Game News Pillars of Eternity II expansion DLCs revealed

[Elex]

it feel soo wrong that i don't know where to start.

they are telling me to not buy the game and wait for a complete edition?
they suggest me game is not complete and they need one year for put in all?
they are telling me it's an episodic game?
they are selling me the game today but they will complete it in a year?
they pretend the game is 25$ while instead is a 50$ game?

this is offensive, i mean it's like their marketing team suggest me to not buy the game.

 

[Iskramor]

3 dlc =/= spam

Possibly not an argument.

 

[fobia]

it feel soo wrong that i don't know where to start.

they are telling me to not buy the game and wait for a complete edition?
they suggest me game is not complete and they need one year for put in all?
they are telling me it's an episodic game?
they are selling me the game today but they will complete it in a year?
they pretend the game is 25$ while instead is a 50$ game?

this is offensive, i mean it's like their marketing team suggest me to not buy the game.

If PB would have told you they were working on an addon for Gothic II before the original release, would you have not bought it, because of the same concerns?
Or are you just making up "reasons" not to buy the game, that have no foundation in the DLCs and the info we have about them whatsoever?

Yeah, I think it's the latter option as well.
Your posting is offensive, I mean it's like you made shit up to harvest some ratings from the usual suspects that hate on this game.

PS: ELEX!

 

[HoboForEternity]

You people are really overracting this time.

ELEX's argument is kinda legit since it is true for some people, especially if it is a mid game expansion.

Saying 3 DLC is a spam is downright idiotic. If you wanna see a spam of DLC go to any other paradox games steampage, or go to your local favorite AAA games by local favorite publisher

 

[Fenix]

I came here for lulz!

 

[Tigranes]

I hate DLCs as much as anyone with a brain should, but I never understood the "complete game" irritation.

If you really like the game, chances are you'll replay it later and the DLCs will spice it up if you so choose to use them.

If you only play once and you fear you're "missing out", that's a phantom feeling - it's rare that the DLCs will make you love a game that you otherwise hate. And, at least in theory, the game is feature complete, and DLCs usually add new content as well as some B- or C-priority features (i.e. non-essential to the design vision). So if you enjoyed your single playthrough, and it turns out later that you missed some DLC releases, why does it really matter? It's like people who demanded that POE2 let you have infinite "non-combat-active" party members so that they can guarantee not missing any of the content. I mean, in any good RPG you'll be missing out on alternative outcomes or alternative character developments by playing once, too.

My objections to DLCs are based on the fact that they fragment new content and make it hard to present a proper overhaul of the game, and that they are usually used to push shitty retarded horse armour. I couldn't care less that they can't release the "super definitive version" on Day 1. To do that, you can't have expansions, either, you'd just need to drop support for the game after 1 patch.

 

[Elex]

it feel soo wrong that i don't know where to start.

they are telling me to not buy the game and wait for a complete edition?
they suggest me game is not complete and they need one year for put in all?
they are telling me it's an episodic game?
they are selling me the game today but they will complete it in a year?
they pretend the game is 25$ while instead is a 50$ game?

this is offensive, i mean it's like their marketing team suggest me to not buy the game.

If PB would have told you they were working on an addon for Gothic II before the original release, would you have not bought it, because of the same concerns?
Or are you just making up "reasons" not to buy the game, that have no foundation in the DLCs and the info we have about them whatsoever?

Yeah, I think it's the latter option as well.
Your posting is offensive, I mean it's like you made shit up to harvest some ratings from the usual suspects that hate on this game.

PS: ELEX!

it’s a different era, today i am 100% sure that i will find the complete edition with 40%-50% discount when the last DLC is released. (in addition to the inevitable rebalance and fix patch).

with gothic II instead was a miracle to find a shop selling it.


of course all game do that but when they put in even the dlc release date really feel like an episodic game.

 

[Ocelot570]

Personally, I do not really care about DLC's. I will buy them if I like the game or not if I don't like it. It's not that hard of a decision to make.

 

[Anomander Rake]

Why are you people getting mad? They are actually encouraging the consumers to get a bug free experience one or two year after release with full dlc and expansion. And you despise them? You should thank them

 

[UnknownBro]

I really want these guy to suceed and deliver a proper good balanced RPG.

 

[Roguey]

Whoops, I misread this. There was actually a long 5 month interval between Dead Money and Honest Hearts. 2-5-2-2.

Funny thing here is that Honest Hearts had the least time/budget spent on it. Sure it all made sense behind the scenes.

 

[Sentinel]

"Seeker, Slayer, Survivor"? That has got to be the worst expac name I've ever seen.

 

[Sentinel]

since FNV DLCs were very good.

they had Chris Avellone directing & writing most of them.

 

[ArchAngel]

I really want these guy to suceed and deliver a proper good balanced RPG.

I am sure it will be pretty game. Don't expect fun.

 

[razvedchiki]

Possibly not an argument.

ok then,my phrase should end with "to make their own dlc" .
but since they are so old skool and incline and all that,they could make a nice expansion full of new stuff and reasonably priced like the old days.

 

[Iskramor]

since FNV DLCs were very good.

they had Chris Avellone directing & writing most of them.

Dead money was shit

 

[Bohrain]

I can understand the DLC's from business point of view since you want to have some content to sell while most of the people still have the game installed.
Whether I actually want to buy them heavily depends on how good the actual game is, which I'm not too optimistic about especially considering their current writers.

 

[eXalted]

Thanks, will wait and buy the full ultra deluxe edition in 2020 on -50% discount.

 

[Infinitron]

I hate DLCs as much as anyone with a brain should, but I never understood the "complete game" irritation.

As the gaming industry has evolved from a seller's market (where the typical gamer used to play only three or four games a year) to a buyer's market (le eternal Steam backlog), people are increasingly interested in reasons not to buy games. It's like a sort of anti-market. Somebody could probably write a fun satirical novel about this phenomenon.

 

[Fenix]

people are increasingly interested in reasons not to buy games.

Interesting thought, never thought about it from this viewpoint.

 

[ArchAngel]

people are increasingly interested in reasons not to buy games.

Interesting thought, never thought about it from this viewpoint.

I can admit I started to look at games this way because I at all times have a backlog and I am reluctant to add more games into this backlog. So games that I once would at least try, now I put off or ignore.

 

[Fenix]

You just doing it wrong.
Never buy game at sale "for future", buy game when you want to play it right now.

 

[CRD]

I hate DLCs as much as anyone with a brain should, but I never understood the "complete game" irritation.

People want to play a complete experience without need to go back and replay what they already saw in mid game expansions just for minor extra content.

We want to experience the whole game at the same time, not in pieces, it's easy.

If the expansions where at least new adventures post end game without much relation to the ending like cutting content and then ask for more money to get the whole story and proper ending, I'm still sure some people would wait for it, but a minor percentage.

 

[Tigranes]

OK, but don't good expansions also add new classes, mechanics, UI changes, etc. that improve the base game? Underrail seems to be getting a huge overhaul with new content all over the place, and I welcome it - I think it woudl be stupid to criticise Styg for doing it on the basis that now I need to 'wait' for a complete experience. Styg gave us the best game he could give us by the original release, and now he's giving us the best expansion & overhaul he can by the next release. It's then up to me to choose when to play what.

So specifically, I'm not a fan of the drip-trickle scheduling where we get a new DLC every 2 months, either. I think it's shitty and I didn't like WM being broken up into 2, either, even though I understand the business reasons. But I'm just going to play, and if I enjoyed my launch playthrough, and then I forget about the DLCs and never get to experience the 'complete' content, honestly, it really doesn't matter in the end. If I liked the game so much that I'd really care about missing out on that, I'd be going back to replay the game anyway. And if the game was shit, then who cares how many DLC there are when.

I guess I understand some of the criticism, but for example, when some people yelled at POE for continuing to patch and balance the game after release, I'm thinking - what, do you prefer that people stop fixing and improving the game post release? We used to demand that devs properly support their games.

 

[CRD]

and now he's giving us the best expansion & overhaul he can

The best expansion is never a mid-game expansion that forces your loyal customers to replay something the already experienced, play it with an overpowered character or with an end game character against enemies and content not designed since the beginning to be played with that in mind.

So sorry, no, underrail expansion is another clear case of "don't play until is complete".