-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Kotaku's Jason Schreier: A lot of devs have said singleplayer story DLC often doesn't sell very well
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
I see this a fair bit, but I'm mystified by it. Maybe I am a wizard.
The Wizard. With over 50,000 in Double Dragon.
At worst face buttons are swapped. Everything else is pretty by the books.
I can believe it. Personally, plenty of single player games I've loved and not bought the DLC, and plenty where I've bought the DLC and not even played it.
Story DLC is the only DLC I've ever had a remote interest in buying or have actually bought. I'm never with the current when it comes to this shit, which means all the stuff I like gets neglected.
I can usually tell by the trophy percentages on PSN. "Start DLC chapter" will be at like 3% and "Finish DLC" will be <1%.
It is really hard to balance single-player DLC for games. If it isn't challenging, someone who finished the game will be bored. If it is endgame-level difficulty, it will be hard to pick up months later without frustration.
It is really hard to balance single-player DLC for games. If it isn't challenging, someone who finished the game will be bored. If it is endgame-level difficulty, it will be hard to pick up months later without frustration.
It's my favourite kind of DLC when done right but I'm not surprised as there have been precious few that made me want to shell out for them. If it's something that can easily stand alone and isn't integrated into the main game then I see no reason not to just sell these things seperately so your not just limiting your audience only to people who played, liked and still own the base game.
Yeah single player DLC that succeeds is generally the exception to the rule. It typically needs to be a full blown expansion type of addition like Bloodborne's The Old Hunters or Witcher 3's Hearts of Stone/Blood and Wine. This type of content offers genuinely new stories and experiences while providing a great quantity of content comparable to some full games out there. By contrast, if a DLC feels simply like a compilation of deleted scenes that only lasts a few hours, it just isn't worth it even if it is only $5 or less.
Not sure you know how software production works in general, or the concept of product planning. What matters is that the core game is complete by itself and meets its launch window.
Oh I have no idea about sales I was just posting notable DLCs and not expansions from this gen that I could think of.
Frozen Wilds probably didn't do too badly considering the annoying advert for it that pops up over the title screen when you start the game. It's difficult to avoid it.
How many devs have shown the player finish rates.
They are usually abysmal. It's funny as a game like CoD I did like the SP portion as it didn't overstay it's welcome. But even they probably looked at how many people played and complted SP and said lets just put all this effort into more MP modes.
Too many games tout silly run times that many players will never get to see.
They are usually abysmal. It's funny as a game like CoD I did like the SP portion as it didn't overstay it's welcome. But even they probably looked at how many people played and complted SP and said lets just put all this effort into more MP modes.
Too many games tout silly run times that many players will never get to see.
Of course he does.
But how does that take anything away from what I'm getting at?
What if all SP games from here on out, had paid SP DLC release 1 month after launch...that the developers claimed to be "built separately"?
How do you think that would go over?
Yeah, it makes sense, I tend not to play SP DLC for games unless I am literally in love with the game (Nioh) or I bought the game long after launch when all or most of the DLC was out. Exceptions are for extensive expansion packs but a couple extra hours of story just is kinda... ~ehhh~.
That said, I think the season pass model is also somewhat to blame. Again, if all the content released at once, even if later on, it'd be more enticing to jump back in. But doing it in 2-4 hour chunks over the course of a year, even if the stories aren't connected, is just not appetizing.
That said, I think the season pass model is also somewhat to blame. Again, if all the content released at once, even if later on, it'd be more enticing to jump back in. But doing it in 2-4 hour chunks over the course of a year, even if the stories aren't connected, is just not appetizing.
I almost never buy DLC (SP or MP). This is what Cory Barlog said when he decided not to make any DLC for God of War:
I think he is 100% right. Instead of doing a DLC they are going to put everything into the improved sequel and their new IP.
I think he is 100% right. Instead of doing a DLC they are going to put everything into the improved sequel and their new IP.
Hence why GaaS is a thing. Anyone got numbers on how long folks stayed engaged with AC Odyssey and Origin?
It isn't, since the DLC is a separate project. The falsehood here is that it was cut back from the main game, which we know isn't the case.
Like most people have said it is hard to go back 6 months later and get back in the groove of a game. Another thing that might help would be discounting Season Passes more frequently. Like on PSN they will have a gold edition game on sale but the season pass is still $40. If the season pass was on sale as well it would probably sell better.
Fun fact: Most of the time, single-player DLC codes don't even go out early to reviewers, which means that very few websites are actually bothering to review DLC since they don't get it in a timely fashion. The launch of a new game always has specific marketing beats, while for the launch of DLC you might get a single trailer. It's a different world.
SP DLC has some real stigma about it. People automatically assume it's too much money for too little playing time.
Knowing this I might rather want devs to make stuff like say weapons and costumes, stuff that can fit as part of the main game and doesn't take too long to create on their own, than DLC campaigns.
Example: In DMC5, I might want playable Trish/Lady/Vergil/Lucia in the main game, rather than dedicated story DLC.
Example: In DMC5, I might want playable Trish/Lady/Vergil/Lucia in the main game, rather than dedicated story DLC.
Same, it's the only stuff I can see the point of. The rest is pointless, overpriced crap.
Considering how few gamers actually finish the SP campaigns of the games they buy, this doesn't surpise me one bit.
No? Cory was pretty straightforward in saying that they put everything they wanted into GoW. They've got the next several games mapped out and it just doesn't sound like DLC was ever part of it.
I get it. Six months later, I have to remind my muscle memory of all the mechanics.
I'd rather just have more frequent sequels and less DLC. Take Spider-Man on PS4 - all that DLC could be a large part of a Spider-Man 2 release in 1.5 years that helps to bridge the PS4 and the PS5.
Maybe this explains why Nintendo hasn't put out any Super Mario Odyssey DLC in terms of new SP worlds.
I'd rather just have more frequent sequels and less DLC. Take Spider-Man on PS4 - all that DLC could be a large part of a Spider-Man 2 release in 1.5 years that helps to bridge the PS4 and the PS5.
Maybe this explains why Nintendo hasn't put out any Super Mario Odyssey DLC in terms of new SP worlds.
I do often wonder that. Looking at the FFXV DLC trophy lists the rarity of trophies are still very rare, despite being earned for just beating it mostly, leading me to believe not many buy it.
I don't understand why they don't sell well though. No other type of DLC I'd want. Surely the witcher 3 dlc sold well? One of the best DLCs Ive bought. And the FFXV DLC was pretty cheap really and some were pretty impressive considering.
Still shocked and heartbroken about the cancelled dlc. Would like to know.. why they were actually cancelled. Just because Tabata left, money reasons, lost confidence in the content?
Just bizarre to announce it in a stream supposedly celebrating the 2 year anniversary.
I don't understand why they don't sell well though. No other type of DLC I'd want. Surely the witcher 3 dlc sold well? One of the best DLCs Ive bought. And the FFXV DLC was pretty cheap really and some were pretty impressive considering.
Still shocked and heartbroken about the cancelled dlc. Would like to know.. why they were actually cancelled. Just because Tabata left, money reasons, lost confidence in the content?
Just bizarre to announce it in a stream supposedly celebrating the 2 year anniversary.
Product planning...
The Black Cat DLC was "planned" to be sold merely months after the games launch, for an extra $20-25.
Why? Because it was built separately and not part of the "core game".
Not built after. Built separately.
I'll let you in on a secret...the majority of people are more likely to spend money on a game's DLC one month after launch than they are 6 months - 1 year from launch, especially if said DLC is avertised and promised to the player before the "core game" even launches. See below.
Last edited:
It's generally RPGs who has the best story DLC, pretty much all of BioWare's recent titles up until Andromeda had some substantial DLC added to them, Witcher 3 as well.
Prepared for more developers to deliver their "live service multiplayer" experiences. Single player only games will further devolve into an expenditure of only the mightiest publishers/platform holders and indie devs.
It's too bad really, some of this DLC is really good but I think it's hard to ask people to come back to a game several months later when those players have completed the game. Once their reason for playing is done I think it's hard to go back. I can see how it's way easier to sell DLC in a multiplayer game that you and your friends are playing every day/week and notice the updates as they come.
Nioh, Dark Souls 3, Bloodborne, Horizon Zero Dawn, Spider-Man, Infamous Second Son, and Dying Light all had single player DLC that I thoroughly enjoyed this generation. I hope some people will continue trying.
It's too bad really, some of this DLC is really good but I think it's hard to ask people to come back to a game several months later when those players have completed the game. Once their reason for playing is done I think it's hard to go back. I can see how it's way easier to sell DLC in a multiplayer game that you and your friends are playing every day/week and notice the updates as they come.
Nioh, Dark Souls 3, Bloodborne, Horizon Zero Dawn, Spider-Man, Infamous Second Son, and Dying Light all had single player DLC that I thoroughly enjoyed this generation. I hope some people will continue trying.
Gamers are fucking cheap but will spends tons of money on loot boxes and skins, no fucking sense.
I'm guilty of this, very few times will I buy DLC for SP games long after I'm done with them. My reason? I'll list them here:
I think the only SP DLC I bought on day 1 and played on day 1 was Left Behind from TLoU.
Despite loving these games a lot, I haven't bothered with their DLC yet: Horizon, Arkham City, Arkham Knight, Mass Effect 3, Bloodborne (I bought The Old Hunters, I'll play it one day), Spider-Man, etc.
- Not worth the effort getting reacquainted with the controls for a short DLC
- I've already beaten the main campaign and want to move on to something else
- There's a backlog waiting and I don't feel like delving into a game I've already finished
- A few years ago I'd have definitely been there for DLC of SP games the very day said DLC dropped, since I had time to play them and replay other games, now I hardly do and would just rather finish the game and move on to the next one.
I think the only SP DLC I bought on day 1 and played on day 1 was Left Behind from TLoU.
Despite loving these games a lot, I haven't bothered with their DLC yet: Horizon, Arkham City, Arkham Knight, Mass Effect 3, Bloodborne (I bought The Old Hunters, I'll play it one day), Spider-Man, etc.
I wonder, too.
If you complete Splatoon 2's DLC, you unlock the ability to play as a squid in multiplayer. I'd say that I see at least one squid on my four person team every match (often more), so I'd guess that it sold to a pretty big portion of people who have kept playing the game. Combine that with the "games as a service" design probably leading to more people than usual continuing to play, and I'd guess that it did fairly well.
But then it wasn't purely single player DLC. You were basically playing $20 to unlock one of the most requested multiplayer features in the game, with a neat single player campaign thrown in as a bonus. :-)
No surprise at all if you've been following industry trends.
I feel like the classic argument in favor of SP DLC comes from GTA IV which was released 9 years ago....
I feel like the classic argument in favor of SP DLC comes from GTA IV which was released 9 years ago....
Does the Necro expansion for Diablo 3 count? Did that not sell well?
Again, which DLCs are we talking about? Which ones didn't sell that we should have expected to sell well? Because I honestly can't think of many.
I mean, how can we say whether its the idea of single player DLC itself, or whether its how that DLC has been done in each case, or whether it was unreasonable expectations? -- something there's no shortage of when it comes to full game sales.
Again, which DLCs are we talking about? Which ones didn't sell that we should have expected to sell well? Because I honestly can't think of many.
I mean, how can we say whether its the idea of single player DLC itself, or whether its how that DLC has been done in each case, or whether it was unreasonable expectations? -- something there's no shortage of when it comes to full game sales.
It's not really worth the price of entry more often than not.
If you get a season pass it is usually a couple hours of gameplay every month or a couple of months for a few months. Usually, there is a discount on the season pass before all the content is out. I loved Spider-man but am holding off on the DLC until there it is all out and/or there is a discount.
Whereas something like Infamous: First Light or Uncharted Lost Legacy you just buy it in one hit and instead of being drip fed content it feels like a meaty enough release for the money you paid.
If you get a season pass it is usually a couple hours of gameplay every month or a couple of months for a few months. Usually, there is a discount on the season pass before all the content is out. I loved Spider-man but am holding off on the DLC until there it is all out and/or there is a discount.
Whereas something like Infamous: First Light or Uncharted Lost Legacy you just buy it in one hit and instead of being drip fed content it feels like a meaty enough release for the money you paid.
This makes sense, I'm more likely to buy DLC for a multiplayer game that has an ongoing shelf life than for a single player game that I'm finished with already.
I'm not really surprised. The only one I can even name off hand is The Witcher 3 DLCs that I returned to.
For most games you have to somewhat relearn them, and these tend to be over not too long after you've gotten used to the game again. Making it meatier and separate (Like Uncharted: The Lost Legacy) just feels better to me. Some of these DLCs could work standalone but still boot in the original game which bugs me as well, I've always wanted to play Minerva's Den which seems to stand strong as a standalone thing, but I need to have Bioshock 2 to play it.
For most games you have to somewhat relearn them, and these tend to be over not too long after you've gotten used to the game again. Making it meatier and separate (Like Uncharted: The Lost Legacy) just feels better to me. Some of these DLCs could work standalone but still boot in the original game which bugs me as well, I've always wanted to play Minerva's Den which seems to stand strong as a standalone thing, but I need to have Bioshock 2 to play it.
This makes sense if you go by the Numbers breakdown that most people don't finish the single-player story of many games to begin with.
I mean, no shit. By the time SP DLC is dropping, I've almost always long-since moved onto a new game. Feels like the only way it'd hit hard is if more people played one game for a long time.
My problem with DLC is that by the time it comes out, I've moved on from the game. I've played 2 or 3 other games and it's tough to go back and get into it.
If your game is already a massive collecathon slog, then most people probably just get burnt out.
Considering everything needs to be 100 hour plus open worlds these days, is it any surprise some SP DLC might not sell? I haven't even completed Skyrim yet, let alone its DLC. Same for Fallout 4 (completed main game but not DLC).
But that's Bethesda writing for me, really don't like it, but I keep buying into the hype.
A lot of SP DLC just isn't good enough either. Hard to get invested in some of it when you have an example of DLC being TW3's expansion packs. That reminded most of us what quality DLC can be.
Considering everything needs to be 100 hour plus open worlds these days, is it any surprise some SP DLC might not sell? I haven't even completed Skyrim yet, let alone its DLC. Same for Fallout 4 (completed main game but not DLC).
But that's Bethesda writing for me, really don't like it, but I keep buying into the hype.
A lot of SP DLC just isn't good enough either. Hard to get invested in some of it when you have an example of DLC being TW3's expansion packs. That reminded most of us what quality DLC can be.
Single player DLC always seem unnecessary to me. Even when I buy the complete version of a game I rarely touch the DLC. It's usually pointless more of the same gameplay. The recent Spiderman DLC seems like a great example. It's only more of the same. The game shipped complete. If you couldn't get enough of the gameplay maybe you'll buy it. But that's all it is.
Gotta love this shit argument. "Give me more content, but for free! I don't want to pay for the extra labor and resources!" Oh, gamers.