Expansion or DLC?

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:58 am

I don't see the (relevant) difference. DLC is downloadable expansions. Additional content is all good by me however it gets to me.


I think everyone wants a single expansion pack to download with new areas, weapons, missions, main questlines and creatures.... instead of how fallout did it, which was make a bunch of downloadable questlines. I can see why they did it though, fallout DLC had about as much content as an expansion pack and cost the same amount as a new game. Why give us an expansion for 15 bucks when they can draw it out and take 50 bucks from us in total?
User avatar
Justin Bywater
 
Posts: 3264
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:44 pm

Post » Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:11 am

I think everyone wants a single expansion pack to download with new areas, weapons, missions, main questlines and creatures.... instead of how fallout did it, which was make a bunch of downloadable questlines. I can see why they did it though, fallout DLC had about as much content as an expansion pack and cost the same amount as a new game. Why give us an expansion for 15 bucks when they can draw it out and take 50 bucks from us in total?

Because Shivering Isles by itself was 30$ and Fallout 3 AND it's DLC was 50$.
User avatar
Mrs Pooh
 
Posts: 3340
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:30 pm

Post » Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:04 pm

I think this is the most obvious decision that Beth needs to make. Expansion packs aren't that hard to make and yeah if it takes a year so what Skyrim will probably have enough on it's plate to keep us entertained. Fallout 4 needs more time for development anyway, I don't want Beth to speed up making that game, I want Beth to take their time making FO4. We don't need average DLC for Skyrim, you don't become a GOAT by doing that.
User avatar
WYatt REed
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm

Previous

Return to V - Skyrim