What is the difference between a backward-compatible Sequel, an Expansion, and a DLC add-on?

[breezerHOG1]

Many of us are probably aware of the fact that Frontier has turned down some of our requests, such as having an ocean biome, or a water park expansion. I'd like to ask about why we have been told that large expansions are not going to happen? Obviously, there have been instances in the past where we were told that something wasnt possible, only to later see it added into the game (like no collision). I'd like to assume that anytime Frontier tells us no, that they are just being secretive or hiding future details (aka lieing), as they obviously have plans to continue updating and expanding the game.

So, now that the price of DLC add-ons has surpassed the price of the base game, I'm wondering why this is the preferred path of "expanding" the game? I'm not a programmer, but when it comes to updates, it would seem like you are giving yourself more work when it comes to releasing dozens of small add-ons compared to one or two bigger ones. I don't know maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to know what other people in the community think about this? Would a larger more complete expansion add more or less for the price?

If we were to group all of the current DLC into a single bundle (and looking at the price which is more than the base game) then why do we classify that as anything but an Expansion. we already have ONE FULL expansion for PlanCo. Thats what the current DLC is, an expansion just broken up into chunks.

Chunky DLC is clunky to the UI, its been discussed before how the DLCs break up the Steam workshop and have given us 4 identical gokarts that cant be swapped out by cars alone.... where do we go from here? Why can't we have hopes for something bigger or better? Do we have to continue focusing on the small peace meal paint-by-numer DLCs?

Many players want to see more "official" scenarios, obviously the user-made scenarios are nice but theres also a lot of factors that could be improved with the scenarios and the scenario editor.

I've been a fan of RCT since the late 90s, and even though some people argue about PlanCo not being a sequel to RCT3, its still part of the same series. I'm a fan of frontiers and the work they do. I was anticipating PlanCo over a year in advanced from its release, and yet I have nothing to look forward to about its possible future. How long do we have to play the "we dont talk about our future plans for the game as to not disappoint out fans" game its illogical and backwards.

Many of us want water parks and we already know Frontier owns the rights to Planet Safari... we dont care if you tell us it will take 5 years before we get to Planet Safari, but these current DLCs just don't cut it for a lot of us. I mean these forums, and many other forums, reddit discord etc, yes theres a lot of diehard fans for this game who will buy whatever you give us even if its crap, but theres also a lot of people who wont even touch the game because of how complicated/tedious certain aspects are.

I dont even care if Frontier replies to this post, I just want you to see what other people have to say about this... I mean other games put out a new full sequel every year... will we ever see a PlanCo2 with improved scenarios, management and better balanced financial systems? I certainly hope so! [cool]

The answer to my title is: Marketing

 

[seeker939]

If you're not talking about a way of distribution a useful distinction to make is

DLC pack/ add-on: adds features, new assets (think ride aging, adventure theming)
Expansion: adds new game concepts on a broader scheme (think RCT3 "Soaked" or "Wild")

The DLC so far is a disparate mess of all sorts of stuff. Throw it all together I still wouldn't call it an expansion.

Planco 2? As much as I'd like to see the mistakes they made with the base game gone I very much doubt it. Maybe in a decade or two, if they stopped making new DLC by then... [wink]

 

[lilibat]

I'd love an expansion into Plancxo 2.0 k ind of like Everquest did back in the day where they mostly did a big engine update. All the current stuff would still be there but a new lighting engine, and maybe some other systems updates to help performance.

 

[TheWetDolphin]

I love the latest DLC, but I don't want a load of these smaller packs. Hopefully they decide to do something different for the next DLC. Maybe release a expansion pack for the 2 year anniversary in November? *cough water parks cough*

I would happily pay double the price of the current DLCs for something bigger. Something that isn't just stuffed with scenery.

 

[Helena]

I just want to give in my 2 cent (eller öre in my case) that if you are going to make a new game that is very much new, but still have compatibility it will be more programming intense than making new from scratch.

Ok with that aside, I hope for expansion or DLC that will actually expand the gameplay to be at least equal or better than RCT1-3. And I do not talk about the rides, but the game itself being more of *game* than "let's puzzle together some pieces to make beautiful park" with some rudimentary simulation thrown in.

Yes it might sound harsh. I love Planet Coaster it is so beautiful game and I am in awe of that aspect. No debate. But the game part, no it is not really up to par. Yet. I feel it is about halfway there.

I would love a career/scenario pack of maybe at least 25 new scenarios. Maybe 5 of each DLC.... 5 of Spooky, 5 of Adventure, 5 of Studio, 5 of Vintage, then maybe 5-10 base game and final 5-10 with a mix of everything. Of course it is not the best idea profit wise because it would exclude buyers not having some dlc's, but still. One can dream.

And more challenging than the ones we have so far.
With new challenges/motives that is not available now. There are so many motives from rct1-3 that is not possible to apply in the scenario editor.

 

[shaneturner12]

Technically expansions would be DLC anyway as that's the way it works with Steam based games.

Shane

 

[breezerHOG1]

Technically expansions would be DLC anyway as that's the way it works with Steam based games.

Shane

exactly [wink]

if you are going to make a new game that is very much new, but still have compatibility it will be more programming intense than making new from scratch.

Ok with that aside, I hope for expansion or DLC that will actually expand the gameplay to be at least equal or better than RCT1-3.

Yes I agree too, it certainly isnt easy, but I would hope that considering how Frontier made RCT3 that they can handle keeping the Steam Workshop compatible with future sequels/expansions otherwise I have no interest in keeping up with this current iteration of the game.

Also, I just heard about a new rollercoaster game called Virtual Towers Online which means PlanCo is going to start having some competition now [yesnod]

 

[pietervs]

I think DLC is one way a game can follow the trend in software development to have software as a service. It generates a continuous stream of revenues which is appealing from a business perspective. It also gives incentives to the players to take up the game again periodically.
Dlc allows for continuous improvement and expansion but will generally not change the game back-end fundamentally. During the DLC support duration the developers will get many new ideas and experience the shortcomings that can be addressed in a new game version. An expansion pack is probably less appealing to create because the expected back-compatibility limits the development freedom and it takes a lot longer and more effort to generate new revenues.
In my opinion paying the game release price every 1-2 years through DLC with sufficient new content is not too bad.

 

[AaronTuckwell]

This is a relatively difficult one to analyse as it stands right now, so I'll do my best to offer an opinion or two:

1. The amount of content that we now have as DLC is just about equivalent of an expansion, delivered in about the same amount of time
2. Releasing smaller DLC items means that they can have a regular stream of income rather than having to wait 18 months for a big hit
3. The game can be agile and sense tested against the release of DLCs.. Unpopular ones may halt PlanCo all together which requires less effort, money and time than a failed expansion
4. It gives them a popularity check-point: Is it viable to do any more DLC's or has PlanCo run its course?
5. It allows flexibility of project teams, where each project is "in flight" for much less time than an expansion and so team's resources can be allocated elsewhere if needed
6. It allows the opportunity to break up the development cycle and allow for free content to add value for money to the base game as this also expands with the release of a new DLC, which the resource to create is paid for by those who purchase DLC items
7. The downside is that the full game experience is psychologically financially inaccessible to a new player (when in reality the likes of RCT3 with both expansions when new would still have set you back just shy of £100)
8. It allows independent pricing structure for the DLC (even though a standard is usually used) and also allows for individual discounts on more items than discounting larger expansions.
9. Longer-planned features can span DLC releases and are as such not subjected to a hard deadline like they would be with an expansion pack.
10. It keeps the game fresh and players engaged rather than players abandoning it for the next shiny game.

In general, DLC isn't a dirty word when it's done correctly... even though the mention alone seem to trigger some. It allows the developers the opportunity to get new content out more frequently and keep the game fresh. Frontier seem to be going down the same route as Cities Skylines with smaller but frequent DLC items and free content over a single paid larger expansion and I honestly believe that this is the correct path for them to take. Not everything in a DLC will appeal to every player, of course not, but over time the gane will just get bigger and bigger.