» Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:05 pm
I'd go for a fourth option-a bit of both.
If I were gamesas I'd go with a particular scheme for DLC:
Minor DLC: Something that adds a new house, a new dungeon, or a new shop with a fair number of new items (avoid Fable III style micro-transactions involving singular items with little more than aesthetic value). Minor DLC would be anything like Mage's Tower or Mehrune's Razor from Oblivion.
Midrange DLC: Would be similar to most of the DLC from Fallout 3, adding a new area or areas with a handful of new quests and new content. They should avoid DLC like Broken Steel insomuch that Skyrim shouldn't have an "ending", which wouldn't really fit with the style of series anyway. It'd be sort of okay to have DLC that requires you to have completed the main quest, however, so long as the requirement is fully justified.
Epic DLC/Expansion Packs: Comparable in scope to Tribunal, Bloodmoon, and The Shivering Isles. Offering substantial new content and brand new locations to explore, side-quests to take on, etc.
I think of Oblivion has having had 1 1/2 expansions as Knights of the Nine could be considered an "Expansion Pack" in a number of ways but it didn't offer quite enough new content besides the new quest itself and a handful of new items. I think Skyrim should have at least two full and proper EPs.
Also, gamesas needs to be sure to offer patches for ALL DLC-it was a huge issue, especially with the console version, to have a number of huge bugs involving conflicts and/or glitches with the DLC.