DST DLC expansion discussion.

[sudoku]

Lets not forget Klei is in the business of making games, keyword business. They, more than anyone on these forums, understand the money side of DST. If free updates with skin and dlc character purchases is what they deem the best option for them why are people acting like this isn't a viable option for the growth of DST. I'm not sure why some people think the only way to move forward is a DST 2 or some paid dlc expansion.

[gaymime]

eh, i am not sure the exact business structure of klei but if they generate most of their revenue from other outlets like licensing and merch then they certainly can float non-paid expansions and if they cannot then there is always the option of doing a pay-in system where the dev team takes in income paid by the players outside of the came through something like patreon

 

regardless though fracturing the game through walled off biome/mob/mechanics would ultimately fracture the community and likely would hurt more than help

[GenomeSquirrel]

I highly value playing with other people, I would have abandoned this game long ago without the multiplayer, I don’t want the number of people in each server diluted.

I’ve found the most of the new content overall bad, and I’m realizing it’s time to move on to other pastures, so additional new content is not enticing.

[Nullum]

5 hours ago, sudoku said:

Lets not forget Klei is in the business of making games, keyword business. They, more than anyone on these forums, understand the money side of DST. If free updates with skin and DLC character purchases is what they deem the best option for them why are people acting like this isn't a viable option for the growth of DST. I'm not sure why some people think the only way to move forward is a DST 2 or some paid DLC expansion.

I want to give my thoughts as to why these people are agreeing for a paid DLC expansion in DST and just so to enlighten the opposite side of the argument. I wish you and those who are at the opposite side of the argument to understand because this is a discussion to take on mutual ground.

Now, Klei Entertainment is a business that produces goods ( e.g games) but they aren't solely providing goods but don't forget they also provide services (e.g community interaction, customer service, game updates.) And when service aren't up to par from what the customer wants the to be the customer satisfaction drops and they have the choice to leave silently or call for changes. In this case we can see one of the best examples of leaving and moving on would be this post.

1 hour ago, GenomeSquirrel said:

I highly value playing with other people, I would have abandoned this game long ago without the multiplayer, I don’t want the number of people in each server diluted.

I’ve found the most of the new content overall bad, and I’m realizing it’s time to move on to other pastures, so additional new content is not enticing.

And for the case to call for changes people give out their suggestions in hopes to be invigorated and are willing to pay a hefty price for a change that will give the best possible customer satisfaction. This would be the best examples I can gather here

11 hours ago, Rhovious Aran said:

I for one would be more than willing to pay for DLCs or more content if it means we actually get more. I might be wrong, but the impression I get is that this free updates situation we are currently in greatly hinders actual innovation and new additions to the game.

So many game developer companies leave an out of this world greedy impression on me, whereas Klei is the only example I can think of that seems on the opposite end of the spectrum, that I would sometimes consider to be too generous and. Like when they gave away more than 11k copies of Hamlet after the Beta Test. Like, you do phenomenal work, and I want to support you, but I can't. Because there is nothing more to buy. I'd also welcome more purchaseable item & structure skins. Generally I think the amount of value you get for the purchase prices of DS & it's DLCs and DST is one of the best you could ever find on Steam. 

 

9 hours ago, 1v0 said:

I have been speaking about this for years ... I want a paid DLC, reason -

I want big pack of content drop and the only way to get that is to pay for it ... DST team has been adding content but free content can go only so far.

Just compare the features a new DLC(hamlet and SW even ROG) can add vs the content an update can add. I want new big mechanics that interact with all of the world for example the sea is a big content addition YES but it needs to interact with the season like sea storms/ icebergs during winter and more (compare it to the sea in SW). And that sea(DST sea) was fleshed out during a LONG time of updates... and it still feels like it needs more added to it.
So yea I want a DLC, mainly because the free updates that ,are good, are not enough for me to start playing the game again. I normally wait for 2-4-6 updates to pile up before I play DST again but that can take more than a year to happen ....
And once again I want big new features, I will bring SW up again because RoG is the base now - the wind interacts with all and it's a new feature. The flood is everywhere during 1 season but it's all the time  there (waves flood over some parts of the land non-stop).
I want big features like that, stuff that we just can't get for free... I won't mind even if they rip them from SW (thou that will devalue SW so they won't do it...)


That begin said yes it will split the community, best way around is - if host owns it then he can host the new DLC stuff while the others can join without owning it this way that split won't be that big.

EDIT: Extra note... Do you remember the really old stuff that got recycled into ANR, the idea about alternative seasons (so we don't get the same season again and again) the ewecus that for me was a really good idea to force people to play as a team.
Now tell me do you want the alternative seasons ? Do you think they can do 4 new seasons that have enough content for free ? I want new biomes too (like RoG did to classic DS) but I don't think we can get them for free... That's why I want paid DLC...

If you are fine with the current system on how Klei Entertainment does to manage Don't Starve Together in terms of delivering products and services I respect your decision but please understand what we are coming from. These feelings, these posts don't come out of the blue and we certainly don't make it up.

[Notecja]

Paid dlc for multiplayer? No. Right now I know lots of people who will be not able to buy it and that paywall just would separate them from me. For some certain reason I cannot buy for everyone a DLC to just keep playing with them.

[Cassielu]

I know some players,a non-negligible amount. They only play forge mode (reforge mod), doesn't really care about base game, split with other players. 

Forge just a event mode. I belive Official DLC will only get worse.

 

[Mike23Ua]

6 minutes ago, Notecja said:

Paid dlc for multiplayer? No. Right now I know lots of people who will be not able to buy it and that paywall just would separate them from me. For some certain reason I cannot buy for everyone a DLC to just keep playing with them.

But that’s just the thing: you don’t buy the dlc for anyone! In Minecraft the way it works is only the HOST needs to own the DLC: For everyone else all they have to do is sit through a slightly longer loading screen that reads as “Downloading DLC Assets” and then Bam your friends who DON’T own the DLC is Right there playing the DLC WITH You.

Theres no separating of the fan base between pay walls because as long as Someone owns it.. EVERYONE can play.

Look at it as a Way of “Try before you Buy”except that you don’t have to buy at all as long as you can find someone who has already bought it to host for You.

This is the way Minecraft handles its DLC content and its an amazing way of not forcing my friends to have to buy “Super Mutant Horde Mode” just to play with me.

I struggle enough trying to get friends to buy the game itself.. I’ll be darned if they’re going to want to also buy a bunch of paid DLCs just to play together.

So TL:DR IF Klei does decide to do a paid expansion, make it like Minecraft: And if they can’t do that- Do it for Free for everyone like your already doing.

Otherwise you WILL Seperate fanbase between DLC pay walls.

[SaphironX]

1 hour ago, Notecja said:

Paid dlc for multiplayer? No. Right now I know lots of people who will be not able to buy it and that paywall just would separate them from me. For some certain reason I cannot buy for everyone a DLC to just keep playing with them.

I mean come on man, if they charge $10-$15 the people you know can get it. Do they ever go out for a burger? Skip doing that one time, and you have a few hundred hours of dlc.

A $10 paywall isn't stopping anybody who enjoys the game unless they choose it. I mean the original wasn't exactly full game price, and all their content additions so far have been free.

But here's the thing, if they don't make money eventually, from more people than the ones who just try to buy skins, they're going to stop when it no longer makes sense to churn out the free content.

So do you want the game to grow to the next level, or do you want it to end smaller and less complete than it could be?

1 hour ago, Mike23Ua said:

But that’s just the thing: you don’t buy the dlc for anyone! In Minecraft the way it works is only the HOST needs to own the DLC: For everyone else all they have to do is sit through a slightly longer loading screen that reads as “Downloading DLC Assets” and then Bam your friends who DON’T own the DLC is Right there playing the DLC WITH You.

Theres no separating of the fan base between pay walls because as long as Someone owns it.. EVERYONE can play.

Look at it as a Way of “Try before you Buy”except that you don’t have to buy at all as long as you can find someone who has already bought it to host for You.

This is the way Minecraft handles its DLC content and its an amazing way of not forcing my friends to have to buy “Super Mutant Horde Mode” just to play with me.

I struggle enough trying to get friends to buy the game itself.. I’ll be darned if they’re going to want to also buy a bunch of paid DLCs just to play together.

So TL:DR IF Klei does decide to do a paid expansion, make it like Minecraft: And if they can’t do that- Do it for Free for everyone like your already doing.

Otherwise you WILL Seperate fanbase between DLC pay walls.

I really don't see a problem with them making money on some of this content. This is not a greedy dev, and the dst games were WAY cheaper than anything else on ps4 to begin with.

1 hour ago, Cassielu said:

I know some players,a non-negligible amount. They only play forge mode (reforge mod), doesn't really care about base game, split with other players. 

Forge just a event mode. I belive Official DLC will only get worse.

 

But I mean really, those players weren't coming back to the main game anyway. And do you really not want the game to grow?

The people who leave and don't come back or who don't care enough to spend a few bucks won't be here in a year regardless.

[Notecja]

1 hour ago, SaphironX said:

mean come on man, if they charge $10-$15 the people you know can get it. Do they ever go out for a burger? Skip doing that one time, and you have a few hundred hours of dlc.

A $10 paywall isn't stopping anybody who enjoys the game unless they choose it. I mean the original wasn't exactly full game price, and all their content additions so far have been free.

But here's the thing, if they don't make money eventually, from more people than the ones who just try to buy skins, they're going to stop when it no longer makes sense to churn out the free content.

So do you want the game to grow to the next level, or do you want it to end smaller and less complete than it could be?

in their country 15$ is like 5 burgers (spending 15 would be for them like spending over 50 and ther earn much less than in USA) AND they are under 18, so they CANT buy game online. Some of them have game because somebody giftem them free copy. I dont think DLC would be in any free copies.

Half of people who play DST veeery probably are from free copy. So... Yes, DLC will separate all those who were gifted, who are underaged and those who must count every penny/cent/littest coin for their spences. I know quite a lot of these people...

Btw. It was Klei choice to add free copy to every game. If they wanted more money from selling game, they wouldn't add free copy.

[Cheggf]

11 hours ago, sudoku said:

Lets not forget Klei is in the business of making games, keyword business. They, more than anyone on these forums, understand the money side of DST. If free updates with skin and dlc character purchases is what they deem the best option for them why are people acting like this isn't a viable option for the growth of DST. I'm not sure why some people think the only way to move forward is a DST 2 or some paid dlc expansion.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I know I've spent a considerable amount on this game, probably at least $50 or $100, and I'm not sure I would have if they weren't so lax about the monetization.

If they really were struggling and unable to continue making the game since they have no money, why wouldn't they have already changed to something that's viable?

[Mike23Ua]

Let’s provide some examples of DLC that was locked behind a Paywall shall we?

When I originally pre-ordered the Ultimate Edition of State of Decay 2 my pre-order entitled me to the Base game, The Daybreak DLC, The Doomsday pack DLC, the Independence Day DLC, and The Preppers Pack DLC..

My Ultimate Edition did NOT come with the Heartland DLC which was sold separately for 10$ 

They found out the Hard Way that players weren’t buying the DLCs so the amount of people in the lobbies to play with in those DLCs were drastically lower than other modes.

This company later was Acquired by Microsoft- and under MS’s umbrella (and also now having access to MS’s funds) They decided to upgrade this game with new graphics and physics engine to State of Decay 2: Juggernaut Edition. AND when they did this they gave EVERYONE rather you did or did not purchase the DLC Add Ons this updated game with all of its DLC add ons for Free: In other words the extra money I paid for that DLC originally probably went directly into the funding of providing EVERYONE that DLC later free.

Now you may be asking why would they do this? Well.. They discovered that anytime they needed to patch the game that they had to release Separate Patches PER DLC Add On.

(a problem Ark Survival Evolved greatly suffers from as I type this..)

and they discovered that it was easier to just give everyone that dlc for free so the games graphics and physics engine would be 100% compatible with the DLC’s and in turn: they only needed to push one patch out per update rather than patch the base game plus each additional DLC.

Ark Survival Evolved (the other game I wanted to discuss) however has like 7 different DLC add ons and these actually ARE Locked behind paywalls and you can’t play and enjoy the game with your friends unless they also buy these DLC zones.. but- each time the game needs an update you also sit through hours of update after update PER DLC ADD ON.

Then there is Minecraft: a game that’s been letting only The HOST need to buy the DLC and everyone who joins the Hosts world can play that DLC with the host regardless of they bought the DLC add on themselves.

So as you can see from my little post here the Ark Survival Evolved way of handling DLC is absolutely Terrible.

The Other options are let that dlc all be completely free so they don’t need to update the game + each additional DLC separately... 

OR To sale those DLCs Separately but in order to avoid splitting their fanbase like SoD2 originally did: They would need to make it like Minecraft so only one player needs to Own and Host: But all their friends can join without needing to own it themselves.

[Karitha]

People just want to pay few bucks and keep get tons of contents for years.

There are few game DLCs that only adds few creatures or few weapons. You just pay for one thing and they call it downloadable content. Why would you be bothered if players get tons of content for few bucks?

3 hours ago, Notecja said:

in their country 15$ is like 5 burgers (spending 15 would be for them like spending over 50 and ther earn much less than in USA)

Steam uses fixed rate for some games and DST is one of them.

[1bubbainpa]

Hamlet really doesn’t work in the sense of don’t starve together because there would have to be so many shards to account for the ruins, houses, and shops that I think the server would explode.

[Hornete]

1 minute ago, 1bubbainpa said:

Hamlet really doesn’t work in the sense of don’t starve together because there would have to be so many shards to account for the ruins, houses, and shops that I think the server would explode.

The ruins houses and shops are not seperate shards though, they're entities that spawn far far away off of the map.(And these entities only spawn/load in when the room is being used) Which is totally doable in DST and there have been a few hamlet house mods.

 

That being said I still wouldnt really want Hamlet to be ported over, I think it should stay in DS.

[Mike23Ua]

39 minutes ago, Hornete said:

The ruins houses and shops are not seperate shards though, they're entities that spawn far far away off of the map.(And these entities only spawn/load in when the room is being used) Which is totally doable in DST and there have been a few hamlet house mods.

 

That being said I still wouldnt really want Hamlet to be ported over, I think it should stay in DS.

But it’s not like it’s going to be thrown in on top of what’s already there.. 

On Xbox we have 5 save slots (PC now has unlimited save slots) 

Why can’t each of those save slots be reserved for a specific “World Type?”

like on my don’t starve solo game I currently have 4 different saves: One for Classic DS, One for Shipwrecked, One for Hamlet, and One for Adventures Mode.

If they added all this content into one map the system your playing on would probably Explode.. but if each save slot could be dedicated to a certain “World” or Game Mode then I could enjoy SW/Ham worlds without that content clashing with existing Return of Them Content updates.

But should those DLC worlds be Free, Paid or Paid but only one player needs to own and can invite all their friends?

[Notecja]

2 hours ago, Slagger said:

Steam uses fixed rate for some games and DST is one of them.

In this case it barely helps with price, really.

Still my point is: community and players will be divided. More than in the tread about mods and mods-cheats, or if certain characters are op or too weak. Look here, how people are divided about just idea about paid DLC. 

I think we should also look how Klei works on their DLCs. Oxygen Not Included is getting their DLC. At this time other updates almost stopped, except small fixes and for about year or more there was big silence from developers. While it may be less bothering in singleplayer game, in multi that may cause losing lots of people - first from boredom/end of content, then next ones because of DLC paywall. And more, since some people play only with/for other people which will be gone...

...And thats all for a just for small group of people who will buy DLC?

[X-lem]

“As we said before, we think it’s important that everyone can play together and we don’t segregate our audience, so all of this content will be available for free to everyone!” - Bigfoot 2019 Roadmap

[SaphironX]

7 hours ago, Notecja said:

in their country 15$ is like 5 burgers (spending 15 would be for them like spending over 50 and ther earn much less than in USA) AND they are under 18, so they CANT buy game online. Some of them have game because somebody giftem them free copy. I dont think DLC would be in any free copies.

Half of people who play DST veeery probably are from free copy. So... Yes, DLC will separate all those who were gifted, who are underaged and those who must count every penny/cent/littest coin for their spences. I know quite a lot of these people...

Btw. It was Klei choice to add free copy to every game. If they wanted more money from selling game, they wouldn't add free copy.

So your argument is games shouldn't release expansions because kids under 18 can't ask their parents to use a credit card? That games shouldn't grow because you don't want to spend a dollar? Fine, five burgers, the entire dst experience plus expansions will still be 1/2 the price of a single call of duty expansion.

It's a business man, either we support them or the game will die sooner rather than later.

And if they choose to release DST 2 instead of expansions, you're paying either way. But you won't get unlimited content for free. And you won't get expansion quality content for free.

Your logic makes no sense to me at all. I want this game to grow, i want adventure mode, i want new biomes, I want new characters... the dev can't just do it all for free. That isn't reasonable.

And $10.00 isn't gifted man, I'm not from the United States, I have a job and I support the companies i want to see grow and the games I want to see grow, especially with smaller devs like Klei.

All you're doing in insuring DST will never be what it has the potential to be. We'll never have content like shipwrecked to sail to as part of our worlds, how is that better?

2 hours ago, X-lem said:

“As we said before, we think it’s important that everyone can play together and we don’t segregate our audience, so all of this content will be available for free to everyone!” - Bigfoot 2019 Roadmap

Okay, but do you want the game to grow a little more and then die out (and with no new content most of the players you want to have free access not to split the userbase will leave anyhow), or do you want larger content packs that makes the game amazing and causes it to last for years to come?

If they aren't making enough money on it, other projects will replace it. 

And there's a huge difference between charging $49.99 for an expansion like COD or something like that and charging $10.00 or $15.00.

4 hours ago, Mike23Ua said:

But it’s not like it’s going to be thrown in on top of what’s already there.. 

On Xbox we have 5 save slots (PC now has unlimited save slots) 

Why can’t each of those save slots be reserved for a specific “World Type?”

like on my don’t starve solo game I currently have 4 different saves: One for Classic DS, One for Shipwrecked, One for Hamlet, and One for Adventures Mode.

If they added all this content into one map the system your playing on would probably Explode.. but if each save slot could be dedicated to a certain “World” or Game Mode then I could enjoy SW/Ham worlds without that content clashing with existing Return of Them Content updates.

But should those DLC worlds be Free, Paid or Paid but only one player needs to own and can invite all their friends?

See I want more on the map we have. The biomes we have getting a little dated, we have one island to sail to... new consoles and more powerful PCs are here than we had before, there's no reason the world can't grow some.

I'd be open to other games but they can't always appeal to the crowd who wants free content and feels entitled to that. Klei is anything but greedy and they deserve a little support for what they give us.

[X-lem]

4 minutes ago, SaphironX said:

Okay, but do you want the game to grow a little more and then die out (and with no new content most of the players you want to have free access not to split the userbase will leave anyhow), or do you want larger content packs that makes the game amazing and causes it to last for years to come?

They have been adding new content, for quite a while. They did ROG, they did the Forge (round 1 and 2), the Gorge, and the last 2 years they've been working on ROT. They've also done character refreshes and added 4 new characters. The game's player base has been steadly growing https://steamcharts.com/app/322330#All.

4 minutes ago, SaphironX said:

If they aren't making enough money on it, other projects will replace it. 

They are making money on it. They make money off skins. My guess is that it's been fairly profitable for them as the rate in which skins have been added has increase slightly over the years. Skins are a solid way for a Klei to make money and players who are able to can support them.

 

5 minutes ago, SaphironX said:

And there's a huge difference between charging $49.99 for an expansion like COD or something like that and charging $10.00 or $15.00.

Sure there's a large difference in the price, but I still know a number of people who couldn't afford to pay $10-$15 for the DLC. There's a number of member in the DST community I'm apart of who have not been able to try Wortox yet because they can't afford to purchase him. I don't want to stop gaming with them because I can afford something they can't at this point.

 

I have nothing against DLC, I'm just against DLC (for DST) that would split the community. New game mods would do that. Different playable characters doesn't.

[Mike23Ua]

Really long TL:DR post below you’ve all been warned: to make it less of an Eye-sore Its being Spoiler tagged for convince, and if you choose to quote me please for the love of everything cut out everything I said and just type -snip- 

Spoiler

There are some games that NEVER get “Paid DLC” and they make their revenue directly off optional character purchases, optional skin purchases, Maybe in game Microtransactions or a Battle Pass..

Games like Apex Legends doesn’t have a paid DLC (not counting character skins) Games like Minecraft has been continuously getting updates to the BASE Game- Sure players can buy DLC skins or Mash up worlds... but those Updates impact the BASE GAME and not those expansions..

To name a few big names games that survive by free updates: Minecraft, Grand Theft Auto V, Red Dead Redemption 2, Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege, State of Decay 2: Juggernaut Edition, SMITE, Basically (insert any free-to-play game ever here..)

And then there’s also: Just because an expansion is paid doesn’t mean it’ll be any better quality then what they’re ALREADY pumping out and for completely Free.

As it stands now: Klei is able to update the game with a single patch, rather then having to release multiple patches for multiple DLCs for their game.

And I think as long as that remains to be profitable and they can continue to provide a steady stream of updates... that they shouldn’t change what’s working.

These “free updates” are drawing in new & returning players to the game- and its slowly but surely pulling in new players.

But to do that there has to be compromises- Things that may immediately turn players away by being too punishing has to become easier to pick up and play.. it’s the same reason we keep seeing harsh crippling downsides become a little more manageable.

If they went and started making more paid DLCs it would potentially turn players away.. (dude I literally sale my friends on this game by telling them that it’s been getting a near monthly steady stream of completely free updates)

Now Klei may eventually decide to do a huge DLC or even an entire new game altogether.. but I gotta ask myself why in the hell would they go through all the time and effort of making all these changes to DST.. and make it more easy/accessible/welcoming to new comers if they just plan to release a DS 2 (which would basically be starting over and praying that the players they brought in with the changes to DST will also buy DS 2..)

a paid dlc expansion rather it’s Paid and blocked by your friends having to also pay for it, or paid but only one person has to pay for it and all their friends can join- would be taking the number of players they have playing NOW & hoping they can achieve those same player numbers with a Expansion purchase.

it Would ALSO mean splitting up their dev team between yet another game/DLC they will have to patch update & maintain, which could potentially draw some of the devs they have working on X project Now, to have to shift focus and upkeep that DLC as well.

JoeW literally said once before that in order for them to do and upkeep the gorge/forge events that it required everyone at Klei to be involved in, and thus less involved in patch updates/content updates for other games and things.

a paid DLC for DST could mean a cease of content for other Klei games like Oxygen Not Included because they’d have to shift focus and handle that DST expansion.

Now that’s not to say they WON’T someday do it, I’m just pointing out all the things they’d have to consider and rather or not that would be most profitable for their team.

What I hope happens someday: is they’ll eventually merge DSA/Shipwrecked/Hamlet and DST all into one big game... I mean DST was originally advertised and sold as the stand alone multiplayer expansion to DS.

Why? because They already HAVE developers focusing on DS single Player and its expansions: Hamlet literally not too long ago just released for console players and despite REALLY Not needing it: They even took the time to add craftable fences and the ability to tame Beefalo to the single player game.
 

So THESE Particular DLC’s / games that already exist: Already have work being done for & to them. The DLCs (if updated to be compatible with DST) would be compatible with BOTH Games (DS & DST)

People who bought these already existing DLCs would get the single player version, the multiplayer version, and probably a few exclusive unlocks for having purchased the Expansions (think skins and stuff)

And not now but maybe several years from now (after the potential sales of people buying those DLCs and DSA drastically have dwindled to a near Halt..) They can even if they choose to do so pull a State of Decay 2: Juggernaut Edition.

(AkA Rerelease a New Version of the game as a free update that makes DS/SW/HAM & DST all one mega game.)

Now why I see this as being profitable for them: They would no longer have to work on each of these separately as their own expansions and can just release one update per patch. 
 

Players who dislike all the changes they’ve done with character refreshes, return of them updates ETC can play DS Classic modes and options all from within DST. 
 

The 500 or so skins I’ve unlocked for DST would be compatible to use in DSA mode, and I can now Unlock new skins while playing DSA (as long as I’m connected to Klei Servers while doing it) 

In addition: The DLC Characters, Mobs and Biomes of the single player expansions now become usable in the Multiplayer portion of the game.. so those of us wanting Walani, Wilbur, Woodlegs, Wheeler, Wilba & Wagstaff in DST can finally have our dreams come true.

The merging of DSA’s player numbers and DSTs player numbers means a large total number of players at any given time (which would then be the absolute BEST TIME to do things like trying to make the game Cross-Platform Compatible) 

Maybe it kills the sales of the old game, but it COULD also potentially pull in way more players to DST.. which would make Cross-Play more viable.

And the TL:DR- the more players actively playing DS/DST or SW/Ham inside of DS/DST the more potential skin sales Klei makes off them. As far as releasing some brand new expansion pack... I just don’t see that being AS Profitable as Merging DS/SW/Ham & DST into one big game. Work with the expansions/ Things Klei has ALREADY actively on their schedule of things to update and maintain rather than trying to add MORE to it.

Now as a Disclaimer: I’m no game developer and Obviously I have absolutely how beneficial or how disastrous that would be to Klei... but it isn’t my job to think about the in’s and out’s of how all that works: That’s Klei’s job and ultimately they’ll make the decisions that They feel is best for where they want to shift their focus, teams, development resources, into to be most beneficial to them.

 

[ArubaroBeefalo]

2 hours ago, SaphironX said:

Okay, but do you want the game to grow a little more and then die out (and with no new content most of the players you want to have free access not to split the userbase will leave anyhow), or do you want larger content packs that makes the game amazing and causes it to last for years to come?

If they aren't making enough money on it, other projects will replace it. 

And there's a huge difference between charging $49.99 for an expansion like COD or something like that and charging $10.00 or $15.00.

and do you think that making a huge content update for money, that only people who buy it will enjoy (and seeing how little is the price of the game the dlc cant be higher) will make klei gaing more money than updating the game each month and adding skins for existing items, that only require few coding an artist making sprites instead of the whole team, for a similar price for those dlcs?

Free updates claim old and new players, skins gives money for "little work" (less than an entire dlc). Some skin packs cost more than the entire game but takes much less work to affort it so is "easy money". Releasing dlcs needs a lot of work  (just see how much months is taking RoT) and will have little price because this game is mostly played in countries that arent the most rich (is one of the best games to play in a low cost computer and they have to compete in that market)

also people these days see a dlc and get scary for some EA and ubisoft stuff

[Cheggf]

28 minutes ago, ArubaroBeefalo said:

and do you think that making a huge content update for money, that only people who buy it will enjoy (and seeing how little is the price of the game the dlc cant be higher) will make klei gaing more money than updating the game each month and adding skins for existing items, that only require few coding an artist making sprites instead of the whole team, for a similar price for those dlcs?

This is also an excellent point. Skins are about 1 or 2 bucks each so even ignoring everything except the artwork alone, Shipwrecked would cost about $300-600 if we were going by the price of skins. That's ignoring the 4 characters, and all the biomes, the seasons, the mechanics, everything. Just the art assets alone, if they charged what they charge for skins, it would be about $300-600. Although that number might be a little off since I just counted all the entries on this page and didn't actually read the text to see if it actually was something that has a new appearance or not.

Compared to expansions, skins are extremely profitable for the amount of effort they need to put in for them. There's a reason there's so many free to play games, and there's a reason they always have a ton of cosmetics in them.

[W0l0l0]

I don't think DLC's will be made outside of characters (hunch feeling really). I'm hoping skin sales will provide Klei with income, but I'm a bit nervous that unless lots of skins that are difficult to obtain are added, this source will run dry eventually. We'll just have to see.