DLC Thoughts - A marketing and PR missed opportunity

[Revelation_jeff]

Hi all,

Fellow game dev here and once in a while I like to try to throw in my critical feedback to developers about what I think went wrong.  I went from hyped about the expansion to absolutely uninterested (in terms of an immediate purchase).  Let me explain why:

The initial marketing was solid and the website was great listing out content about the DLC.  However, it began to take a turn for the worse on the release of the trailer when no new gameplay features were really shown other than peaks at the new regions.  Which we were then promised another video was coming where I was expecting gameplay content updates and to show us WHY we should be purchasing this product.  You guys failed to do that in my opinion.  The majority of the marketing time was spent on trying to justify the products existence and DLC design rather than show us WHAT it was and why it was cool.

I had to scroll down to youtube comments to find out for sure how limited the scope of gameplay systems were upon release.  This is only going to fuel people's confusion on what content they are actually paying for now.  Several posts of people in the various forums looking for the content like base customization, sled and other features that aren't even live yet.  I feel Hinterland could of been much more transparent about this since the store page lists only the full content and not this first initial stream people are paying for.  The marketing was confusing at best.  Based on the loose math you're asking people to buy in at a 60% ish price point with about 20-25% or so of the core game's content available now which seems a little off to me.

But here's my real issue with the DLC so far as a game dev who's had a hand in marketing as well for years.  It really does not give an incentive or respect to people who buy into the content and support you.  Let me explain:  Early access incomplete DLC like this is all about "Perks or first viewing of content".  Yet the most compelling content is being given out in free updates or coming several months later (FPS Harvest animations, Visual enhancements etc)  In my opinion Hinterland should give early access to these new big features as PART of the paid DLC stream to incentivize us to purchase it.  Of course it can still be released later as a free update and still true to the announcements, but why in the world would you not put these compelling features into the DLC's paid content stream and give people something back for supporting you instead of making it just for everyone else?  Why not give the buyers an early look at those new features by 3-6 months or so?  That way everyone would still get those free updates later but your most hardcore supporters would actually get something for buying in that was more compelling in terms of the current lack of content within it.

I just feel like this DLC's release pipeline was not ready to be launched and went too early to hit a time of year deadline instead of rewarding people with enough content being worth the purchase.  So basically only your diehards will purchase and the casuals who do purchase are all going to be still confused on what content they're getting with their purchase and what comes later.  I personally expected more core gameplay infrastructure to be already in the game such as "base customization, Travois, cougar, acorns, birds, trader etc.  And instead the additional maps and narrative content released over time.  In my opinion those who play now will actually get a worse incomplete experience compared to those more casual supporters who come several months later and I always think that's sad to do your most hardcore fans that way.

What could be done to improve here:

1.  Give DLC supporters first access to big new features like the FPS animations, Visual improvements and other features as part of early access so they get something exciting to test out before others as the package increases.  Then release that tested content later 3-6 months to the free base later.

2.  Better more clear communication on what content is in game NOW instead of the future content stream and what is coming with each upcoming update.  We need more understandable goal posts with the road map.  Tell use the features coming and when we can expect them roughly.

Going a route like this would make the DLC package more valuable at its current stage and going forwards would make people feel rewarded for helping to keep the funding going for it's development.  Personally I would of launched the DLC with exclusive time based access to new features like the new animations, visual enhancements and core gameplay loop established to incentivize people to buy now instead of waiting because if they wait, they don't get to enjoy those cool new selling points right away.  It could of really helped with sales in my opinion and still been entirely honest and fair since those features don't steal from anyone's previous experience but only enhance it for the DLC's content.

Anyways still love you guys and I mean all this feedback as constructive. 😃  My two cents.  Looking forward to the update and of course still be supporting it.

 

[Ghurcb]

While I agree with you on the point that Hinterland should specify on TFTFT store pages which features have been released already and which will be released in the next update, there's another point, that in my opinion, is straight up WRONG.

1 hour ago, Revelation_jeff said:

Yet the most compelling content is being given out in free updates or coming several months later (FPS Harvest animations, Visual enhancements etc)  In my opinion Hinterland should give early access to these new big features as PART of the paid DLC stream to incentivize us to purchase it.

1 hour ago, Revelation_jeff said:

1.  Give DLC supporters first access to big new features like the FPS animations, Visual improvements and other features as part of early access so they get something exciting to test out before others as the package increases.  Then release that tested content later 3-6 months to the free base later.

DLCs should provide new content. New regions, new items, new animals, etc. Harvest animations and better graphics are not exactly "content", they don't have any gameplay value. They are a QoL improvements, and it would seem ridiculous to put them in a paid DLC. People would feel like they are being robbed of a good game. I myself feel a bit conflicted about the fact that an improved cooking system will only exist in TFTFT.

Imagine if Hinterland added a "use" button in the afflictions menu, but only as a part of a DLC. People would be reasonably angry and justified in asking "Why TF is it not in the base game?!" and "Do you really expect us to PAY for it?!"

And the fact that everyone will receive those features 3-6 months later doesn't make it better. People who buy the expansion pass are not beta-testers, and if it works fine already, why not release it to everyone? Sure, it would incentivize people to buy the DLC, but so would DLC-exclusive bug-fixes. It's just not how a studio should treat their players. If they made something new, that has no gameplay value, but it has a general effect on the game that gives a better playing experience, it shouldn't be kept behind a pay wall.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Ghurcb

[UpUpAway95]

As a console user, I haven't actually gotten access to any of the DLC content or any of the free update content; but from watching streamers yesterday, I have to say I am less excited than I was before the DLC released... and that's not a good thing.  I agree with the OP, heavily teasing content like the travois, base customization, etc. and then not releasing any of it in the first part of this expansion was not a particularly good idea from a marketing perspective. 

In addition - The plan stated in the teaser  is to release new content every 6 to 8 weaks; but the DLC on consoles is only expected to release for the first time in 6 to 8 weeks.  Does this mean, the consoles will be at least one update behind the PC throughout this entire upcoming year?... or will the console release include the stuff anticipated to released on the PC in the next part of this expansion?

[Glacia]

Im not at home right now so i can't give a complete opinion about the post, but i think every player can say this:

4 hours ago, Revelation_jeff said:

.  Better more clear communication on what content is in game NOW instead of the future content stream and what is coming with each upcoming update.  We need more understandable goal posts with the road map.  Tell use the features coming and when we can expect them roughl

Everyone seems confused right now, some people even thinks cougars are avaliable right now. Without a proper patch notes, most players are not sure about what have been added and what is coming in the next year.

My suggestions:

-Add a new section on the game menu, maybe something like "campaign". This section show the current avaliable features and the upcoming, in a time line.

- After every update, let the players get an emergent window on their menu at least one time, explaining the new added feature. For a example, "Patch 2.3.1, travois are now avaliable!".

- And also update the DLC page and post accurate patch notes on the forums/steam and other media.

This should help to avoid confusion and let the players (well, at least most of them) know exactly what have been added to the game.

 

[Demetrious]

9 hours ago, UpUpAway95 said:

I agree with the OP, heavily teasing content like the travois, base customization, etc. and then not releasing any of it in the first part of this expansion was not a particularly good idea from a marketing perspective.

I know what you mean - sometimes, from an objective standpoint, it feels like gameplay development has been slow. In fairness we've gotten several new regions in the last few years and there is much to be said for not over-complicating an already solved problem (vis a vis gameplay) but a lot of the forbearance of the customer came from the fact that most of us only paid 20-30 USD and were still getting free updates. Now that Hinterland is selling a new product, value-for-money calculations will begin anew.

However, the devs have told us flat-out that much of the productivity drag was due to Story Mode - not because Story Mode was hogging too many dev-hours, but rather because making both Survival and Story Mode work off the same map assets and codebase created a lot of code conflicts that in turn required a lot of busywork to sort out. In turn, bifurcating those codebases itself must have taken quite a bit of work; effort that otherwise would have been put into the first content drop for the DLC. If that wasn't enough, Story Mode is now it's own separate game, meaning Story Mode will have its own separate revenue stream and that is going to enable more paid dev hours and thus end any lingering "competition" between each branch for dev resources.

Basically, it seems to me that Hinterland has paid the price to get over that hurdle, and now they've got free room to sprint. Hence the 8-10 week cycle for new content drops.

This is also why the payment scheme is important - the DLC is effectively being sold as an old-school "expansion pack." Even at the same price they came at in the Good Old Days (~30 bucks USD or so.) You pays your money, you gets your content in a lump sum add-on. The "Season Pass" option isn't; it's just a pre-order that comes with beta access; very much like Early Access. You give Hinterland money up-front, so they can spend it on dev costs now, and in exchange you get a discount on the product and immediate access to every new beta as features are added. Except unlike Early Access, you're not taking a risk because the game is already very well established and the product is just more content for that solid existing game.

So much of this industry - and/or the consumer perception of the industry - seems to orient around "hype" these days. And if there isn't enough hype or the results do not match the hype, people get worried that it'll negatively impact the fortunes of the product and studio they like. I get that! But we should keep in mind that Hinterland and The Long Dark are solid, established entities now and thus Hinterland doesn't need hype to get off the ground, like a plucky indie studio with their first EA release does. They're already in orbit. So it's perfectly OK if people want to wait for the actual product launch and buy the new goodies all in one basket - people who buy in early will keep the lights on at Hinterland for people who don't. 🙂

... I should check Hinterland's career pages and see if they need a PR writer. I've got the degree. 🤔

Edited December 6, 2022 by Demetrious

[UpUpAway95]

49 minutes ago, Demetrious said:

But we should keep in mind that Hinterland and The Long Dark are solid, established entities now and thus Hinterland doesn't need hype to get off the ground

Then, they didn't need to tease DLC content that wasn't going to be in the expansion for as much as nearly a year from now.  Those elements of the expansion should have been teased just before those elements were being released.  That way, people who bought the DLC would have been basing their expectations more in line with what was delivered instead of being disappointed to find out that elements they were looking forward won't be seen for at least a month and half or even as much as a year.

They obviously felt they needed to "overhype" this DLC.  In addition, I bought this game a few years ago now thinking Wintermute would be done long before now.  Still waiting, so perhaps this time, they can wait to get my money for the DLC once it is 100% complete (of course, they'll charge me more for it)  The amount I originally paid for the game is irrelevant here.

Edited December 6, 2022 by UpUpAway95

[ChillPlayer]

I tend to agree with the OPs sentiment, I play this game since 2014 and I would've bought the DLC anyway without any teases or hypes, the announcement of a season pass alone would've been enough. But then they speak about cougars and recipes, housing and sled, new arrows and crampons, of course people expect at least some of it when the DLC releases. I thought the season pass will be mainly used to add more regions but I didn't expect that barely any of the new gameplay elements will be there on launch day.

So yes we have things to look forward too but why hype your playerbase only to let them down and hype them for the next update? I think this could've been handled better.

 

[Serenity]

The teasing and announcing a roadmap is fine. If you want people to give you money up front you should tell people what they can expect the future. It's also completely fine that the exact content and the time table isn't known. I've experienced instances where features were in development for some time and a lot people hoped for it, and then it was cancelled because it didn't work out for technical reasons. So devs can't make promises.

There just should have been better communication of what's available at release. Could be just a list and some checkboxes.

[Demetrious]

1 hour ago, UpUpAway95 said:

Then, they didn't need to tease DLC content that wasn't going to be in the expansion for as much as nearly a year from now.  Those elements of the expansion should have been teased just before those elements were being released.  That way, people who bought the DLC would have been basing their expectations more in line with what was delivered instead of being disappointed to find out that elements they were looking forward won't be seen for at least a month and half or even as much as a year.

This is what "roadmaps" are for (scroll down on this page to find the roadmap for the DLC) and they're mandatory if you're asking for money up-front - you have to tell the customer what they're paying for! Roadmaps will typically be sequential, as well; they tell you what content will be dropped next. Lack of this organization on the extant roadmap is due to Hinterland themselves probably not knowing yet - note the mention on the linked page that the roadmap might change, but they'll endeavor to substitute comparable amounts of content in that situation. That's because you can never predict the future with 100% certainty; some features may prove difficult to balance, or the early-access beta players hate a particular mechanic and it has to be reworked, a few devs catch the flu at the same time, negative space wedgies, etc. Generally, however, this just impacts particulars; the "roadmap" itself is drawn straight from the actual design documents; the plans the developers use to actually guide their working process.

"Tell the customer what they're paying for" is also why the DLC release trailer did just that - once Hinterland actually had a product on the Steam Store with a price tag attached, they had to tell people in direct and concrete terms what they'd be getting. And they did it then because it's quite likely they didn't know themselves what would be ready until shortly before the product launch - there's always another feature or two that's 90% done but got held up because of stubborn bugs, or uncertainty from a gameplay design perspective that can only be resolved with actual beta-tester (i.e. customer) feedback, etc. And as a project nears a release, someone in charge has to make some decisions, re-assigning people from some features to focus on others to ensure X number of features are ready for release.

Doing this every 8-10 weeks is a pain in the rear end, compared to just taking six months to get everything done nice and proper, every dev sticking with their assigned project till it's done. But that's the price if they want to ask for your money up-front and thus avoid paying interest on a business loan. The other effect is the studio gets prompt and voluminous beta tester feedback. You can't pay for that kind of feedback. You can pay for professional testers, who are very good at breaking games and finding bugs, but not for direct feedback from your customer base as to what they do and don't like.

That works both ways, by the way - by paying up-front you get the chance to comment on the product and influence its final form. You've already got a forum account, so you're all set in that regard. 🙂

1 hour ago, UpUpAway95 said:

They obviously felt they needed to "overhype" this DLC.  In addition, I bought this game a few years ago now thinking Wintermute would be done long before now.  Still waiting.

Splitting story mode off into its own game is going to help a lot with accelerating updates for that. Story content is time-consuming because you have 3D animations to do, and voice actors to pay, and the voice actors can't record lines until the writers have finalized the script. A lot of game dev is tied up not in making the product, but finalizing the entire product - every piece interacts with every other piece - so if you change one thing you have to change others (script changes == re-recorded voice lines,) or part of the project has to wait on others (script must be done before voice acting,) and even if a studio is really good about nailing down the first part of a process before doing the second and avoiding unforeseen conflicts that force plans to change, there's always going to be some revision required.

tl;dr story games like Wintermute are surprisingly resource-intensive! Fortunately the bifurcation of the codebase should reduce much of that as there won't be mandatory changes to Survival Mode maps because Story Mode needs a customization for story purposes (e.g., addition of the passenger plane to Pleasant Valley,) but they can still import individual features' code between branches (e.g. Story Mode timberwolves added to Survival Mode too.)

You'd have to ask a Hinterland dev to get a detailed rundown of how game development works in its particulars, though.

45 minutes ago, ChillPlayer said:

 I think this could've been handled better.

38 minutes ago, Serenity said:

There just should have been better communication of what's available at release. Could be just a list and some checkboxes.

Unsurprising, because communication is actually pretty hard! Anyone who has ever griped about meetings only existing because people cannot read e-mails understands that point. It's precisely why there are entire four-year college degrees concerned just with how to communicate better.

... maybe I'll send that application into Hinterland after all.

14 hours ago, Revelation_jeff said:

I just feel like this DLC's release pipeline was not ready to be launched and went too early to hit a time of year deadline instead of rewarding people with enough content being worth the purchase.  So basically only your diehards will purchase and the casuals who do purchase are all going to be still confused on what content they're getting with their purchase and what comes later.  I personally expected more core gameplay infrastructure to be already in the game such as "base customization, Travois, cougar, acorns, birds, trader etc.  And instead the additional maps and narrative content released over time.  In my opinion those who play now will actually get a worse incomplete experience compared to those more casual supporters who come several months later and I always think that's sad to do your most hardcore fans that way.

This definitely checks out - typically I'd expect code-heavy and asset-light features (gameplay mechanics) to come first, and asset-heavy ones (art and entire region maps) to roll out later. Having to split the codebase probably took up a lot of time and pinched them between lack of dev-hours and a December holiday release.

However, the eventual price increases are going to be attached to overall value of the product; they're not tied to a timetable. Customers' aren't getting hurt, in other words - but some of the PR "splash" has been squandered. But they can fix this - since the early-buy was always communicated as episodic in nature, they can hype the next content drop instead. "The DLC" with its entire (unordered) roadmap is pretty nebulous. Compare that to, for instance, !!THE COUGAR UPDATE!! With actual content, you just have to hype... well, the content. The PR writes itself.

14 hours ago, Revelation_jeff said:

2.  Better more clear communication on what content is in game NOW instead of the future content stream and what is coming with each upcoming update.  We need more understandable goal posts with the road map.  Tell use the features coming and when we can expect them roughly.

Fortunately this isn't hard to do.

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Demetrious
added comments

[DaGnome91]

24 minutes ago, Demetrious said:

... maybe I'll send that application into Hinterland after all.

Definitely, you should: with a clear and proper understanding of project management and how its necessary communication should be, you add to that the capacity to explain why it's done precisely that way. Being in the same kind of business with some experience, I can tell you'll do a great job at that perticular position

[Revelation_jeff]

12 hours ago, Ghurcb said:

DLCs should provide new content. New regions, new items, new animals, etc. Harvest animations and better graphics are not exactly "content", they don't have any gameplay value. They are a QoL improvements, and it would seem ridiculous to put them in a paid DLC. People would feel like they are being robbed of a good game. I myself feel a bit conflicted about the fact that an improved cooking system will only exist in TFTFT.

Umm, I'm not sure if you've seen the trend the last 20+ or so years with game re-masters and HD updates like the recently released "The last of us", but those cost money to produce and companies always charge for those sort of updates.  That is not a quality of life feature but a re-master updating the relevancy of said product and making it re-viable to a new generation of gamers.  It's our pre-orders that are going to help and or pay for those features to be added.  I assure you out of this money pool the HD updates will be green lit as well as new animations etc.  It is entirely just to keep this in the paid tier.  It re-vitalizes the content and creates more sales.

However, this is where things get more confusing.  A "Season pass" under the category of DLC can create confusing expectations.  People understand DLC as an additional completed extension.  This DLC actually is "Early Access" again but in a way they could make it work with their existing product since steam does not allow "Early access" additions to a finished product, I don't think.  Hints why they spent SOO much marketing time trying to communicate that but failed by their mysterious non-transparent info on what was actually available in the game on launch release.

For this product to have been well received as a early access DLC, they should of released at least 50-60% or more of the core mechanics for the update along with one region to test the new experiences and polish and add additional content over time.  My issue is they were sneaky about talking about the "Launch experience" because they were afraid to down play it too much to loose the hype and thus pre-orders. 

But even in their last marketing video, they didn't explicitly say what was "NOT" in the current update.  They only spoke about some features, leaving open speculation and assumption that more would be in the core experience.  A season pass always launches with a core code base and set of mechanics.  This was way too light and lacking to be what I'd consider the base level of development to launch a DLC Early access product.  You're looking at about 20% of the content currently for a 60% price tag.  This should of been sold at $10 to compensate appropriately.

[Gwynren]

While I disagree that there's not enough content in the DLC yet, because I found the season pass very well communicated and understood exactly what I paid for yesterday, the one thing that baffles me - and has certainly contributed to confusion on the forums and the review bombing - is a lack of complete, detailed, written patch notes!

Why is there no complete list anywhere with what specifically we got at launch? Only laying everything out in a video with Raph and Katie was a strange choice. I watched the video so I knew what I'd get, but I'm likely a minority. In general, videos are not nearly as accessible or searchable as patch notes/lists; the video can be a bonus but shouldn't be the main vehicle of the all-crucial "here's what you get at launch" info.

Unless I'm totally wrong and there are patch notes somewhere, but I certainly haven't come across them yet...

[Glacia]

Here my two cents about this topic:

Since the DLC announcement with a 'Battle pass' dynamic (This term was changed later) , several people started to get confused about how exactly everything it's gonna work, even if HL give accurate info and announcements.

I think there is not exactly a 'Problem with the communication' (Except for the lack of patch notes) , it's more about a non-traditional DLC dynamic that confuses players and not everyone likes how a 12 month campaign works.

And that is the problem, there is nothing wrong with the released content at the DLC launch (It's very good actually), but most players were disappointed when they see only the 5% of the features by which they get hyped. 

 

The DLC 12 months campaign it's an experiment, just as HL stated long time ago. They want to keep the game updated often instead of droping a massive bomb of content and let the game stay for a very long time without changes or new features.

And it's fine, but of course not everyone feels the DLC dynamic as a good experience. Anyways, i think this is a very good start and the bugs are getting fixed at record times, soon we will have a very solid base for the upcoming year full of content 😎

 

 

[Revelation_jeff]

2 minutes ago, Glacia said:

I think there is not exactly a 'Problem with the communication' (Except for the lack of patch notes) , it's more about a non-traditional DLC dynamic that confuses players and not everyone likes how a 12 month campaign works.

And that is the problem, there is nothing wrong with the released content at the DLC launch (It's very good actually), but most players were disappointed when they see only the 5% of the features by which they get hyped.

 

 

I disagree.  The fact we had to watch one single update video to find out that's all the included content is NOT good communication.  The steam page should be updated to show clearly what is live in the current version.  Also I find a contradiction in the price per content assessment.  I was being generous with saying its about 20% of the content in the base release with its price point at 60% rate.  That just does not add up.  But the lack of path notes makes everything worse and unclear.  All the marketing prior to the day of launch didn't mention the launch content or how little it would be reduced down for the first release.

If the price matched the content released and scaled properly or the design of the pipeline was better it wouldn't be as much of an issue.  It was rushed, allowed to be almost featureless in terms of legitimate mechanical infrastructure to meet a holiday release and I just don't like giving die hard fans an inferior product at release.  They should have upped the base amount of content making it worthy to release or adjusted the asking price to buy in at this phase.  Early access has restrictions generally on content which recommends closer to around 50% complete to build off.  Here almost everything available in the paid content stream is purely cosmetic and involves minimal code:

- New Transition & Hub Region
- One new region Forsaken airfield
- Item Variants or cosmetic re-skins with modified stats
- Electrostatic fog & Insomia affliction (New particle system & Post process FX and condition state)

My beef as a developer is that this content generally violates the general rules of early access like content being able to deliver an experience of the core gameplay of a product and the value matching the cost.  The only real substantial aspect of this phase was the world building of the new region & hub.  So it bothers me to know how little effort they put into the pre-development of a initial release candidate representing DLC and that they felt okay with that as the core representation.  It will be a dramatically different gameplay experience 12 months from now compared to what people are experiencing now on the new regions and I hate that. =(

 

 

[Gwynren]

I think it's inevitable people will have different feelings over whether there's "enough stuff" at the launch of the season pass or not - that's entirely subjective and relates to play style as well. I played for a few hours last night on a new custom save and am nowhere near ready to even set out for the new region! Astrid is wearing cloth scraps on her hands still! But I don't play games to rush through them... so the next expansion drop will probably feel like it's right on time, and I will have that fresh feeling of yet more new, shiny things to have and do on Great Bear. I bought the expansion at launch because I'm excited for the roadmap and want to support a game that has given me lots of joy over the years. That's more than enough for me.

However, I also think the argument about "not enough value upfront" doesn't hold because it was made abundantly clear to people that by buying it at launch, they are buying into the roadmap and getting an unfinished product. We were told it will take 12 months to get everything that's being promised. And Hinterland made it clear nobody is forcing people to buy the expansion until they know exactly what's in it - so really, the only criticism that holds water is the baffling lack of a written list of features at launch. (If Hinterland is reading this, guys, patch notes?? Hello? Would save you all one of the big headaches that came with the launch, as in, people not knowing what's in it and expecting too much.)

[Ghurcb]

4 hours ago, Revelation_jeff said:

Umm, I'm not sure if you've seen the trend the last 20+ or so years with game re-masters and HD updates like the recently released "The last of us", but those cost money to produce and companies always charge for those sort of updates.  That is not a quality of life feature but a re-master updating the relevancy of said product and making it re-viable to a new generation of gamers. 

Point me at an hd-update that is released as a DLC, and I'll point you at a bad idea. The last of us part I is sold as a seperate game for ps5, much like the last of us remastered is being sold as a seperate game for ps4. You want to play this game you bought for a different console? You buy it again. Some people would say it's unfair. I'm not those people. 

And some were still mad because of how much more expensive part I was compared to remastered, even though the whole game was remade on a new engine. Not exactly the same as adding a few new animations and hd-textures. A better comparison would be the next-gen update for The Witcher 3. Next-gen UPDATE, not next-gen DLC. 

Payed graphics settings is not where I want the video game industry to end up. And I'm sure, Raphael, Katie, and the VAST majority of Hinterland devs would agree with me on that. 

Another point against putting a pay wall in front of better graphics is that The Long Dark is still in development. I heavily disagree with people who say "Ew, why are they releasing a DLC for an UNFINISHED game?!", but the game is, indeed, not finished. Hopefully, it never will be. For me, The Long Dark is much like Minecraft. Both games are in the state of indefinite developement, each version being complete, each update being an improvement. 

But this indefinite developement poses an issue, where the devs have to decide which features they can put into a DLC, and which features have to be in the base game. If they make the wrong decision, people will feel like features that should have been added a long time ago are being withheld.

For me the best way of separating DLC-content and update-content is pretty clear. DLC adds things, base game adds systems. 

Cougar - DLC

Player/item/animal spawn refresh - free

Travois - DLC

Improved fishing/beach-combing/firestarting - free

Of course, things could also be added for free, like ptarmigans, burdock or acorns. But I would gladly exchange them for cooking and shelter customisation, as those seem like more fundamental features.

If Hinterland put first-person animations into the expansion pass, that would mean they chose not to put them into the base game. Not a good look.

4 hours ago, Revelation_jeff said:

For this product to have been well received as a early access DLC, they should of released at least 50-60% or more of the core mechanics for the update along with one region to test the new experiences and polish and add additional content over time.  My issue is they were sneaky about talking about the "Launch experience" because they were afraid to down play it too much to loose the hype and thus pre-orders. 

50% of all features in the first batch? That would make the following updates extremely lacking in content. The whole point of a season pass is that new features are being released in somewhat equal parts over a period of time. What you're proposing is an unfinished DLC. 

But I do agree that Hinterland should have made it perfectly clear which features are released first and which are not. And do it not in a youtube video, but on the expansion's store pages.

4 hours ago, Revelation_jeff said:

You're looking at about 20% of the content currently for a 60% price tag.  This should of been sold at $10 to compensate appropriately.

But you're not paying 60% of the price for 20% of features. You're paying 60% of the price for 100% of features that will be released over the 12-month campaign. $10 would be an appropriate price for the first two expansion updates, not THE WHOLE EXPANSION. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Ghurcb

[chrislacruz]

As a console user, I haven't tried the update here, but I think communication is an issue, but we as customers also have to honest about reading what we want into announcements due to our own demands and interests. 

I would have loved the Cougar to suddenly appear in the first update, but I do understand that they have a 12 month process and things will appear as part of these incremental add ons, and I do understand I am buying a season pass, and by definition you don't get 12 months on day 1.  That said, with all the hype about the features, it could and should have been clearer to people, who are not as obsessive as many of us are on here, people were not getting Forsaken Airfield AND every gameplay update.

Ultimately, for me, I want to see The Long Dark prosper and grow, my original purchase has been worth it in the hundreds of hours of play over the years (albeit without Wintermute ep 5 dammit!, that is poor) and I can see from Hinterland's point of view the season pass seems a great way to get an injection of money to a very mature game and fund new content.

What I would say, in a world of early access vaporware, where millions of pounds seem to appear on the example of one video and some screen shots which finally develop into a shonky alpha release, Hinterland do see like a real company trying their best to balance our expectations with their necessity of running a viable business.

Release day had some technical issues, but they seem to be trying to fix it, and at the end of this, if we have a better platform for them to build on, and we can keep on seeing incremental changes and add ons, regions and mechanics, then I am very happy.  Much rather that than a game that is left to wither.

So in short, they can take my extra £20 a year and keep on churning out content, it's still a bargain.





 

[Luca Loquax]

I think TFTFT is awesome!

[Semple Fi]

15 hours ago, Luca Loquax said:

I think TFTFT is awesome!

Agreed 😀

I bought it the day it came available and I’m not confused…. No desire to write a novel either lol.  
Given that Hinterland is being milked to keep to their word from the original purchase of Wintermute, I think I’m getting quite a lot.  
I mean, you should see what I’ve paid $20 for… 😂

[Mistral]

Some of this discussion is also here (and comments)

 

[Sgt Socks]

I also feel the same way as LMG and others in relation to what's happening.

I have to say that I am incredibly disappointed. It seems the DLC is being viewed and used as an "Early Access DLC". The amount of bugs and issues is not what I expected.

TLD is no longer an EA game and I did not sign up for a DLC which was at this stage of polish and bug testing.

Yes we were told that content would come to us on a rolling basis which was fine, but at no point were we told that we were paying for further early access status content in a full release game.

More transparency and honesty about *exactly* what we would be getting should have been provided.

[Semple Fi]

So what’s the other option here with all the complaints….?
 

Is it preferable to pay $30 at the end of the next 12 months when all content has been released and all bugs have been addressed? Then everybody *knows* what they are paying for?

We already “know” what we are paying for, that’s been addressed in the update video and text release on this website.  
We are paying less than half price ($18 on steam) for early access to an unfinished release.  But we should’ve known that already, because it won’t be “finished” until month 12 after development is finished based on real world game play and feedback on available features and gameplay mechanics as they post.  
HELP FROM US, the players.  

Again, what is the problem with the release?? Other than expecting HNTRLND post a detailed spreadsheet of a fluid and adjustable development process?

 Either we want to pay $18 and wait for the final product, or we want to wait and then pay $30 for the final product…. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

At the end of the day, it’s a game. Play it and have fun.  It’s a process and a journey.  Much like the trek to FA.  There’s going to be some boring spots… until there isn’t 😉👍🏼

[Semple Fi]

3 minutes ago, Semple Fi said:

So what’s the other option here with all the complaints….?
 

Is it preferable to pay $30 at the end of the next 12 months when all content has been released and all bugs have been addressed? Then everybody *knows* what they are paying for?

We already “know” what we are paying for, that’s been addressed in the update video and text release on this website.  
We are paying less than half price ($18 on steam) for early access to an unfinished release.  But we should’ve known that already, because it won’t be “finished” until month 12 after development is finished based on real world game play and feedback on available features and gameplay mechanics as they post.  
HELP FROM US, the players.  

Again, what is the problem with the release?? Other than expecting HNTRLND post a detailed spreadsheet of a fluid and adjustable development process?

 Either we want to pay $18 and wait for the final product, or we want to wait and then pay $30 for the final product…. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

At the end of the day, it’s a game. Play it and have fun.  It’s a process and a journey.  Much like the trek to FA.  There’s going to be some boring spots… until there isn’t 😉👍🏼

Additionally, 😂

 I’d prefer hinterland spent more time in development and release, and not on posting YouTube video updates and such.  
Still need to finish Wintermute… our adventure is not complete… 🪓🔥

[hozz1235]

Prior to release, I recall asking several times, on several forums/Twitter, "What will be included with this rollout?"  Never got an answer.  I really thought the roadmap referred to would contain a clear explanation of this, but as others pointed out, it does not.

Are cougars in the game?

[conanjaguar]

@Revelation_jeff is almost as eloquent as Jeffpeng used to be… with the similar username… one could wonder.