What happened to the "expansion" concept of games that did well??

[Xenich]

I know there are still "some", but for the most part they went away. There was a period in gaming where every game was putting out expansion after expansion and I don't know why this stopped.

It doesn't make sense. It can't be because it isn't profitable? I mean, you spend all of that time developing an engine, fine tuning the game, etc.... then... drop it and start a new engine and game? Why?

You already have a built in audience, workload is reduced and as long as you don't screw things up and keep it interesting, you can milk the players who will happily buy each one released. You can even sell them "near" full game price providing you have the content to support it, so I never understood why.

Does anyone know why?

[Val the Moofia Boss]

"Expansions" as in continued development of a game after its initial release is still happening. Actually, it is happening much more often nowadays. It's just that the format has been shifting away from one time box purchases to "live service", be it free to play with battle passes or with smaller priced "DLCs" or whatever. People want higher production value 3D games, but that is expensive to deliver. Meanwhile, you can't count on selling millions enough copies (before they become very deeply discounted) to recoup the cost and make enough profit to justify all of this time and effort that might not be worth it. Also, with the proliferation of the internet, everyone is siloing themselves off into microniches where they don't interact with each other. It's not like ye old days where everyone consumed the same thing. So customer sizes are generally dwindling or stagnating while development costs are rising. The only solution is to try to extract more money from what customers you do get. So the game plan is not to sell a $60 box and then a $60 expansion and then you're done, but to try to get the players to spend upwards of $100+ over the lifetime of the game. $20 here, $20 there, etc, adds up over a long period of time.

I think what people don't want to hear is that ye good ole days are an age that is not now. If you want high production value games, then they are not going to be one time box purchase. If you want one time box purchase then they are not going to be as fabulous.

[Vaako]

Horse armor happened. And gaming market grew so they could sell smaller dlcs to more people with less work/risk. Last bigger game with expansions was skyrim I think. And Nintendo sold the BotW dlc as Totk.

[rusty_shackleford]

Before they get to making expansions again they should go back to making good games

[sheet]

A couple reasons I can think of:
A lot of video game plots are just movies now. Even back at Dragon Age Origins, I completely lost interest playing the expansion after the main plot wrapped up so nicely. There's too much finality in games for a secondary or extended plot to matter.

Expansions had to overcome the threshold of development, packaging, shipping, marketing. Back in their heyday, not everyone had internet, and CD-ROMs/DVDs were still a much better way to distribute data than 56k dial-up was.
Nowadays, the threshold to distribute is so low, a minimum effort amounts to creating a News post and adding it onto your Steam store page, so it can be much more bite-size in content per DLC.

Also, having a one-off side story takes a lot less narrative effort than designing an entire second campaign. So some games get a few one-off story DLCs that aren't mandatory and don't really contribute to the plot between a game and its sequel, but they still sell for the same overall price added up across them all. If you think of something like Brood War back in the day, that might as well have been an entirely separate game.

[rusty_shackleford]

A couple reasons I can think of:
A lot of video game plots are just movies now. Even back at Dragon Age Origins, I completely lost interest playing the expansion after the main plot wrapped up so nicely. There's too much finality in games for a secondary or extended plot to matter.

Expansions had to overcome the threshold of development, packaging, shipping, marketing. Back in their heyday, not everyone had internet, and CD-ROMs/DVDs were still a much better way to distribute data than 56k dial-up was.
Nowadays, the threshold to distribute is so low, a minimum effort amounts to creating a News post and adding it onto your Steam store page, so it can be much more bite-size in content per DLC.

Also, having a one-off side story takes a lot less narrative effort than designing an entire second campaign. So some games get a few one-off story DLCs that aren't mandatory and don't really contribute to the plot between a game and its sequel, but they still sell for the same overall price added up across them all. If you think of something like Brood War back in the day, that might as well have been an entirely separate game.

Dao expansion is actually great, so are the mini dlcs. The final one, witch hunter or whatever, actually wraps the story up perfectly and you can say it ends there. I'd suggest playing them.

[horstg]

Factorio's Space Age is an expansion, I'm pretty sure it was always called "expansion", and it adds a LOT of stuff...

[Norfleet]

Expansions are still alive and well, in all of name, form and spirit. Some games still do content expansions which are even called still expansions and are similarly scaled. Others have used the more live nature of the Internet to release more frequent smaller updates, which may be priced at a lower price point or even offered free to existing customers. "Expansions" are alive, well, and outright thriving. If anything, TOO thriving: they're more common than actually getting a new game.

[Havitner]

Paid post-release content was better back when it had to be both long and high-quality enough to justify printing up millions of CDs, putting them in cases, and shipping them all over the country/world.

[TKVNC]

Paid post-release content was better back when it had to be both long and high-quality enough to justify printing up millions of CDs, putting them in cases, and shipping them all over the country/world.

There's probably something in this. Interesting thought.

Think about WoW, back in TBC, or WOTLK days, it wasn't really practical to download.

Last few years it's generally been download only.

[Tweed]

The mid-game expansion is a lost art form.

[Roguey]

Obsidian released an expansion to Pillars of Eternity in two parts and came to the conclusion it wasn't worth it and stuck to smaller DLCs for Deadfire. It's more profitable to make smaller chunks of content that people can buy earlier when they still have their game installed. Expansion-sized content existed in the past out of necessity, now there's a better model.

[J1M]

I think the MBAs looked at the sales of the original game as a cap on the potential sales of an expansion. And they would much rather invest in something risky like developing a game if it has an unlimited cap on potential sales. Which leads to "standalone expansions" that sit in a weird place between a traditional expansion and a sequel.

In my opinion the MBA math is wrong. A quality expansion like Brood War can boost the sales of the original title, and those sales should be attributed to the sales numbers of the expansion.

[Tangerine]

MBA math is wrong.

This is such an obvious conclusion that corpos keep ignoring.

[Xenich]

I understand the arguments from both sides here, but I find modern DLCs to be lacking... Maybe it is just me, but I find them to be a "taste" of the game when I was truly looking to experience the epic I did with the original release. That is why I like FULL expansions, games that are in terms of content equal to the release, but a continuation.

I just never understood why it isn't done more often. From a basic economical standpoint, you are often reusing assets, engine, etc... so the entire game is just writing and world building with maybe some "additions" put in that were not possible for the original release game (ie using a very limited team), or even theorized at the time. Not only do you end up with the same winning assets you had before, but you have the opportunity to improve on it through fine tuning, bug fixing, etc... you release the winning game, but better.

I hear people go on about playing a game they like the "2nd time", and I think... why wouldn't they be salivating to play the "same" game through continuation?

FFS, if you were to release a number of the great games I have played in the past today EXACTLY in the same engine they were, but with a new story and progression, I would jump at the chance.

Expansions make sense not simply on the basic flow aspect of play, but also in the realms of economics, marketing, etc...

I have seen some make some arguments here as to why, but I just don't buy it...

Can anyone show me a company who made an expansion from an original AMAZING game that was "on par" with the same presentation and writing and it wasn't well received? Even then, was its reception in a manner that wasn't profit producing, because like I said... the only costs at that point is world building and writing for the most part, so it was already at an advantage?

[rusty_shackleford]

There's plenty of large expansion-sized dlcs still being made

[Xenich]

There's plenty of large expansion-sized dlcs still being made

Well, how many games that were MASSIVE successes who did not put out numerous expansions?

Look at KCD, there were DLCs, but they weren't full on expansions, just small tidbits here and there, some large... yes... but why not full on games the level of the first? I mean, they had the engine already, the cost to produce a full epic game of the same level and time was GREATLY reduced due to the original development expense, so why not?

Then look at all of the games out there, like DoS, which could have milked numerous full on expansions from the game, but then tried to "one up" with DOSII using the same engine, but changing everything to be a "New game" and only ended up screwing the game in the process (IMO).

Point is, once you WIN with a release strat, the proper course of action is to apply that template over and over improving through minor adjustments while you build capital to your next innovation.

Companies don't do this... they win, then start over from scratch, then lose... and lose some more... then retrace to their win and gain something back and fight a losing battle in the process.

It is ******* ********.

It is like walking into a dinner ordering pie because the pie is great and then at one point they say, here is cake... WTF?

[rusty_shackleford]

There's plenty of large expansion-sized dlcs still being made

Well, how many games that were MASSIVE successes who did not put out numerous expansions?

Look at KCD, there were DLCs, but they weren't full on expansions, just small tidbits here and there, some large... yes... but why not full on games the level of the first? I mean, they had the engine already, the cost to produce a full epic game of the same level and time was GREATLY reduced due to the original development expense, so why not?

Then look at all of the games out there, like DoS, which could have milked numerous full on expansions from the game, but then tried to "one up" with DOSII using the same engine, but changing everything to be a "New game" and only ended up screwing the game in the process (IMO).

Point is, once you WIN with a release strat, the proper course of action is to apply that template over and over improving through minor adjustments while you build capital to your next innovation.

Companies don't do this... they win, then start over from scratch, then lose... and lose some more... then retrace to their win and gain something back and fight a losing battle in the process.

It is ******* ********.

It is like walking into a dinner ordering pie because the pie is great and then at one point they say, here is cake... WTF?

Lots of older games used to put out expansions the size of modern DLCs tho
look at BG1's tales of the sword coast

[Xenich]

There's plenty of large expansion-sized dlcs still being made

Well, how many games that were MASSIVE successes who did not put out numerous expansions?

Look at KCD, there were DLCs, but they weren't full on expansions, just small tidbits here and there, some large... yes... but why not full on games the level of the first? I mean, they had the engine already, the cost to produce a full epic game of the same level and time was GREATLY reduced due to the original development expense, so why not?

Then look at all of the games out there, like DoS, which could have milked numerous full on expansions from the game, but then tried to "one up" with DOSII using the same engine, but changing everything to be a "New game" and only ended up screwing the game in the process (IMO).

Point is, once you WIN with a release strat, the proper course of action is to apply that template over and over improving through minor adjustments while you build capital to your next innovation.

Companies don't do this... they win, then start over from scratch, then lose... and lose some more... then retrace to their win and gain something back and fight a losing battle in the process.

It is ******* ********.

It is like walking into a dinner ordering pie because the pie is great and then at one point they say, here is cake... WTF?

Lots of older games used to put out expansions the size of modern DLCs tho
look at BG1's tales of the sword coast

Sure, but I consider that an expansion. I am not discussing on a literal ratio here, more generally so you may be able to provide examples to prove your point, in that case... I concede, but is this generally so? Maybe I don't like most of the games out there so I don't catch your point, but many of the games I like tend to either being a one time drop and move on, or they do the "DLC of Horse Armor" or the like.

I just don't understand why most games of major note don't milk that FULL expansion bandwagon and run it into the ground before they move on to another.

Heck, with BG I would have been ecstatic to play numerous other expansions from the game. I look back to Dues Ex and think, hell... if they released several more expansions of the same engine with different stories, I would have love it... and this is the same with numerous game engines I loved. They either dropped the game (for various understandable reasons) or they decided to make a full new engine... when they didn't need to at the time.

I see the same issue with numerous games today. For instance, BG3 shouldn't stop, it should make TONs of games from the same genre and many others, but we know it will eventually become a dead engine with maybe it being sold off as a base in some instances to make ******** games and the like.

Wasted...

[rusty_shackleford]

I see the same issue with numerous games today. For instance, BG3 shouldn't stop, it should make TONs of games from the same genre and many others, but we know it will eventually become a dead engine with maybe it being sold off as a base in some instances to make ******** games and the like.

Wasted...

BG3 has no more content because it's obvious that there was a serious dispute between larian & WotC, they didn't even finish BG3 itself
my guess was WotC took flat royalties and suddenly wanted % after seeing how well it sold

[Xenich]

I see the same issue with numerous games today. For instance, BG3 shouldn't stop, it should make TONs of games from the same genre and many others, but we know it will eventually become a dead engine with maybe it being sold off as a base in some instances to make ******** games and the like.

Wasted...

BG3 has no more content because it's obvious that there was a serious dispute between larian & WotC, they didn't even finish BG3 itself
my guess was WotC took flat royalties and suddenly wanted % after seeing how well it sold

I understand that whole thing, but there are other companies who tended to go light on their expansions in favor of a "new whole game" concept which I have issue with, such as I explained with even good companies of the past foregoing more expansions on already established works.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

I think the MBAs looked at the sales of the original game as a cap on the potential sales of an expansion. And they would much rather invest in something risky like developing a game if it has an unlimited cap on potential sales. Which leads to "standalone expansions" that sit in a weird place between a traditional expansion and a sequel.

In my opinion the MBA math is wrong. A quality expansion like Brood War can boost the sales of the original title, and those sales should be attributed to the sales numbers of the expansion.

The corpos might be right. A second Diablo 3 expansion was in production which would include a druid class or equivalent and would conclude the story of the Nephiliam, but it was cancelled and Blizzard skipped to developing D4. D3 sold 6.3 million sales in the first week. Reaper of Souls sold 2.7 million in the first week, and that was a solid expac, better than the base game. D4 we don't get exact numbers of copies sold but supposedly it sold $666 million USD within the first five days. Who knows what percentage of that was game pass and cash shop but that's probably more copies than Reaper of Souls.

[J1M]

I think the MBAs looked at the sales of the original game as a cap on the potential sales of an expansion. And they would much rather invest in something risky like developing a game if it has an unlimited cap on potential sales. Which leads to "standalone expansions" that sit in a weird place between a traditional expansion and a sequel.

In my opinion the MBA math is wrong. A quality expansion like Brood War can boost the sales of the original title, and those sales should be attributed to the sales numbers of the expansion.

The corpos might be right. A second Diablo 3 expansion was in production which would include a druid class or equivalent and would conclude the story of the Nephiliam, but it was cancelled and Blizzard skipped to developing D4. D3 sold 6.3 million sales in the first week. Reaper of Souls sold 2.7 million in the first week, and that was a solid expac, better than the base game. D4 we don't get exact numbers of copies sold but supposedly it sold $666 million USD within the first five days. Who knows what percentage of that was game pass and cash shop but that's probably more copies than Reaper of Souls.

Diablo 4 had 6 years of active development. And two additional years of active development on a version of it that was cancelled prior to that.

Brood War was made in 8 months.

As an investor I'll take the Brood War x12 over Diablo 4 any day. If Brood War #6 does poorly I can turn off the money tap.

There's no reason you can't do both an expansion and a sequel.

The shadow of Diablo 2 is going to stretch long over any Diablo sales numbers so I'm not sure this is a good example. The reason Diablo 3 sold so many units is because of Diablo 2. The reason Diablo 3's expansion pack didn't sell 1:1 with base game copies is because of Diablo 3 and their decision to hold back the Necromancer class for DLC. Diablo 4 sold well on promises that it was not Diablo 3, etc.

Would be interesting for someone who is not me to research if the market treats non-MMO games with 2 expansion packs poorly. That appears to have been a misstep of Blizzard with both StarCraft 2 and Diablo 3. I think a lot of people looked at that as greedy/content stretched too thin/decided to wait until the game was 'complete'.

[rusty_shackleford]

it took longer(iirc? or close to) to make the DLC for outer worlds than it took to make Fallout New Vegas + all of its DLC

so, that's a big factor into it. The quick turnaround is no longer there because devs are only hired based upon whether they have things like foid genitals or correct political views

[Tweed]

Friendly reminder that Origin was one of the first companies to do the nickel and dime ********. Forge of Virtue lasted all of about two hours, gave the player extreme stat boosts, and the ultimate weapon capable of killing powerful enemies in a single blow.

[Norfleet]

I think a lot of people looked at that as greedy/content stretched too thin/decided to wait until the game was 'complete'.

That's helped by the modern games backlog, too. Nowadays, so many games exist that there is no need to rush into a game that isn't "complete", when you can just wait until either it is, or it is proven to be vaporware. The only reason to rush into a game now is if it's an MMO and you want to try to capture the first-mover advantage by taking advantage of all the exploits that will be found that anyone new will miss out on.

[J1M]

I think a lot of people looked at that as greedy/content stretched too thin/decided to wait until the game was 'complete'.

That's helped by the modern games backlog, too. Nowadays, so many games exist that there is no need to rush into a game that isn't "complete", when you can just wait until either it is, or it is proven to be vaporware. The only reason to rush into a game now is if it's an MMO and you want to try to capture the first-mover advantage by taking advantage of all the exploits that will be found that anyone new will miss out on.

Yes, and to avoid having the story spoiled. But I can't recall a recent game where that would matter due to writing decline.

[Norfleet]

Yes, and to avoid having the story spoiled. But I can't recall a recent game where that would matter due to writing decline.

I don't believe in spoilers. Science says that this isn't a thing. This notion of spoilers is based on something that people invented only recently, with this weird trait of valuing ignorance. Throughout human history, people have KNOWN how the story was going to end from the beginning, and thus had no effect.

So here's some:

1. The ship sinks.

2. Everyone makes it back to Earth.

3. The Spartans lose.

Did people ultimately like those stories anyway, even though we all knew how they were going to end?

[rusty_shackleford]

Friendly reminder that Origin was one of the first companies to do the nickel and dime ********. Forge of Virtue lasted all of about two hours, gave the player extreme stat boosts, and the ultimate weapon capable of killing powerful enemies in a single blow.

Also no idea why bethesda gets the blame when sims was doing that same kind of DLC way before them

[Tweed]

Friendly reminder that Origin was one of the first companies to do the nickel and dime ********. Forge of Virtue lasted all of about two hours, gave the player extreme stat boosts, and the ultimate weapon capable of killing powerful enemies in a single blow.

Also no idea why bethesda gets the blame when sims was doing that same kind of DLC way before them

I think that **** started with Sims 2. I recall the first one only having expansion packs and several freebies. You could even a pepsi machine!

EDIT: The Sims 2 still beat Oblivion to the market by two years. I think people were just a lot more ****** off about charging for single, nearly worthless item.