While I was thinking about this during the day, Korny's Favorite Game(tm), Warframe, has exclusively funded every single expansion (and the last one is simply massive, I think even you, Cody, would consider it an expansion) with microtransactions. IMHO, they did tone the pacing of the game for worst to justify its particular brand of microtransaction (you accelerate weapon/armor build time [rated from hours to days, depending on your choice]). The game itself is completely free and you don't need to spend a penny to do anything. Grind for materials is real, but I don't think you can buy your way out of it, except by trading with other players for completed wares, where you can throw in premium currency.

Yeah, those differences are real, which is why sequels still exist. If only the FIFAs and Maddens and CoDs didn't keep churning out games that could easily be DLCs every year, I'd have a stronger argument to make. :p

Are the CoD single player campaigns so small that you would call them DLC? Genuinely asking since I have not played one all the way through.

Obviously, there are factors to mitigate the difference, but sequels are more prone to drawing in new players than an expansion pack is to getting someone on board who wasn't already. While an expansion pack or paid map pack inherently splits the player base into haves and have-nots for various reasons (desire, cost, value concerns) a sequel is not a split in the same regard. A migrating player base to a sequel can be viewed as splintering the player base but might also be growing players who were not previously part of the player pool.

I feel it is a bigger distinction rather than the pedantry of arguing if DLC and Expansions are different (quantifiably they are not, qualitatively it is a personal consideration; the terms are functionally interchangeable), because one is relying on an installed user base first and the other is trying to create a new user base, even if it is pulling folks from the same pool.

Again, think about Bungie’s Halos. Their map packs were what, four maps each? That’s certainly no expansion, but it was definitely substantial and it certainly split the player base, which is a problem that Halo 5 didn’t have because it’s microtransactions funded free maps for everyone.

Uhhhhh.

You know an expansion pack literally is DLC, right? Like, downloadable content?

Either from the 'net or off a disk.

I mean I know it wasn't always true, but in this day and age it's not really a meaningful semantic distinction anymore.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

An expansion pack can be downloaded yes. But that doesn’t make it DLC.

I know I can be confusing, but DLC in common parlance seems to mean a pack of small or disconnected elements. It could be cosmetic items, a single level or mission, or whatever. The point is that it’s largely independent and stands alone. If it didn’t, then the game would be incomplete without it.

Expansion packs are larger, and the content more tightly integrated together. It’s a much larger package, and the content more substantial as such, since you aren’t picking and choosing, but getting an interconnected dump. So they often completely change the game.

I hope this makes sense.

You know an expansion pack literally is DLC, right? Like, downloadable content?

Either from the 'net or off a disk.

I mean I know it wasn't always true, but in this day and age it's not really a meaningful semantic distinction anymore.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(And I would say DLC content that adds, well, noncosmetic content- i.e. expands the game, is an expansion. I could see disagreement here, or ideas that expansions should further the core of the game, and sure. In a lot of games, that's storyline. In Destiny, it's new missions and new lore and new gear. In a collectible card game, it's new cards, and in something like Overwatch it's probably new character options? I dunno, I don't play it.)

So because sequels have this problem, it's negligible for expansions to have it, even though expansions are much more frequent and have the problem worse?

Which means an alternative cosmetic microtransactions pay for free expansions model is bad because... They could use a different model with a different distribution scheme and a different pattern of revenue generation with different advantages and disadvantages to hopefully release the same content.

I have never seen microtransactions fund an expansion. DLC maybe, but never an expansion pack.

Because now it's "How the disadvantages of microtransactions in the game weigh against the advantages of free expansions with guaranteed availability", which comes down to something that most people would think depends on context. And opinion.

Again, you are not getting expansions. You are getting free DLC. DLC by its very nature is not as substantial, deep, or as vital as an expansion pack.

You miss the part where it’s a trade off to make the game more accessible and better, like in Overwatch and Titanfall 2, where it was all for cosmetic shit that allowed for new content like characters and maps that free.

He also misses the part where not everyone wants the same thing out of a game, and not everything IN a game appeals to everyone. But it's hard to make absolute statements unless you cast issues in black and white, so at least he's consistent.

Which means an alternative cosmetic microtransactions pay for free expansions model is bad because... They could use a different model with a different distribution scheme and a different pattern of revenue generation with different advantages and disadvantages to hopefully release the same content.

You can say "Well I still dislike that" without holding onto the reasoning that it makes a game worse, full stop, no exceptions, because uh. Kinda seems like you hit a corner where your logic isn't so clearcut.

Because now it's "How the disadvantages of microtransactions in the game weigh against the advantages of free expansions with guaranteed availability", which comes down to something that most people would think depends on context. And opinion.

Yaaaaay

And releasing a sequel doesn't do the same thing? What's the crucible matchmaking pool like for Destiny right now?

Sure, a sequel does the same thing. My initial gut reaction is to say that's a completely different situation, but maybe it's not. I legitimately don't have an answer for that--I'll have to think on it.

Except now you're fucking over the people that bought the base game but not the expansion. You still have to account for them not having the new content (especially multiplayer maps), which ends up with either segmented playlists like Halo did or some sort of smart matchmaking system which I've never seen work all that well (it either ends up with long waits to find people that don't have the new maps for those people, or you end up with just a rotation of the stock maps because you keep getting matched with folks that don't have the new ones, or whatever other case might happen).

And releasing a sequel doesn't do the same thing? What's the crucible matchmaking pool like for Destiny right now?

You miss the part where it’s a trade off to make the game more accessible and better, like in Overwatch and Titanfall 2, where it was all for cosmetic shit that allowed for new content like characters and maps that free.

Would you rather have people have to pay for new maps again and split the user base? We saw that in Bungie Halo games, and it was always a clusterfuck that ended up with a bunch of shitty playlists.

What you do in this situation is develop a huge expansion pack, and charge for it. Make it good enough to be a 'must have' and fragmentation isn't a problem.

Except it has been a problem every single time that it's been done. No matter how good an expansion pack is, you will never get 100% of the active player base buying it. That's why this model is finally going away. It has caused problems right from the start.

You don't need 100%. Just a critical mass.

You miss the part where it’s a trade off to make the game more accessible and better, like in Overwatch and Titanfall 2, where it was all for cosmetic shit that allowed for new content like characters and maps that free.

Would you rather have people have to pay for new maps again and split the user base? We saw that in Bungie Halo games, and it was always a clusterfuck that ended up with a bunch of shitty playlists.

What you do in this situation is develop a huge expansion pack, and charge for it. Make it good enough to be a 'must have' and fragmentation isn't a problem.

Except it has been a problem every single time that it's been done. No matter how good an expansion pack is, you will never get 100% of the active player base buying it. That's why this model is finally going away. It has caused problems right from the start.

You miss the part where it’s a trade off to make the game more accessible and better, like in Overwatch and Titanfall 2, where it was all for cosmetic shit that allowed for new content like characters and maps that free.

Would you rather have people have to pay for new maps again and split the user base? We saw that in Bungie Halo games, and it was always a clusterfuck that ended up with a bunch of shitty playlists.

What you do in this situation is develop a huge expansion pack, and charge for it. Make it good enough to be a 'must have' and fragmentation isn't a problem.

Would you rather have people have to pay for new maps again and split the user base? We saw that in Bungie Halo games, and it was always a clusterfuck that ended up with a bunch of shitty playlists.