front page.  Of course, one day means nothing, I will need more data over time, but it's encouraging at least.  If those numbers start dropping into unacceptable levels and more palatable approaches aren't working -- expansion sales, discount promotions, etc, etc -- then that's probably when I would want to pull out a potential trump card like what is being discussed here.  This sort of thing is better than going out of business, but while there are alternatives I prefer to use those.

[Haagenti]

The supremely un-annoying version of multi-player paid DLC:
- in a multi-player game, if one player has bought the DLC, ALL players can use that DLC for free (just add the necessary code for the DLC in the latest free patch released at the same time)

EDIT: Apparently someone else though of free riders as well

After all, the only reason you are selling it is that if you give it away, Steam won't display it.
EDIT: Patches will not bring you to the Steam front page (apart from a small note in a sidebar somewhere)

And for nickel-and-diming the playerbase? Go ahead. Most games are fifty-dollaring their playerbase for a few hours of entertainment.
If you feel bad, you can always release the DLC for free three months later.

You seem to be ready to mortgage a significant part of your future to Arcen. Most businesses fail. Give yourself every chance you can to succeed.

[x4000]

The supremely un-annoying version of multi-player paid DLC:
- in a multi-player game, if one player has bought the DLC, ALL players can use that DLC for free (just add the necessary code for the DLC in the latest free patch released at the same time)

EDIT: Apparently someone else though of free riders as well

After all, the only reason you are selling it is that if you give it away, Steam won't display it.

Yep, I like that.

You seem to be ready to mortgage a significant part of your future to Arcen. Most businesses fail. Give yourself every chance you can to succeed.

I intend to give the company every possible chance -- and if number start dipping, I'll definitely have to get creative in some way, most likely with smaller, cheaper content-packs for existing products.  But there are a lot of potential things that can be done to expand the playerbase without gouging the existing playerbase.  Having a wide playerbase has many other benefits as well, of course, so that's my top priority if I can manage it.

I've worked in small business my entire professional life, and I've seen the company I've helped manage hit rock bottom several times (and nearly go out of business if it were not for bridge debt).  When things are not rosy-secure it is tempting to flail in a lot of directions at once, but that generally just leads to no progress at all.  With suddenly diverting attention from the expansion to mini-paid-DLC, I feel a bit like I'd be flailing at this stage, simply because there's not a compelling concrete reason to have to do so.  If that changes, the key thing is having various alternatives in mind to try out, and this is a good one that I had not been considering before, so I thank you.  Hopefully I won't have to pull out that particular trump card, but it's nice to have it around just in case, if that makes sense.

[x4000]

Also, I went on and split this topic, since it's become a full discussion in its own right.

[eRe4s3r]

I am absolutely against this (Micro DLC)

... oh i need to give a reason too .. mpfh

Simple

When i buy something, i want something, a complete package - DLC splits this into many small packets where each one has no real worth or impact - only together as pack are they worth anything. This is some of the worst business practice i can think of and isn't for no reason called "Nickel and Diming" or to quote my favorite online news site forums Bluesnews (the place where the most anarchist gamers hang around) "DLC Skullf***ery" (from a Dragon Age discussion)

Yeah yeah, i do not have to buy DLC and all that, the thing is.. its about principle. I do not buy something that is not complete (Which is why i don't buy Dragon Age). So when there is DLC the expansion has to include it all or i won't buy it ;p (the expansion) i wouldn't buy DLC out of principle.

Not to mention that this DLC would be Steam-Only..

Edit: Also, this is why i am a huge fan of Ai war, i got MUCH more than i paid for (2.0 ^^)
Edit 2: I am very much influenced on this topic by the Dragon Age 0-Day DLC issue / Pre-order gimmicks, so yeah

[x4000]

This DLC would definitely NOT be Steam-only, if we ever did anything like that.  And yes, I generally agree with you about wanting the complete package and so forth, and not wanting to have lots of little packets of content that I'm either missing, or which I have to pay crazy amounts for.

Granted, I love the DLC on (for instance) Rock Band, but that's a very different sort of DLC.  Hence a lot of my hesitance about this, above.  I think there are a lot of players who feel like eraser, too, and to an extent I'm one of them (though I don't boycot products because of it, I also tend not to partake, and it doesn't exactly ingratiate me with the developer/publisher doing it).

[eRe4s3r]

Usually i would not be so strongly against it, but the latest forum flame-storms over Dragon Age DLC and their Pre-Order crazyness influenced me greatly, up to the point of a full-blown boycott of publishers who announce DLC before the game is out, or who sell expansions without patching the game (the guild 1 !)

In the end, all a customer has is his purchase - and he only has this until he purchases. Thus when to purchase and what to purchase becomes a decision on which hinges more than just "i like this game". A customer always has to act on "What gives me the best value for my money" after all.

In many ways the DRM Fiasco's over the years only fueled this too..

[x4000]

And then you have the whole thing with The Maw, where people complained about the "deleted scenes" being released as paid DLC.  I kinda see their point there, too, though I don't think the developer had bad intentions... as here.  To me, paid DLC is kind of a minefield.  And I agree, expansions without patches are just a way to bully players into getting the expansion to get the fixes -- hence part of my practice of ensuring that all of the fixes, interface improvements, etc, are always free to players of the base game even if they are "part of" an expansion.  People don't like feeling like they're being shook down for money, and I don't want to feel like I'm shaking people down.

By contrast, even though the pool of AI War players has grown an insane amount in the last week, it's still incredibly tiny compared to the vast pool of strategy players out there.  That's much more potentially lucrative, and not ethically dubious, so that's one reason why I'd want to stay away from paid DLC unless I had no other options aside from closing the doors -- in that sense, it would almost be a way for existing players to "donate" to Arcen, and get something in return.  But that's the only context in which I'd be very enthused about doing it, the more I think about it.

[Kjara]

Honestly, I'm semi-against micro transactions, mainly due to the fact that buying stuff takes me way longer than it should(personal problems with buying things without doing research,waffling,etc).  Thus, for anything less than a full expansion I prob won't buy just due to the extra personal costs I have .

However, I have no problems with you releasing content as micro transactions, and then a few months later releasing it as free content(I'll just wait, but you might get people to buy it .

[Haagenti II]

I'm looking with great interest at Dragon Age and their DLC strategy, but purely from a theoretical marketing viewpoint: will this actually work?

Still waiting for the game company that will actually manage to create a Magic: The Gathering type of buying spree.

[Echo35]

I am not at all a fan of continual payments. I almost always avoid games with monthly fees or micro-transactions, regardless of the game quality. That's half the reason I stopped playing Magic, and why I don't pick up any other TCGs or table top games.

[x4000]

Personally I still have over 4,000 or so M:TG cards sitting in my closet, but the continuous payment model is just brutal.  I don't play WoW (and have never tried), because I know I'd get addicted and not be able to stop.  With continuous payment, I also feel a lot of pressure to actually use that product past some certain baseline to make sure I'm getting the value out of it, which takes away from the fun-factor for me. I'm something of a collector, not in an egregious sense but in the sense that if I like something, I want to own it and have it available for later.  If I like it, similarly I generally want to own all of it, and if that comes at too great an aggregate cost it is frustrating and a turnoff.

Not all of that necessarily applies to the proposed stuff for AI War, such as it's not a subscription thing at all, which does help.  But the more I think about that sort of model, the more conflicting examples I come up with from my past of where I was completely okay with it, or very much against it.  So I think it's fair to say that my thinking on it is not overly well defined, but I have a lot of reservations about it.