How should future content be monetized?

[Kwaik]

DST lasted a long time, primarily fueled by adding cosmetics to the game. 

Assuming the new game has somewhat if a similar plan of being a long term game, regularly adding content. 

I'm curious how the community would like to see the future game monetized. 

I'm assuming the initial game will require a fee to purchase, but even if not it's still irrelevant to the ongoing monetization. 

[-Nick-]

Honestly I would love the return of DLC's like in Don't Starve.

I would kill a Shipwrecked or Hamlet esque DLC. Obviously not 1 to 1 but similar.

[Kwaik]

1 hour ago, -Nick- said:

Honestly I would love the return of DLC's like in Don't Starve.

I would kill a Shipwrecked or Hamlet esque DLC. Obviously not 1 to 1 but similar.

Obviously I used vague generalizations in the OP 

But I would assume that things like shipwrecked or Hamlet would need to be more focused as expansions for a multiplayer focused game. 

DLC would have to be much smaller in scope. 

 

Semantic arguement I'm sure, but the DST universe has come far since those days 

 

[Mike23Ua]

Major paid expansion packs that offer up new environments or completely new ways of playing the game altogether.. as just an example, the Gorge & the Forge could be additional game modes we could buy.

But ultimately I really hope they focus more on major paid dlc expansions instead of character skins.

It STILL makes me angry that a lot of cool “skins” in DST (such as moss covered pet den, or new berry bush designs) are freaking SKINS AT ALL.. these should’ve been put to use creating new biomes.

so far with DSE I've seen elevated mountain tops and lowered ocean depths, and there’s so many cool things Klei can do with that (such as entirely underwater exploration in a scuba suit that can walk underwater or something)

[Dr. Safety]

I would have voted for the characters one if not for that special little word "regularly". Of any possible content that can be monetized, I am most persuaded by characters. I'd even buy whole expansions if they include characters, for that reason alone.

I just look at games like Overwatch or League of Legends and realize that there are big drawbacks with having too many characters. That being said, I would definitely like to see as many DST characters in DSE as possible, and as many new (or old) characters as well. 

Edited April 10 by Dr. Safety

[Szczuku]

Probably skins and maybe charaters - so the same monetization as dst.

Since this game is multiplayer I think that content DLCs are out of the question

[Kwaik]

8 hours ago, Szczuku said:

Probably skins and maybe charaters - so the same monetization as dst.

Since this game is multiplayer I think that content DLCs are out of the question to 

To be fair DST didn't really monetize the game with new characters 

I mean when's the last time they added a new paid character? They had 4 in over a decade, and the last new one 7 years ago. So effectively no new characters added to the game in its modern form. 

I think paid expansions is more viable than DLC, but honestly there's ways to make anything work. 

Edited April 10 by Kwaik

[Maxil20]

8 hours ago, Szczuku said:

Since this game is multiplayer I think that content DLCs are out of the question

I think Risk of Rain 2's approach would work pretty well for DLC: players who don't have it can join other players who bought the DLC and play with them, but won't be able to access things like new characters added from it and won't be allowed to play the DLC solo without purchasing it first. It gives incentive to buy the DLC without forcibly splitting the playerbase, and would most likely be pretty positive for the community.

Edited April 10 by Maxil20

[Ellilea]

New content is king. After that, cosmetics for buildings/weapons/tools.

I couldn't care less about character cosmetics because I usually just play one character anyway, but having various chests, crockpots, drying racks and everything else was always very appealing. Armors/clothes are a waste, because they're super small and I don't notice them at all (same with ONI, really). 

The four options with the least votes (thankfully!) are absolutely horrid. If I find ads in my games, they're no longer my games. And pay for convenience just means the game is poorly designed in a way that people would rather pay than play. Gross.

[Kwaik]

On 4/10/2026 at 11:37 AM, Ellilea said:

New content is king. After that, cosmetics for buildings/weapons/tools.

I couldn't care less about character cosmetics because I usually just play one character anyway, but having various chests, crockpots, drying racks and everything else was always very appealing. Armors/clothes are a waste, because they're super small and I don't notice them at all (same with ONI, really). 

The four options with the least votes (thankfully!) are absolutely horrid. If I find ads in my games, they're no longer my games. And pay for convenience just means the game is poorly designed in a way that people would rather pay than play. Gross.

That's why I think paid expansions is a good thing is it means more content. 

The only concern is it makes the game less appealing to new players, thus smaller player base 

[Cuernito.]

On 4/9/2026 at 11:23 PM, Szczuku said:

Since this game is multiplayer I think that content DLCs are out of the question

They can add them in the form of new dungeons or ruins to explore that can appear in your server depending if you own or not the dlc.

After all i hope this new game has a dungeon system similar to hamlet. Having rogue-like dungeons in this game could be lovely.

[Mike23Ua]

Oh I’m forgetting something of monumental importance, Nintendo actually LOST the patients that they held dominance over for the capture, release & battling of monsters (so much so that no man’s sky celebrated their loss by making an an entire Xeno Arena dlc for it) and with as many crazy minigames that DST has gotten over the years (cough cough Carrat racing) I can realistically see Klei doing an entire Pokémon like DLC for the game.. and no I’m absolutely not joking, companies really are taking advantage of it now that Nintendo can’t hold it hostage.

[Edible Coal]

On 4/10/2026 at 9:53 PM, Maxil20 said:

I think Risk of Rain 2's approach would work pretty well for DLC: players who don't have it can join other players who bought the DLC and play with them, but won't be able to access things like new characters added from it and won't be allowed to play the DLC solo without purchasing it first. It gives incentive to buy the DLC without forcibly splitting the playerbase, and would most likely be pretty positive for the community.

or.....just free dlc, like dst

[xhyom]

People who voted for subscription and pay to win scare me

[Draggofroot]

36 minutes ago, xhyom said:

People who voted for subscription and pay to win scare me

Come close, I don't bite.

[GamePlayer42]

dont starve battle pass is the right direction to go and you are ALL wrong...

[NPCMaxwell]

I thought with the "Elsewhere" in the name I expect it might work like this:

- Base game will have a main "world" with seasonal free opened "themed worlds" or "themed gameplays" like that of forge and gorge, the seasonal and year-of elements in DST, and themed-worlds based on the Skins from DST to be released bit by bit.

different types of DLCs:

- cosmetic DLCs: The same as the skins spools / chests from DST

- small gameplay DLCs: Buy one seasonal avaible worlds as permanently avaible to play in (or an additional character)

- medium gameplay DLCs: Buy the gameplay-alternative worlds as permanently avaible to play in

- big gameplay DLCs: Buy a "themed"-set of cosmetic and gameplay DLC. 

(if it is a one-type purchase I would be very likely to actually get those, considering I really love the DS DLCs, but have no interest in the skin-DLCs apart from using the spool converter to get all the sheepingtons and Wilson beards)

On 4/10/2026 at 3:53 PM, Maxil20 said:

I think Risk of Rain 2's approach would work pretty well for DLC: players who don't have it can join other players who bought the DLC and play with them, but won't be able to access things like new characters added from it and won't be allowed to play the DLC solo without purchasing it first. It gives incentive to buy the DLC without forcibly splitting the playerbase, and would most likely be pretty positive for the community.

That sounds like a good way to keep the players with small community servers happy and have them "move over" to DSE.

Edited April 12 by NPCMaxwell

[Cheggf]

I don't know what the difference between "paid expansions" and "DLC" is but things like Shipwrecked & Hamlet are great. Subscription would be horrible. Cosmetics are great. Pay to win and pay for convenience would make me probably not play the game. Battle pass would make me probably not play the game. Ads would be horrible. New characters would be great, but regularly adding them would be horrible. If they kept adding characters to the game, permanently, forever, that would be just as bad as if they added a battle pass or pay to win things or whatever. Don't Starve Together has received 4 & a half new characters over the course of 12 years, and that's fine. But games like Rainbow Six suck because they just won't stop adding new characters. 

[Evelo]

15 hours ago, Mike23Ua said:

Oh I’m forgetting something of monumental importance, Nintendo actually LOST the patients that they held dominance over for the capture, release & battling of monsters (so much so that no man’s sky celebrated their loss by making an an entire Xeno Arena dlc for it) and with as many crazy minigames that DST has gotten over the years (cough cough Carrat racing) I can realistically see Klei doing an entire Pokémon like DLC for the game.. and no I’m absolutely not joking, companies really are taking advantage of it now that Nintendo can’t hold it hostage.

World of Warcraft had that for years before the patent loss, additionally I don't think pokemon gameplay would fit Don't Starve, Carrat racing isn't really analogous to pokemon, I think at least.

[Mike23Ua]

1 hour ago, Evelo said:

World of Warcraft had that for years before the patent loss, additionally I don't think pokemon gameplay would fit Don't Starve, Carrat racing isn't really analogous to pokemon, I think at least.

Between Carrat Racing, and Searching every biome for its very own uniquely themed version of a Kitcoon to collect them all and bring them back to your base I think it’s pretty safe for me to disagree.

PLUS you have always been able to trick most of the games mobs into fighting one another already AND we can pick up and Carry in our inventory some of them (like Warrior Spooders)

Oh yeah and there’s the whole “give a belt to pig king to duke it out in an arena with his village warriors”

That reminds me: I HOPE DSE focuses on actual game content updates and does NOT do seasonal events & Crossovers.

[NPCMaxwell]

8 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

That reminds me: I HOPE DSE focuses on actual game content updates and does NOT do seasonal events & Crossovers.

Now that you mention it, maybe it is /GOOD/ if they really leave the seasonal events / Crossovers [if still necessary at all] to DST. Then it would have an ADDITIONAL reason to keep players there

[Cheggf]

1 hour ago, Evelo said:

World of Warcraft had that for years before the patent loss, additionally I don't think pokemon gameplay would fit Don't Starve, Carrat racing isn't really analogous to pokemon, I think at least.

The patent is from September 2025, it was created long after Pet Battling was added in World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria (2012). There isn't Pet Battling in World of Warcraft: Midnight (2026) because they got scared of the patent. 

[crushcircuit]

On 4/9/2026 at 8:12 PM, -Nick- said:

Honestly I would love the return of DLC's like in Don't Starve.

I would kill a Shipwrecked or Hamlet esque DLC. Obviously not 1 to 1 but similar.

huge agree, i like this kind of update model a lot more than the typical live service model and i wouldnt mind paying for that

[Antynomity]

I would love DLCs, nothing would beat world hopping in a multiplayer setting, especially if people can be in different worlds at the same time.

[hhh2]

3 hours ago, Evelo said:

World of Warcraft had that for years before the patent loss, additionally I don't think pokemon gameplay would fit Don't Starve, Carrat racing isn't really analogous to pokemon, I think at least.

Off topic but it's amazing how Nintendo could even get a patent office somewhere to accept Pokemon as an invention that will benefit human civilization.  I don't know what the laws are like in Japan, but in the West to get a patent your invention has to actually wash clothes or heat saucepans with magnets or unfreeze car windshields or bust limescale.  I wish I could read a book of funny ridiculous stories related to videos games like that, but I don't know any.