" 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."
Do you really think that all that additional development work you list there for a 'patch' is likely to be anything other than held over for a paid DLC or expansion? Egosoft have to pay the bills and make a profit to stay in business. Logically, their added income should come from those who want to play the DLC and they will want to incentivise as many as possible to buy it. I know that you postulated other revenue sources and every base game owner getting to play enhancements as well as updates, but Egosoft have done things in a certain way up until now and there are no indicators to date that they might find any other options more attractive. Certainly nothing affecting the base game and at least the first 2 DLCs can change much now without upsetting the CE buyers.
Does Egosoft consider optional expansion model to fund further development?
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 31785
- Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
Re: Does Egosoft consider optional expansion model to fund further development?
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Thu, 30. Oct 08, 14:35
Re: Does Egosoft consider optional expansion model to fund further development?
Well, this model already works for certain companies, with its flaws and benefits that I listed. I used Paradox Interactive specifically, as it is a good example of a very small company producing very niche games, which was even on the brink of collapse. Arguably, implementing the model discussed here allowed them to greatly increase the profits, which resulted in Paradox Interactive going public (hence increasing profits even more). Of course there were other factors too, however implementing the patch-expansion model was a milestone for the company. This has been higlighted by its representatives on multiple occassions.
Don't get me wrong- let ma point this out once again- I'm neither in favour nor against this model. As I said before, it has its good and bad points, and of course each company's situation is different. And I totally agree that it's most likely too late for making such changes to X4 at this stage, although the options are still on the table for the future.
I think that the main reason for me creating this thread was that I- as probably most people here- wish Egosoft best, and we hope they will continue producing games we love. But let's be realistic- this means making profit, and increasing profit. Ultimately each company's goal is to do better financially.
Don't get me wrong- let ma point this out once again- I'm neither in favour nor against this model. As I said before, it has its good and bad points, and of course each company's situation is different. And I totally agree that it's most likely too late for making such changes to X4 at this stage, although the options are still on the table for the future.
I think that the main reason for me creating this thread was that I- as probably most people here- wish Egosoft best, and we hope they will continue producing games we love. But let's be realistic- this means making profit, and increasing profit. Ultimately each company's goal is to do better financially.
Fair enough, it's a good point.(...)but Egosoft have done things in a certain way up until now and there are no indicators to date that they might find any other options more attractive
-
- Posts: 3180
- Joined: Sun, 23. Oct 05, 12:13
Re: Does Egosoft consider optional expansion model to fund further development?
I'm not sure I mind what model is used so long as:
a) Quality is high
b) There is value for money across the complete package of products
c) Gameplay issues as well as bugs are adressed
a) Quality is high
b) There is value for money across the complete package of products
c) Gameplay issues as well as bugs are adressed
-
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Tue, 23. Oct 18, 03:10
Re: Does Egosoft consider optional expansion model to fund further development?
I understand you don't think it exactly matches the model you're trying to describe. What I was saying is that the model they're using is, I think, fairly clear at this point. You buy the game, they certainly have patches which fix bugs and probably add some features, and then they release paid expansion packs which have bigger better features. I think that's the model they're going withero_sk wrote: ↑Sun, 25. Nov 18, 20:31I 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.

-
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Fri, 26. Jul 13, 11:04
Re: Does Egosoft consider optional expansion model to fund further development?
I think having a maximum of 2-4 content heavy expansions for a game (and free patches along side) is preferable to the way Paradox handles DLC. It's simply not consumer-friendly to sell a base game for a small amount and then add DLCs en masse that cost together more than three full price games.
Right now is steam sale, Cities Skylines costs €6,99. The C:S Collection with all DLCs costs €64,72. Crusader Kings II costs €9,99, the CK Collection €125,68 (without sale €316,37 !!). It consists of more than 60 (!) single DLCs. Even if the DLCs are worth it: that's madness.
IMO that is just not a sane way to sell games. It's annoying to wade through their products and decide what's worth it, and the 'full experience' is simply very expensive. It also delays the release of a new better base game, which IMO is a chance for a new direction that DLCs don't provide. (Cities Skylines is a good example for this, I liked it a lot, but the base game is just pretty shallow and the DLCs don't change that.)
In contrast The Witcher3 has two great expansions that provide more content than some full games do. The base game costs €14,99, the GOTY-edition with both expansions €19,99, and that's basically too cheap for what it provides. If it would cost 30 euros it would still be a bargain. Or X:Rebirth €14,99, Complete: €16,99.
That's just much easier for me as a customer, it feels less predatory, and IMO that's the way games should be sold.
Right now is steam sale, Cities Skylines costs €6,99. The C:S Collection with all DLCs costs €64,72. Crusader Kings II costs €9,99, the CK Collection €125,68 (without sale €316,37 !!). It consists of more than 60 (!) single DLCs. Even if the DLCs are worth it: that's madness.
IMO that is just not a sane way to sell games. It's annoying to wade through their products and decide what's worth it, and the 'full experience' is simply very expensive. It also delays the release of a new better base game, which IMO is a chance for a new direction that DLCs don't provide. (Cities Skylines is a good example for this, I liked it a lot, but the base game is just pretty shallow and the DLCs don't change that.)
In contrast The Witcher3 has two great expansions that provide more content than some full games do. The base game costs €14,99, the GOTY-edition with both expansions €19,99, and that's basically too cheap for what it provides. If it would cost 30 euros it would still be a bargain. Or X:Rebirth €14,99, Complete: €16,99.
That's just much easier for me as a customer, it feels less predatory, and IMO that's the way games should be sold.
-
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Tue, 2. Nov 10, 21:47
Re: Does Egosoft consider optional expansion model to fund further development?
ero_sk wrote: ↑Sun, 25. Nov 18, 21:52 Well, this model already works for certain companies, with its flaws and benefits that I listed. I used Paradox Interactive specifically, as it is a good example of a very small company producing very niche games, which was even on the brink of collapse. Arguably, implementing the model discussed here allowed them to greatly increase the profits, which resulted in Paradox Interactive going public (hence increasing profits even more). Of course there were other factors too, however implementing the patch-expansion model was a milestone for the company. This has been higlighted by its representatives on multiple occassions.
Don't get me wrong- let ma point this out once again- I'm neither in favour nor against this model. As I said before, it has its good and bad points, and of course each company's situation is different. And I totally agree that it's most likely too late for making such changes to X4 at this stage, although the options are still on the table for the future.
I think that the main reason for me creating this thread was that I- as probably most people here- wish Egosoft best, and we hope they will continue producing games we love. But let's be realistic- this means making profit, and increasing profit. Ultimately each company's goal is to do better financially.
Fair enough, it's a good point.(...)but Egosoft have done things in a certain way up until now and there are no indicators to date that they might find any other options more attractive
Personally. not for me.
I unwittingly bought Crusader Kings 2 Gold Edition not realising that there is a ton of content that Paradox are still adding to the game.
Again, it devalues the Base Game as many of these changes are script based changes to the base game, rather than just cosmetic changes I can live without.
I don't even play it anymore as the thought of only owning 2 thirds of a game, that I have to folk out 120-150 pounds to play the full game utterly spoils the enjoyment. And Stellaris is going the same direction.
The only thing i'll go for is either crappy little cosmetic dlcs that adds nothing to the game and huge standalone DLC Expansions of Home of Light size.
So many good games are being spoiled by greed, Creative Assembly was one such love affair utterly ruined by dlc whoring.
I understand that Egosoft is a business and needs to stay in the black, but going the CA and Paradox route may increase their revenue in the long run, but it will ruin it's reputation as a whole.
Perhaps this greed is inevitable, I simply grew up in a time where you bought a game, you modded it and you didn't have to worry about the game company overwhelming you with this so-called "Player Choice" and "Live Services" model.
Ragna-Tech.. Forging a Better Tomorrow!
My most annoying Bugs list 8.00 {Beta 1]
--------------------------------
- Escort Ship has bad pathfinding
- Embassy Diplomats give blueprints for free EXPLOIT
My most annoying Bugs list 8.00 {Beta 1]
--------------------------------
- Escort Ship has bad pathfinding
- Embassy Diplomats give blueprints for free EXPLOIT

-
- Posts: 141
- Joined: Sun, 6. May 12, 23:42
Re: Does Egosoft consider optional expansion model to fund further development?
Optional expansions inevitably degrade the quality of the game code by filling it with conditionals. They also lock out game designers from a lot of possibilities that would involve building on mechanics or content from another optional expansion. So no thanks.
Skin packs and the like are a good revenue source, but they introduce a vicious incentive to keep the coolest visual stuff for the optional packs, and it means the game will have less well-integrated content.
Skin packs and the like are a good revenue source, but they introduce a vicious incentive to keep the coolest visual stuff for the optional packs, and it means the game will have less well-integrated content.