Why are people complaining about DLC

[tyczj]

I did, in other thread. Without even thinking, you could probably come up with scenery being free, but charge for extra maps, ride skins/train skins, mascots.... And if you think even more, you definitely can come up with more ideas how this could work. And none of these things would fragment the community. And I would be more than wiling pay for that.

Uh..what...How would putting skins not fragment the community like you say. You can upload rides with scenery to the workshop, if someone uses a skin on that ride other wont be able to use it without that DLC...which is exactly the scenario you are saying is so detrimental to this game...

Also if you are going to claim sales number you should be providing proof that the game sales spiked after each update, AFAIK that metric is not available to users

 

[mr.sugar]

Uh..what...How would putting skins not fragment the community like you say. You can upload rides with scenery to the workshop, if someone uses a skin on that ride other wont be able to use it without that DLC...which is exactly the scenario you are saying is so detrimental to this game...

Depends on what we consider a skin. It can be implemented that if you do not own the skin, it will automatically set to the default one, for instance. That way, you can still use the workshop item, just said ride will have different skin than it should be... Same for rollercoaster, you simply place it, but you gonna have default train only, while the author ment it to have different skin you have to pay for. You still can get the coaster, but without the additional train skin.,..


EDIT:

I won´t rly bother with that graphs etc., sorry. If you use common sense, you will simply get it that it works (you can easily also notice that games after update/sale gets to the top selling games for instance. You can find many articles about it also, especially from Valve as that is the company who mainly discovered that free updates actually earn a lot of money for certain time (not forever of course). Valve kept the development of Team Fortress 2, for instance, for 4 years and they were releasing only free DLCs. After 4 years, when it was not effective anymore, they went free to play....

 

[ojonas]

Depends on what we consider a skin. It can be implemented that if you do not own the skin, it will automatically set to the default one, for instance. That way, you can still use the workshop item, just said ride will have different skin than it should be... Same for rollercoaster, you simply place it, but you gonna have default train only, while the author ment it to have different skin you have to pay for. You still can get the coaster, but without the additional train skin.,..

This is my opinion and guess but I can't see how selling skins for a ride will bring in nearly as much money as the DLC versions they have today. Of all the people who owns Planet Coaster, a percentage of them may buy the existing DLC but an even smaller percentage would buy a skin. At least with the current DLCs you get more objects etc. to use. A skin doesn't add anything to the game besides changing the look of a coaster. That is something I think only the hardcore pro-builders would really care about. Not the general masses. Remember, this forum and the audience here doesn't really represent the bulk load of causal players. The people here are the ones that are the most passionate fans. But we are small group of the total Planet Coaster player base. Not saying that the casual players will buy the DLCs as they are now, but I think they are more likely to do so since they will get new objects and now rides as well. This seems to be what Frontier thinks too since they opted for this way of doing it.

 

[mr.sugar]

This is my opinion and guess but I can't see how selling skins for a ride will bring in nearly as much money as the DLC versions they have today. Of all the people who owns Planet Coaster, a percentage of them may buy the existing DLC but an even smaller percentage would buy a skin. At least with the current DLCs you get more objects etc. to use. A skin doesn't add anything to the game besides changing the look of a coaster. That is something I think only the hardcore pro-builders would really care about. Not the general masses. Remember, this forum and the audience here doesn't really represent the bulk load of causal players. The people here are the ones that are the most passionate fans. But we are small group of the total Planet Coaster player base. Not saying that the casual players will buy the DLCs as they are now, but I think they are more likely to do so since they will get new objects and now rides as well. This seems to be what Frontier thinks too since they opted for this way of doing it.

I would think the same about the pink gun skins in shooters. Who would buy that?! Yet, these useless skins make loads of money. It needs to be marketed properly, visible enough and people buy it. People simply like customizing their stuff.

 

[KickAir8p]

I paid money for this game, based on promises that have not yet been met. Scornfully insisting that I missunderstood those promises will not convince me to spend more money. Calling updates I paid for up-front "free" will not shame me into spending more money. Value for value received -- I spend some of the money I worked for on things that I enjoy, not what I'm guilt-tripped into.

Will I enjoy the upcoming DLC? Probably, so I'll probably buy it. But that's not going to silence me about paying again for what I already paid up-front for, and if Frontier doesn't deliver then eventually my sunk costs won't be enough to keep me coughing up cash.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I paid money for this game, based on promises that have not yet been met. Scornfully insisting that I missunderstood those promises will not convince me to spend more money. Calling updates I paid for up-front "free" will not shame me into spending more money. Value for value received -- I spend some of the money I worked for on things that I enjoy, not what I'm guilt-tripped into.

Will I enjoy the upcoming DLC? Probably, so I'll probably buy it. But that's not going to silence me about paying again for things that I already paid up-front for, and if Frontier doesn't deliver then eventually my sunk costs won't be enough to keep me coughing up cash.

Could you provide a list of things you paid for upfront, but haven't received?

 

[tyczj]

Could you provide a list of things you paid for upfront, but haven't received?

Willing to bet hes going to say the usual management/game play

 

[breezerHOG]

Could you provide a list of things you paid for upfront, but haven't received?

scenario editor, guest editor, QoL improvements

 

[KickAir8p]

Willing to bet hes going to say the usual management/game play

Since what I spent my money on should work as advertised and isn't yet, yes. Nor am I going to get exhausted into submission by "can you provide a list" sealioning. Suppressing dissent isn't going to make Frontier more money.

 

[Ramm]

Willing to bet hes going to say the usual management/game play

So what's wrong with that?

Also once again please keep in mind people aren't criticising (or what some call complaining) about the DLC, but about the lack of core-feature improvements and thus priorties.

 

[shaneturner12]

Here's a thought here - none of us particularly know what's going to be announced at the upcoming Expo which may well include core aspects. I know communication isn't the best on here although I can see why to some extent as I play another game (non Frontier) where the company ended up giving information for future updates early and ended up not being able to manage it from memory.

Shane

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Willing to bet hes going to say the usual management/game play

I was betting they are expectations and assumptions, like a scenario editor is an assumption, and was NEVER spoken about.

 

[Stream]

Gonna copy/paste what I wrote in the DLC thread

Here's what a lot of people are forgetting, a LOT of us have supported this game before full release. We even paid a large premium for doing so, because we believed in it, because we wanted to influence the future of the game. I think I speak for most people when I say that the initial release was pretty disappointing in terms of content. But the free updates made up for that, it just took a long time for the content to get up there. We also didn't have any idea that the base game would be so lack luster since we had seen a lot of screen shots of things that didn't end up in the final game (some that still aren't there, i.e. tables, etc). All the alpha players basically went into it blind or relied on what Frontier had showed us, which was a lot more than what was actually included in the release. So for people to say that these "free updates" is content that we got extra for free, it's just not true. They've essentially been completing the game in the last year, not adding to it.

Here's what I feel about this update. It looks great content-wise. But it means nothing to me unless they release a substantial QoL update in the near future. On top of it, I do feel like it's pretty ridiculous that they are charging the alpha players for this one, at least give this one to us for free. It's a nice compromise for everyone, and a nice caveat for the people that have been there from the beginning, helped with development, testing, marketing, and also have felt pretty abandoned in terms of the team interactions with us.

 

[Ramm]

I was betting they are expectations and assumptions, like a scenario editor is an assumption, and was NEVER spoken about.

Frontier made RCT3, by that they set certain standards. Industry standards.

It goes without saying that when they make a new version of a genre (even when it carries a different name) it will be that good old trusted game but improved on a modern engine.

Right now it only improved graphical (which is amazing dont get me wrong) and the coaster builder and the path building can now go in 3 dimensions instead of 2 which is also something you could only dream about back then.. But all other things, the non-graphical things like gameplay, that did not improve that much. Or even went a slight step backwards. We are trying to get some acknowledgement about that but you don't really seem to get any except finally with the friction but that was after there were so many threads about it and even threads with 20 pages. And the people who tell people who are critic about this complainers and how we are never happy with free stuff etc only ruin it more.

 

[KickAir8p]

I was betting they are expectations and assumptions, like a scenario editor is an assumption, and was NEVER spoken about.

I buy a bicycle "maintenance kit included!" Lets say that from years of experience with buying bicycles and friends & family buying bicycles, I know that a standard maintenance kit includes a tire pump. When I get home I realize that this one doesn't.

When I complain to the store that I didn't get what I paid for, if the response is that my reasonable expectations were just an assumption, how likely am I to spend any more money at that store? If I do buy a tire pump, I'm far more likely to go someplace that hasn't gloated over tricking me, aren't I?

What RCT3P provided a decade ago set reasonable expectations for part of what games in this genre should provide today. Advertising a game in this genre is saying you'll at minimum meet those expectations. A park management game should have a management system that balances realism with fun and doesn't have broken bits like busy vendors quitting because of low workload. Advertising a game in this genre is saying you'll at minimum meet those expectations. You can say these weren't advertised if you like, but how likely am I to spend more money on DLC with Frontier's "supporters" gloating over how I was tricked into buying the game in the first place?

 

[SoapyIllusion]

Frontier made RCT3, by that they set certain standards. Industry standards.

This comes back to assumptions VS promises.

People like to believe everything in a previous release of any game, means it should be by default included in the newest incarnation. A lot of people believe that. I've seen that said about many franchises. Yet in reality it means nothing. Unless EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED

If someone purchased this game with the belief that Planet Coaster would have most everything RCT3 had plus super boosted features. And those expectations were not met, thats a mistake made of the user who bought it. They have the right to take advantage of the return policy if one was ever available to them. If not THAT should be explained up front or available in easy access policies. People are grandstanding at times claiming Frontier owes them these "industry standards". And that would be true if they said "Planet Coaster will have everything RCT 3 has guaranteed!!" Then you could explicitly show evidence and then Frontier would be obliged to give a refund. Or pants sued off them.

But when nothing more then "Management Evolved" "From The Creators of Roller Coaster Tycoon 3" then your expectations are just expectations. Buyer beware.

For those early adopters those who were never given a chance at a refund I do feel for you. But as some one said earlier on, you accepted those risks when you asked for early access. Something I'm convinced more and more I never want to do.

I'm not being apologist, I'm not being an overbearing fan boy. Im simply looking at this all from a logical, measurable stand point. And its not adding up.

So for those who are mad, your allow to be mad. Your allowed not like the DLC. Your allowed to hate the current state of the game. You could even say Frontier wont get a Christmas card from you this year. But what you can't say is Frontier owes you anything...

Because they don't.

 

[tyczj]

So what's wrong with that?

Also once again please keep in mind people aren't criticising (or what some call complaining) about the DLC, but about the lack of core-feature improvements and thus priorties.

I dont find anything wrong with that, I think the management argument is a fair one but thats the only item one can at least loosely say was "promised". Anything else would be just that persons assumption

 

[caterpillar]

So what's wrong with that?

Also once again please keep in mind people aren't criticising (or what some call complaining) about the DLC, but about the lack of core-feature improvements and thus priorties.

Here's a thought here - none of us particularly know what's going to be announced at the upcoming Expo which may well include core aspects. I know communication isn't the best on here although I can see why to some extent as I play another game (non Frontier) where the company ended up giving information for future updates early and ended up not being able to manage it from memory.

Shane

We've known for a while now the expo is coming and they even stated they will talk about the plans for planet coaster there. Then in November we'll get the big anniversary update.
Like some other players have mentioned: there will logically be more to that than just scenery. Every sensible person knows that. (No, of course it doesn't mean we'll get every fix or addition we want, that goes without saying too.)
They probably have also considered the anniversary date as a deadline to add/surprise us with several things.

Anyway, in short, I really do respect everyone's opinions. I do. I'm just beginning to feel a lot of you just jump on it any occasion you get, again: most of you knowing full well the expo is rapidly approaching. I just feel it was rather unnecessary to have such an extensive discussion at this moment.

Have a good evening/ day all

 

[pwc1]

This comes back to assumptions VS promises.

People like to believe everything in a previous release of any game, means it should be by default included in the newest incarnation. A lot of people believe that. I've seen that said about many franchises. Yet in reality it means nothing. Unless EXPLICITLY SPECIFIED

If someone purchased this game with the belief that Planet Coaster would have most everything RCT3 had plus super boosted features. And those expectations were not met, thats a mistake made of the user who bought it. They have the right to take advantage of the return policy if one was ever available to them. If not THAT should be explained up front or available in easy access policies. People are grandstanding at times claiming Frontier owes them these "industry standards". And that would be true if they said "Planet Coaster will have everything RCT 3 has guaranteed!!" Then you could explicitly show evidence and then Frontier would be obliged to give a refund. Or pants sued off them.

But when nothing more then "Management Evolved" "From The Creators of Roller Coaster Tycoon 3" then your expectations are just expectations. Buyer beware.

For those early adopters those who were never given a chance at a refund I do feel for you. But as some one said earlier on, you accepted those risks when you asked for early access. Something I'm convinced more and more I never want to do.

I'm not being apologist, I'm not being an overbearing fan boy. Im simply looking at this all from a logical, measurable stand point. And its not adding up.

So for those who are mad, your allow to be mad. Your allowed not like the DLC. Your allowed to hate the current state of the game. You could even say Frontier wont get a Christmas card from you this year. But what you can't say is Frontier owes you anything...

Because they don't.

Exactly, on the mark. [up] I learned this lesson from the TPS* kickstarter. I also remember trying out the Xbox 360 camera. Mistaies were made, but thankfully, I learned from it. *Theme Park Studio

 

[ojonas]

I dont find anything wrong with that, I think the management argument is a fair one but thats the only item one can at least loosely say was "promised". Anything else would be just that persons assumption

I agree with this but as you said, nothing was promised or advertised in what would and what would not be included in the game from a management standpoint. The only thing they said was "management evolved". That is a very vague sales term. You can easily argue that they have significantly evolved the "brain" of each guest. It is a more complex brain than what it ever were, an evolved brain. It may still not work the way everyone assumes/expects it should but without this new brain you would not have the guests react to items in your park, be amazed by fireworks or an attraction or scenery in general. One can argue that the scenery itself has a big part of the management of the part. Better scenery around a ride and queue line and the guests will pay more money for that ride and so on. All these DLCs, even the small ones, do affect the management part of the game, even if every so slightly. It is all connected.

Was a long long time since I played RCT3, but what part of the management was superior in that game than in Planet Coaster? What "key/must have" featured on the management side did it have that Planet Coaster is missing?

I agree that the vendors quiting because they have too little to do is an annoying bug, but it is a bug that came after release in one of the free updates that tried to fix/improve something else. This speaks somewhat to the complexity of making other than asset updates to a game like this. They also said this will be fixed in the anniversary update.