DIY EP (Do-It-Yourself Expansion Pack)

DIY EP (Did-It-Yourself Expansion Pack)

Time for an idea that involves a crystal ball since it's so far in the future that it might not even happen. But still, I wanted to get it out of my system. So without further ado.... *coughs*


How about an expansion where the players decide the content of. To be more specific: This will be just User Generated Content that is approved or even modified (to get rid of possible bugs for example)/enhanced (better textures or something) by the official Frontier Team.

I think it would be a great and interesting idea as it would involve communication between the fans and the dev team, something that's already quite good compared to some other games that I have experience with.

This will be like what the STEX is for SimCity4 players but more official. And since this is ugc, I don't expect the price of this EP to be that high but it could draw a bit more life into the game, especially with people new to the game.
 
Last edited:
I'm a fan of this line of thinking.
As I've posted elsewhere.
The ugc/mod threads just keep growing.
I hope Frontier notice what a hot topic this is.
 
I'm a fan of this line of thinking.
As I've posted elsewhere.
The ugc/mod threads just keep growing.
I hope Frontier notice what a hot topic this is.
I'm with you on this James, but don't full understand how it all sort of works (old age again) [haha]
The question is:- Would Frontier go along with something like this?
 
I think Cities: Skylines did the same with the day & nicht cyclus and the snow expansions. It's not that weird.
Not weird ? [shocked]

It's free, then they take it, and sell the work of a player, and nothing weird ? I do not think this is true, because it's :

1) Unethical (you just dont sell something that you are not the owner)
2) 100% illegal (unless they have the permission of the authors)
3) Stupid (Why buy something if it is already free ?)

It's very strange ... I'm sure that I dont understand something here. [weird]
 
Yeah I'm with Angelis, this would be 100% illegal, mean and miserable.

Maybe they could ask for suggestions on what to add in the new expansion though.
I don't know, something like a big poll?
A brainstorming thread?

One of these ideas above would work PERFECTLY imo!
 
Wait ? They use UGC made for free by the players, and they sell it ? [weird]
Not exactly. What I have in mind is this:
-I makes a thing for in the game
-Community votes for created things and the thing I made becomes really popular
-Thing created by a person becomes so popular that as a token of whatever, Frontier decides to ask to make a deal with them: For an X amount of money or an X% of the EP's sold I can have my creation become an official part of the game, with my name linked to it.

Seems more fair than Cities:Skylines as that is a good example of how you could avoid that. But that game has had the problem of having a community that developed stuff quicker than them (mind you that it's a team of about 13 people that's behind Cities:Skylines).

Also, the mods for Cities:Skylines, just like with any other mod/ugc and game, comes the problem of compatibility: Any official update can potentially create problems with how a mod/ugc is coded. Now if Frontier would offer some people to have their created be part of the game, as in; look into the code of the mod/ugc and make sure that it is 100% compatible with the game (maybe even recreate it from scratch with the original creators permission). This way, people can enjoy the mods without having to fear that they crash the game or something as the mod/ugc being outdated/incompatible with new versions of the game.

It would also ensure the quality of some mods/ugc as some great creations suffer from never being updated and thus, being outdated. Only to make you find out that you wasted space on your computer because that awesome thing you wanted in the game doesn't work.


I hope that this cleared things up.
 
Last edited:
Not exactly. What I have in mind is this:
-I makes a thing for in the game
-Community votes for created things and the thing I made becomes really popular
-Thing created by a person becomes so popular that as a token of whatever, Frontier decides to ask to make a deal with them: For an X amount of money or an X% of the EP's sold I can have my creation become an official part of the game, with my name linked to it. [...]
Okay, I get it.

I personally think that money makes a mess everywhere !!!
And If we have a sort of "library/content manager" nativly connected with the game, then, UGC is ALREADY part of the game, so ...
If we have UGC (for free, by the players) + DLC (paying official content with what Applez said : a sort of big poll/brainstorming thread), it's fine for me.

My opinion...

But anyway, you was right, it's an idea that involves a crystal ball ... because, wow ... UGC are not even confirmed for now [big grin]
 
Not weird ? [shocked]

It's free, then they take it, and sell the work of a player, and nothing weird ? I do not think this is true, because it's :

1) Unethical (you just dont sell something that you are not the owner)
2) 100% illegal (unless they have the permission of the authors)
3) Stupid (Why buy something if it is already free ?)

It's very strange ... I'm sure that I dont understand something here. [weird]
It's not unethical or illegal if the ownership is transferred to Frontier by mutual agreement.
It's not stupid if Frontier add value. I'd rather pay a few bucks for 'Frontier seal of approval' than risk getting crap for free.
As long as Frontier add value, and don't block the free stuff, players can choose.
 
It's not unethical or illegal if the ownership is transferred to Frontier by mutual agreement.
About the illegal point, this is why I said : "(unless they have the permission of the authors)", about the unethical point contrariwise, I'm just not agree. I really think it's a bad idea to mix the fun/game and the business/money.

It's not stupid if Frontier add value. I'd rather pay a few bucks for 'Frontier seal of approval' than risk getting crap for free.
As long as Frontier add value, and don't block the free stuff, players can choose.
I prefer they ask what kind of content the community wants, and they make new "Content packs", better than buying copyright of something that is already free in order to ... sell it.

the "crap for free" thing is legitimate only if we dont have any official library and if UGC is not native. Which is the oposite of what we are asking from the begining. If we have a native (and well made) custom content manager/library, the crap will finish a the end of the list (just like Google, in the number of pages that are never clicked), and only if "crap" mean "ugly", because if it's simply not working, the community moderation can just remove automatically the object/mod/sound/etc... after a lot of reporting.

So the "added value" argument does not work anymore with this kind of library.

Anyway, even if the intention is good, this suggestion is playing with fire for me.
And they have others solutions that are way better than that in term of brand image, like simply communicate with us to know what we want, with interactions, debates, polls (just like in the CHC), etc. which is much more simple and effective.
 
About the illegal point, this is why I said : "(unless they have the permission of the authors)", about the unethical point contrariwise, I'm just not agree. I really think it's a bad idea to mix the fun/game and the business/money.

I prefer they ask what kind of content the community wants, and they make new "Content packs", better than buying copyright of something that is already free in order to ... sell it.

the "crap for free" thing is legitimate only if we dont have any official library and if UGC is not native. Which is the oposite of what we are asking from the begining. If we have a native (and well made) custom content manager/library, the crap will finish a the end of the list (just like Google, in the number of pages that are never clicked), and only if "crap" mean "ugly", because if it's simply not working, the community moderation can just remove automatically the object/mod/sound/etc... after a lot of reporting.

So the "added value" argument does not work anymore with this kind of library.

Anyway, even if the intention is good, this suggestion is playing with fire for me.
And they have others solutions that are way better than that in term of brand image, like simply communicate with us to know what we want, with interactions, debates, polls (just like in the CHC), etc. which is much more simple and effective.
i'm in agreement with your proposed mechanism, and not as bothered philosophically as you. by which i mean, if they find a way to add value (whatever that may be) i'm ok paying for it. but a free mechanism would be better, of course. So your idea is the best (for players, not necessarily for Frontier).

Commercially i accept that effort goes where money flows. i want them to put in effort, and since they are not a charity, i'm ok if they find a way to monetize it without annoying the hell out of us (like micro-transactions seem to generate universal hatred, so duh to that idea).
 
i'm in agreement with your proposed mechanism, and not as bothered philosophically as you. by which i mean, if they find a way to add value (whatever that may be) i'm ok paying for it. but a free mechanism would be better, of course. So your idea is the best (for players, not necessarily for Frontier).

Commercially i accept that effort goes where money flows. i want them to put in effort, and since they are not a charity, i'm ok if they find a way to monetize it without annoying the hell out of us (like micro-transactions seem to generate universal hatred, so duh to that idea).
I'm understand your point of view (and you will find me boring) but I'm not agree again.

I'm not necessarily talking about a free mechanism here ...

First you say that it's not necessarily a good idea for Frontier, but it's not true, because in both case described here, they sell content on the hypothetical library. In both cases, it is a source of complementary income in addition to sales of the game and expansions packs. In both cases, they sell what we call "DLCs", so this is changing nothing. In fact, it's even better for Frontier, because the brand image which has a price, and that is sales vector. (and that price is often underestimated, as if people could not incorporate this concept because not enough concrete)

Secondly, this is, paradoxically, the opposite of effort and values that you described earlier ! Instead of proposing something new, which requires work and effort, they take the work of a passionate player, makes some changes, and take the profit.

Almost off-topic :
I take advantage of my answer to repeat something, because some people think I'm against DLC, which is only half true. I say that the sale of DLC is not necessary to the profitability of the project, but in case they want to implement this kind of additional sources of revenue to pay bigger dividends to shareholders and/or directors, it must be done intelligently, and the native support of the custom content is the best way to do it, by transforming, in the minds of players, the "cash shop" into an "improved content manager".

Although, personally, I think that the sale of DLC (except in the case of free-to-play, which is a particular case) can fill the coffers in the short term, and sometimes more than expected, but the backlash for the company is always proportional and unexpected, but this is just my opinion.
 
I'm understand your point of view (and you will find me boring) but I'm not agree again.

I'm not necessarily talking about a free mechanism here ...

First you say that it's not necessarily a good idea for Frontier, but it's not true, because in both case described here, they sell content on the hypothetical library. In both cases, it is a source of complementary income in addition to sales of the game and expansions packs. In both cases, they sell what we call "DLCs", so this is changing nothing. In fact, it's even better for Frontier, because the brand image which has a price, and that is sales vector. (and that price is often underestimated, as if people could not incorporate this concept because not enough concrete)

Secondly, this is, paradoxically, the opposite of effort and values that you described earlier ! Instead of proposing something new, which requires work and effort, they take the work of a passionate player, makes some changes, and take the profit.

Almost off-topic :
I take advantage of my answer to repeat something, because some people think I'm against DLC, which is only half true. I say that the sale of DLC is not necessary to the profitability of the project, but in case they want to implement this kind of additional sources of revenue to pay bigger dividends to shareholders and/or directors, it must be done intelligently, and the native support of the custom content is the best way to do it, by transforming, in the minds of players, the "cash shop" into an "improved content manager".

Although, personally, I think that the sale of DLC (except in the case of free-to-play, which is a particular case) can fill the coffers in the short term, and sometimes more than expected, but the backlash for the company is always proportional and unexpected, but this is just my opinion.
like i say, i agree with your proposed mechanism.
it seems complete and covers all the necessary points.
it is useful to explain it clearly, so not boring at all.
Frontier will consider your mechanism, only if they understand it in full.
hopefully, they are watching (here and in the other thread).
 
like i say, i agree with your proposed mechanism.
it seems complete and covers all the necessary points.
it is useful to explain it clearly, so not boring at all.
Frontier will consider your mechanism, only if they understand it in full.
hopefully, they are watching (here and in the other thread).
[up]
 
Not weird ? [shocked]

It's free, then they take it, and sell the work of a player, and nothing weird ? I do not think this is true, because it's :

1) Unethical (you just dont sell something that you are not the owner)
2) 100% illegal (unless they have the permission of the authors)
3) Stupid (Why buy something if it is already free ?)

It's very strange ... I'm sure that I dont understand something here. [weird]
What do you want? Work shop items that are maybe bugged (or it can crash) or quality stuff from the developers? I want quality and optimized stuff!
 
What do you want? Work shop items that are maybe bugged (or it can crash) or quality stuff from the developers? I want quality and optimized stuff!
Huh ? ...

I already answered this question. I want quality stuff from the players + quality stuff from the developpers if they want to make DLC's too.

- If something is ulgy : it ends at the end of the list
- If something is bugged/does not work : it is simply removed by the reporting system

And after, it simply work like Google : The official content is always on the top (like Google Adwords), the best custom content is just below (First page), and so on ...

I think you should read again this entire thread.
You clearly must have missed something. [yesnod]
 
Top Bottom