Does Egosoft consider optional expansion model to fund further development?

[ero_sk]

This is rather a controversial subject in the gaming industry (although less controversial that other aspects of the industry in its current state, e.g. loot boxes). For start, I'd like to say that I'm neither a supporter nor opponent of aforementioned model, and I'll try to briefly highlight the pros and cons of it later in this post.

There are a couple of game producers out there which have implemented quite an interesting model to boost funding of their further development. For example Paradox Interactive, developer and publisher of so-called grand strategy games. Simply speaking- once the game is released, it remains in continuous development. Each patch brings a number of free features which comes accompanied by a paid expansion. Said expansion contains extra features and- in some cases- enhancements of the features included in the free patch. As the expansions are optional, the features are "modular" and integrate smoothly with the core game. This allows both the players who have and the ones who haven't bought one or more expansions to play the same version of the product, and hence receive necessary support and bug fixes.

Pros and cons that come to my mind:

Pros:

• Continuous source of income for the company

• Players who want extra (paid) features can get it, players who don't/can't afford it, can still enjoy the game and get the support

• Everyone gets extra free feature as a "thank you" from the company

• The product is developed and improved more actively

• The model encourages more feedback from the players and makes it easier to implement desired features

Cons:

• Company may fail to balance between free and paid features, leaving players who haven't bought the expansion disadvantaged (example from Europa Universalis 4- new development and building model left players without the expansion with limitations on how they can (indirectly) unlock the building slots, as they couldn't manually change the development level)

• The "full version" of the game, i.e. the core game + many expansions released later, results in a high overall cost (EU4 costs hundreds $ as of today). This makes it a harder entry point for new players, as they may be less likely to buy the game without all the expansions.

• Badly managed development model leads to "feature bloat", where most focus is put on releasing many features relatively often (i.e. focus on income rather than quality) without careful consideration of the features being introduced

• Harder mods integration- modders need to decide whether their mode requires certain expansions, handle the integration with other versions (without other expansions) of the game etc.

Please note- this is strictly discussion about expansions, not cosmetic DLCs (although cosmetic changes can be part of an expansion). I wonder what's the Egosoft's stance on this, as well as the player's opinions?

[ZombiePotatoSalad]

I have never heard of Egosoft doing such a thing, and personally, I doubt they would stoop that low. So far, there's two confirmed expansions for X4. You can buy the CE which comes with them, or you can buy them later when they come out.

Other than that, it's free updates.

And Paradox often has paid expansions for trivial things, such as a skin pack. Also, I really don't like how they managed to make space combat into ground combat.

[ero_sk]

Other than that, it's free updates.

Can you define what you mean by "free updates"? In the model that I mentioned, each patch (i.e. an "update") contains bugfixes but also free features, i.e. new or improved existing functionality. This is not the same as a new patch which only fixes the bugs.

And Paradox often has paid expansions for trivial things, such as a skin pack.

This is what's considered a DLC, which I explained at the end of my post. Also note that some of those cosmetic changes are also included as part of free, and some of paid expansions. Having said that, it can indeed be a problem- see my "feature bloat" point.

Also, I really don't like how they managed to make space combat into ground combat.

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by that.

[Alci]

the better question is what's wrong with the way Egosoft is doing it now? They "survived" Rebirth. So either Rebirth is not as bad as some tries to imply, or their marketing model is not as bad as some tries to imply.

I hope you don't just "propose" the change without understanding of current state.

[spankahontis]

The way things are going in the EU, Loot boxes are looking to be considered gambling and therefore made possibly illegal.
Seeing as Egosoft HQ is stationed in the EU, not a wise move.
And that's before you take into account the growing anger of EA, Activision etc. implementation of online markets built into their game, LOTR: Shadow of War for example had to be totally rebalanced because of the damage loot boxes and the marketplace made to the game, the controversy of Star Wars: Battlefront II taking down it's lootboxes (Temporarily?).

No, just no! Egosoft doesn't need that shit in its games, it's gambling and it exploits players with gambling addiction and mental illness that triggers gambling tendencies.

Expansion Packs, make their money that way, going Creative Assembly nuts and releasing 30-50 pieces of dlc fluff for £3.99 a pop is greed and devalues the main game, buying a game for £40-50 to find that you have to pay a further £50 to get the full game? Again, no! Egosoft does this? and i'm gone.
Season Passes? The same!
Just make the Game, release Expansions if you want to make more content for a decent release price. Don't go down the dark path of greed like so many others, before you know it, EA buys you out and eviscerates the company.

And Paradox often has paid expansions for trivial things, such as a skin pack. Also, I really don't like how they managed to make space combat into ground combat.

Stellaris: MegaCorp - Expansion

Stellaris: Apocalypse - Expansion

Stellaris: Utopia - New Features/Expansion

Stellaris: Distant Stars Story Pack - New Features/Expansion

Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn Story Pack - New Content

Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack - New Content

Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack -Skins

Stellaris: Plantoids Species Pack - Skins

Stellaris: Complete Soundtrack - Soundtrack

Stellaris: Infinite Frontiers (eBook)

Stellaris: Anniversary Portraits - Skins

Stellaris: Nova Edition Upgrade Pack

Stellaris: Galaxy Edition Upgrade Pack

Crusader Kings II's dlc Page is allot worse!

[ero_sk]

I hope you don't just "propose" the change without understanding of current state.

I think I made myself clear what's my stance on this subject- it's neutral. Also, it's not about the current state, but about alternative models for expanding the game and finding funding for further development.

@spankahontis I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about. Have you read the first post carefully? This is not a discussion about loot boxes or anything similar. Please read my original post again if you are still unsure.

[Alci]

The way things are going in the EU, Loot boxes are looking to be considered gambling... the growing anger of EA, Activision... rebalanced because of the damage loot boxes... Egosoft doesn't need that shit in its games, it's gambling and it...

and what about giraffes? They hadn't harmed ANYONE!!

[ZombiePotatoSalad]

Other than that, it's free updates.

Can you define what you mean by "free updates"? In the model that I mentioned, each patch (i.e. an "update") contains bugfixes but also free features, i.e. new or improved existing functionality. This is not the same as a new patch which only fixes the bugs.

And Paradox often has paid expansions for trivial things, such as a skin pack.

This is what's considered a DLC, which I explained at the end of my post. Also note that some of those cosmetic changes are also included as part of free, and some of paid expansions. Having said that, it can indeed be a problem- see my "feature bloat" point.

Also, I really don't like how they managed to make space combat into ground combat.

I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by that.

1. I mean just that. Free updates. I consider a patch to be an update. If it adds features that are not sold as separate DLC, it's a free update. Bringing the game up to date with new features. Hence the word.

2. Yes, but some would consider that to be a push. One need look no further than Horse Armor to see that some cosmetic things REALLY shouldn't be charged for, unless they come as part of a larger expansion.

3. You know how when you created a new race, people could use their choice of three FTL methods? Now it's forced hyperlanes for everyone, completely missing the fact that space is... kinda 3D. You know, you can jump in a radius, not a straight line from one planet to the other. The game used to have free movement.

[ero_sk]

3. You know how when you created a new race, people could use their choice of three FTL methods? Now it's forced hyperlanes for everyone, completely missing the fact that space is... kinda 3D. You know, you can jump in a radius, not a straight line from one planet to the other. The game used to have free movement.

I see, thanks for explanation.

[Alci]

I think I made myself clear what's my stance on this subject- it's neutral.

actually you hadn't. You start with "and what about <random company> doing <a random thing>, wouldn't it be better? Shouldn't it be considered? I'm just asking questions."

By default you should accept they are doing it in some way already.

And only if you think they are doing it wrong (less then perfect) and that you know the better way that would help any participated parties (company, customers), then you bring a suggestion to consider.

Coming to Apple and suggesting that they might consider giving their phones for free and get money elsewhere.. without mentioning a reason WHY they should change already established business... is what I was commenting.

A good guide for ANY suggestion made by gamers(customers) to developers(company) should consist of at least these points:

• what problem does it solve
• what are expected costs of change
• what positive impacts does it have on company
• what negative impacts does it have on company
• what positive impacts does it have on users
• what negative impacts does it have on users

If you don't feel like it's worth the effort you still may provide a feedback without suggestions. But making suggestion without considering at least these points makes it a weak argument.

[spankahontis]

I hope you don't just "propose" the change without understanding of current state.

I think I made myself clear what's my stance on this subject- it's neutral. Also, it's not about the current state, but about alternative models for expanding the game and finding funding for further development.

@spankahontis I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about. Have you read the first post carefully? This is not a discussion about loot boxes or anything similar. Please read my original post again if you are still unsure.

I didn't just mention Loot boxes, I gave my critique about many other forms of revenue that game companies partake in.
My post DID cover some of your points, i'm sorry that I didn't explain it to you more Contextually.

Creative Assembly for example (That I mentioned briefly), has a similar model as Paradox Games, they give you a Free LC to butter you up for Paid Dlc, which 2 thirds of the time are just reskins. Nothing wrong with that if you know how to add Mods to your game? as there will be modders that can do a better job than CA in this field, (If you're willing to wait a year or 2?).

The major CON for me is over-saturation of a game, or you make the game look worthless when compared with all the dlc you have to buy in order to get the full game experience. Buying a game for 50 quid to find you need to fork out another 50 quid to complete the base game is insulting and highway robbery.
DLC Fluff can be ignored, Modders have that part covered, but then again, why should they have to be relied on in the first place to better the game? Just laziness on the developers part.

CA knocked out tiny expansions for Warhammer, even went as far as making the Chaos Faction a day 1 dlc reward for Pre-Order Purchase.. Making something integral to the game and cutting out to sell back caused outrage amongst Total War Fans, the trailer was downvoted to hell.
Then it released Faction content, reskins, unlocked factions, Heroes, gameplay etc. Tiny Expansion Pack based content, it turned Warhammer Total War into a profit making scheme, devalued the base game cause who doesn't want to play as the Wood Elves, Beast men or Norsica? They ripped out content from the base game and sold it back as dlc.
Similar to X:Rebirth and the Teladi Outpost; selling the complete edition did not make that right afterwards.
When you have to delay buying a game for a few years cause you are waiting for the complete edition? Then there is something wrong.

Coming to Apple and suggesting that they might consider giving their phones for free and get money elsewhere.. without mentioning a reason WHY they should change already established business... is what I was commenting.

People just get a contract with a mobile phone company like Apple, depending on how much they are willing to pay in a yearly contract, they can get their apple phone that way and be entitled to a free upgrade after a year or 2. So they could get it free that way, but it still means subscribing to their service.
Unlike myself, who has no credit history would have to buy it outright.

[ero_sk]

(...)
actually you hadn't. You start with "and what about <random company> doing <a random thing>, wouldn't it be better? Shouldn't it be considered? I'm just asking questions."

Well, I would say it's a very reasonable thing to do- observe others, consider what benefits it would bring to "our" model ("our" being any company) and if it's feasible to implement.

By default you should accept they are doing it in some way already.

Doing what exactly? They are planning to develop and sell expansions, in what I would call a "traditional" model. That's not the same as the model that I brought.

And only if you think they are doing it wrong (less then perfect) (...)

Wrong is not less than perfect, wrong is wrong. Perfect, on the other hand, is on the very extreme side of the spectrum and I doubt any company in the world can claim to have a perfect business model.

(...)and that you know the better way that would help any participated parties (company, customers), then you bring a suggestion to consider.

Because who said that? You? I'm sorry, but you're in no position to tell me whether I can or cannot bring an option (it wasn't a suggestion) to consider. No, suggestions (although again- I wouldn't call it a suggestion) are there to consider in general- just because a company is not doing wrong, doesn't mean they shouldn't be looking for other options and ways of improving. If you don't do that because "we're not doing wrong" then where is the place for progress? This is not progress, this is stagnation. And yes, releasing expansions the way Egosoft plans to do now may be considered a progress as well, I don't deny that.

Coming to Apple and suggesting that they might consider giving their phones for free and get money elsewhere.. without mentioning a reason WHY they should change already established business... is what I was commenting.
(...)
If you don't feel like it's worth the effort you still may provide a feedback without suggestions. But making suggestion without considering at least these points makes it a weak argument.

Once again, I wasn't necessarily suggesting the change, rather pointing out there are such options out there. In addition, I have provided a brief list of pros and cons, which can as well be used to potentially answer the questions- "why?" and "is it worth it?". Further points that you listed are for way deeper analysis and consideration, which is the job of business analyst whom I am not.

I don't quite get the point of your reply to me, nor your attempt at putting yourself in a position of a judge of whether one can or cannot post a certain thought on the forum. This is not the point of this discussion at all, so I'll leave it here.


@spankahontis I see your point now, and yes- I somehow agree. Yet it all depends on how the model is implemented I guess. If handled well, it can bring benefits to customers, and significant financial benefits to the company.

[birdtable]

A bit extreme mentioning Egosoft in with the worst instances of player extortion through loot boxes and pay to win,, myself I would be quite happy with a mug or T shirt as a source of a regular income stream... although I doubt if the income from mugs would pay for the staff BBQ's let alone the pizza or pancakes.
From what I have seen those boys can eat.
Show me your wares on a T shirt would be nice, what I would have on a mug … have to think about that.. maybe a Granny.

[Alci]

Doing what exactly? They are planning to develop and sell expansions, in what I would call a "traditional" model. That's not the same as the model that I brought.

they don't do "traditional" expansions. Their expansions (last one is X3:AP) are BY DEFINITION the milestone where the save game from previous version IS NOT compatible with new features, so your proposal cannot be applied to them. As long as savegames can be made compatible "easily" they are using better version of your proposal: Free updates containing ALL features that applies to the general play. And payed DLCs with extended areas, which may or may not contain it's own features only usable in that area.

My opinion is: It's better for players as they get more features for free, and it's better for company as it lessen the need to maintain and test parallel codes.

Because who said that? You?

of course you may "suggest" a change without understanding why the things are as they are. But that's level of people talking about "politics" over the beer. So feel free to suggest any so called "options" you want (not really an "option" if you don't want to touch any "choice" as you said). Just leave me the same liberty of bringing up the childishness in such behavior. And be noted: as long as you do that you will never be able to truly change anything (universal truth).

Once again, I wasn't necessarily suggesting the change, rather pointing out there are such options out there.

then the answer to your OP question is: yes, they do consider (as various devs inputs suggest). All good?

[Gnorog]

I would really like if Egosoft is taking X4 as a "foundation" and regularly add free and payed content. No need for a "new" game every few years...

[Solflame]

They've already announced they're planning at least two expansions, one in 2019.

[ero_sk]

A bit extreme mentioning Egosoft in with the worst instances of player extortion through loot boxes and pay to win(...)

They've already announced they're planning at least two expansions, one in 2019.

Once again guys, I thought I made my point quite clear in the first post. If for whatever reason it's not clear then mea culpa. I don't know how to make it clearer though- the subject of this discussion is not about lootboxes, nor the expansion model Egosoft has currently planned.

they don't do "traditional" expansions. Their expansions (last one is X3:AP) are BY DEFINITION the milestone where the save game from previous version IS NOT compatible with new features(...)

These were no expansions, they were standolaone games. By no means they meet a definition of an expansion, nor they are sold as such.

of course you may "suggest" a change without understanding why the things are as they are(...) Just leave me the same liberty of bringing up the childishness in such behavior.

Let me make something clear- if you simply started a discussion with me on a prejudice that I don't understand why the things are as they are, plus include accusations of childishness- there is no point for further discussion between us two. And I still don't get what your problem exactly is- that I didn't come up with an essay for this particular subject? If so then good luck with such thinking- this is a forum for casual chats rather than academic studies.

then the answer to your OP question is: yes, they do consider (as various devs inputs suggest). All good?

Source please? Unless you're Egosoft's representative, then I'm sorry but it's not clear to me- there is nothing in your profile that would indicate that.

My opinion is: It's better for players as they get more features for free, and it's better for company as it lessen the need to maintain and test parallel codes.

You could say that from the very beggining, instead of making such quenstionable comments towards me. Nevertheless, your statement would be wrong because once again- neither TC nor AP were expansions of X3: Reunion. Also I don't quite get how releasing TC gave players "features for free". It was a standalone game, not the features added to the core (X3:R) game without charging customers.

Having said that, this is my final response to you as I'm not content of having discussions with people who make personal attacks towards me. Have a good day.

[nerdtron]

Each patch brings a number of free features which comes accompanied by a paid expansion. Said expansion contains extra features and- in some cases- enhancements of the features included in the free patch. As the expansions are optional, the features are "modular" and integrate smoothly with the core game. This allows both the players who have and the ones who haven't bought one or more expansions to play the same version of the product, and hence receive necessary support and bug fixes.

I think it seems clear they’re already doing exactly this with X4. The Collectors edition includes 2 paid expansions. So it’s clear there will be paid expansions and I’m sure they’ll have patches which fix bugs and add features.

[ero_sk]

I think it seems clear they’re already doing exactly this with X4. The Collectors edition includes 2 paid expansions. So it’s clear there will be paid expansions and I’m sure they’ll have patches which fix bugs and add features.

I don't think it is exactly this model though. When I said that "every" patch comes with features and an expansion, I literally mean EVERY patch. I.e. there is no patch without expansion, and vice versa. This doesn't include hotfixes of course. Because each patch is accompanied by an expansion, this also means that each patch and expansion are very focused on specific area or mechanics of the game. In X4 world, this for example would mean a patch which introduces a new race and their associated ships and corporations. The expansion may then include set of extra ships, corporations and plot for the new race. Maybe few extra sectors/zones as well.

[nemesis1982]

They already had a DLC model for XR. Free updates and paid expansions. The expansions were at a fair price. I do not see why they should change the formula.