The DLC Debate: Best, Worst, and Everything In Between (Ep.75)

Al, Adam, and Jack examine what makes downloadable content great, terrible, and everything in between.

The conversation explores three types of DLC: microtransactions like species packs, mechanics packs that add systems, and full expansion packs that transform games completely. Jack identifies Stellaris’ Utopia and Mega Corporations as must-buy expansions. Adam champions Hearts of Iron 4’s No Step Back for completely overhauling gameplay through logistics systems. Al praises classic expansion packs Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance and Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour as standalone-quality content. The hosts debate whether Paradox’s quantity-over-quality approach actually works given their hit rate. Civilization 7’s DLC disaster emerges as a cautionary tale with overwhelmingly negative Steam reviews for content that should have been in the base game. Firaxis faces an existential crisis as Civilization 5 and 6 overtook Civilization 7 in concurrent players within two months of launch. The discussion covers Victoria 3’s controversial trade DLC that should have been in the base game, the shift from physical expansion packs to digital microtransactions, and whether indie developers like Rimworld and Songs of Conquest get a pass for complete base games followed by substantial expansions. Jack declares City Skylines has Paradox’s worst DLC catalogue. Al defends it with 6,000 hours of playtime praising Mass Transit and Industries expansions.

<a href="https://rss.com/podcasts/criticalmoves/2681061/">The DLC Debate: Best, Worst, and Everything In Bet | RSS.com</a>

Critical Moves Podcast – Episode 75 Show Notes

Episode Title: The DLC Debate: Best, Worst, and Everything In Between
Hosts: Al, Adam, Jack
Episode Length: ~53 minutes

Episode Summary

Episode 75 examines downloadable content strategy across strategy gaming. The conversation begins by defining excellent DLC as either expanding systems communities request or providing substantial content justifying price tags rather than free updates. Jack immediately cites Stellaris expansions Utopia and Mega Corporations as standouts. Adam champions Hearts of Iron 4’s No Step Back for completely overhauling gameplay through logistics systems that became the core experience.

The Paradox paradox emerges early. Despite recent criticism of Paradox’s DLC strategy, the hosts immediately reference Paradox titles when asked for great DLC examples. Publishing three to four expansions yearly means even a 10% success rate yields memorable content. Hearts of Iron 4’s No Step Back overhauled the entire game to the point where it could be called Hearts of Iron 5. Stellaris’ Utopia introduced ascension perks and megastructures that became essential rather than optional.

Victoria 3’s recent trade DLC exemplifies the “should have been in base game” debate. A game about Victorian era industrial expansion launched with almost non-existent trade mechanics between nations. The DLC completely adds international trade and infrastructure interactions through diplomacy. While this represents a Stellaris-calibre expansion, it feels controversial because these features should have existed at launch.

Civilization 7’s DLC disaster dominates discussion. Every DLC has overwhelmingly negative Steam reviews. Players feel content like two new leaders and two new wonders should have been included in the $70 base game rather than sold separately. Firaxis faces genuine existential crisis. Civilization 7 reached 80,000 concurrent players at launch but Civilization 5 and 6 overtook it within two months. For a company relying almost wholly on one franchise with nothing significant from XCOM since Marvel’s Midnight Suns in 2022, this represents serious threat.

Firaxis traditionally develops games for a generation, releases with positive reception, adds cosmetic DLC, then delivers two major expansions before moving to the next title. Civilization 7 disrupted this pattern. Negative reception forced Firaxis to forego normal DLC strategy and instead release free anniversary updates addressing community concerns. The hosts suspect Firaxis is firefighting – trying to fix the game while releasing small pre-prepared DLC to make spreadsheets look good and fund ongoing development.

The conversation distinguishes three DLC types. Microtransactions include species packs for Stellaris or content creator packs for City Skylines. Mechanics packs add substantial systems like Stellaris’ Astral Planes. Expansion packs represent older-style massive content additions. Al identifies Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance and Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour as favourites – essentially standalone games introducing fourth factions, new campaigns, and completely changed dynamics.

The shift from expansion packs to DLC happened around superfast internet adoption. Physical disc delivery required comprehensive packages due to storage constraints. Digital distribution through Steam eliminates these constraints, enabling smaller content drops but potentially encouraging unfinished base games with plans to add content over time. Adam offers his controversial take that expansion packs split into two delivery methods – mechanics in free updates and big changes in paid DLC.

Indie developers face different pressures. Smaller publishers and solo developers must release complete games to survive initial sales periods before considering DLC. Rimworld and Songs of Conquest shipped 100% complete base games, achieved success, and only then developed substantial expansions. However, planning DLC conceptually during base game development makes financial sense regardless of studio size since DLC costs less than entirely new titles.

The episode culminates in heated City Skylines debate. Jack declares it has Paradox’s worst DLC catalogue – cosmetic buildings and features like moving criminals from police stations to prisons that should be free updates. The first expansion added free day/night cycles but charged for minimal building additions. The race day expansion for the 11th anniversary should have been free given the game’s completed development. Al defends City Skylines through 6,000 hours of playtime, praising Mass Transit’s trams and airships, Campus’s university systems, Industries’ dedicated zones, and Airports’ international terminals. This perfectly encapsulates how personal investment determines DLC value perception.

What Makes Great DLC?

Excellent DLC either expands existing systems that communities request or fleshes out those systems so extensively that it justifies a price tag rather than being a free update. Good DLC makes positive contributions to existing content. Sometimes this means additional campaign missions functioning as sequels to the base game. The key distinction is whether content provides substantial value or simply feels like withheld base game content sold separately.

Jack’s Pick: Stellaris Expansions

Stellaris expansions set the gold standard for transformative DLC. Mega Corporations was fantastic before the 4.0 update ruined the playstyle. Playing a mega corporation was one of the most enjoyable approaches for years. Utopia stands as the must-buy expansion for anyone playing Stellaris. It introduced ascension perks, megastructures, and tons of features that future expansions built upon. The new spiritualist DLC Shadows of the Shroud continues this tradition for players focused on spiritualist empire builds.

The Paradox Paradox

The hosts recently criticized Paradox’s DLC strategy harshly. Yet when asked to name great DLC, they immediately referenced Paradox titles. This apparent contradiction reveals an important truth about Paradox’s approach. Publishing three to four DLC yearly means even a 70% failure rate still yields exceptional expansions. Quantity has a quality all its own, as Stalin supposedly said. If you publish something 10 times with a 10% success rate, you still find really great content.

Recent Hearts of Iron DLC only added two focus trees, which is minimal by comparison to earlier expansions. But standouts like No Step Back justify the entire catalogue’s existence through transformative gameplay overhauls.

Quantity Over Quality: Does It Work?

Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition receives criticism for DLC saturation without sufficient substance. Perafilozof recently questioned whether there’s enough content behind the constant stream of releases. Stellaris throws out three or four DLC yearly, maybe more with species packs and flavour packs. The question becomes whether getting new content at all is inherently good, or whether quality standards matter more than release frequency.

Victoria 3’s Trade DLC Controversy

Victoria 3’s recent trade DLC exemplifies the “should have been in base game” debate. Stellaris’ Utopia has become retrospectively controversial. When it released, players didn’t necessarily feel the base game was missing content. Utopia added ascension perks, megastructures, and tons of features that future expansions built upon. These features are now almost necessary to feel like you’ve played a complete Stellaris campaign.

Victoria 3 focuses on Victorian era industrial expansion, infrastructure development, and manufacturing growth. Yet at launch it had almost non-existent gameplay mechanics for trade between nations. No international market for goods existed. Landlocked countries struggling to maintain economies faced severe disadvantages. The new DLC completely adds international trade mechanics and infrastructure interactions through diplomacy.

While this represents a Stellaris-calibre expansion, it feels controversial because these features should have existed at launch for a game about Victorian era commerce and industry. How many people playing Victoria 3 at launch wanted features they had to wait several years for that should have been there at the beginning?

Stellaris Then vs. Now

Stellaris at release was considered a really basic game lacking depth. Reviews noted it felt incomplete. The current version features thousands of overlapping gameplay systems. Utopia changed the game fundamentally. Hearts of Iron 4’s No Step Back similarly overhauled core gameplay by adding railway systems that became the centrepiece of the entire experience. The game changed so completely it could be called Hearts of Iron 5.

Crusader Kings 2’s The Old Gods expansion allowed pagan kingdoms resisting Christianity’s onset and changed the game fundamentally. What makes DLC great, maybe just memorable, is when it changes so many things that people recognize the game before and after the expansion.

Did Paradox Always Plan to Flesh Out Games Over Time?

Ben Angel’s recent appearance on the innovation episode mentioned a Rome-type game where he realized he’d bought a vehicle for DLC rather than an actual game. This connects to future discussion about early-accessification where games release in poor states with anticipation that content will be added over time.

Stellaris represents Paradox’s first attempt at space 4X. They’d never done it before. Reviews in Polish websites said “Nice try. Let’s do it better next time.” Nobody thought about adding DLC that would change the game so fundamentally. Hearts of Iron 4 came after Paradox’s huge DLC policy wave. They likely forecasted ongoing support. But Stellaris is from the old age before this strategy solidified.

Adam’s Pick: No Step Back for Hearts of Iron 4

No Step Back for Hearts of Iron 4 added the whole logistics system to a game that already had four iterations. Before this DLC, Hearts of Iron 4 and 3 gameplay were quite similar. After this DLC, the whole dynamic changed and gave so many possibilities.

It’s even hard to find gameplay on YouTube without this DLC because everyone focuses on logistics. That wasn’t the case before. At this point, logistics defines the game. It’s about logistics and war. The game wasn’t good enough before. After, it’s excellent.

Honourable Mention: Civilization 5’s Brave New World

Civilization 5 had two major expansions: Gods and Kings and Brave New World. They’re hard to distinguish because together they changed the game so fundamentally that most players treat them as one package. Without these DLC, the game wasn’t complete. They added politics and diplomacy systems that should have been in the base game.

Firaxis vs. Paradox: Two Different Philosophies

Civilization tends to release a couple of DLC and then moves on to the next version. Firaxis has a completely different strategy to Paradox. Stellaris releases numerous monumental DLC. Megastructures stands out as brilliant. Stellaris releases many DLC whereas Civilization does two major expansions and then concludes support.

Firaxis’ strategy involves Sid Meier gathering the team to work on a game for a lifetime or generation. They release with generally positive reception, add cosmetic DLC and microtransactions, deliver two major expansions as a send-off, and move to the next title by the time DLC 2 arrives. They’re not doing live service strategy games like Paradox.

Civilization 7 disrupted this pattern. Enough negative reception forced Firaxis to forego normal DLC strategy. They’re still likely planning to release two major expansions like Civ 6 and Civ 5 received. But instead of getting DLC 1 or 2 by now, they’re getting free anniversary updates, test of time updates, and several smaller updates addressing community concerns.

Civilization 7’s DLC Disaster

Civilization 7 has released DLC that feels very light. Every single DLC for Civ 7 has overwhelmingly negative Steam reviews. The backlash stems from Firaxis appearing to adopt Paradox’s strategy by releasing two new leaders and two new wonders as paid content rather than substantial system additions like religion in older games.

Players feel this represents a complete change in strategy. Firaxis previously released mammoth DLC adding new features, new functions, and changed mechanics. Suddenly they’re releasing minimal content that should have been in the base game. Major blowback forced the free anniversary expansion as damage control.

Firaxis in Crisis

Nobody knows Firaxis’ exact strategy because they’re trying to extinguish the fire. The game still isn’t in a state to release meaningful DLC. But they have released DLC anyway. Every single one prompts the reaction: that should have been in the base game. Two new leaders and two new wonders could have easily been kept in the $70 base game. It’s almost as if content was deliberately cut to sell separately.

This represents predatory DLC practices. The same criticisms applied to Paradox must apply to Firaxis. At least when Paradox releases an expansion, it’s substantial and meaningful.

Firaxis’s Firefighting Strategy

Firaxis is doing two or three things simultaneously. First, they’re trying to fix the game. Second, they’re spending enormous money on development, bug fixing, and changing core gameplay while trying to make spreadsheets look good. They’re releasing DLC to raise money to keep working on fixes.

Imagine being Firaxis. They released something not in proper state. It doesn’t sell as expected. You can either fire the team or let them fix it. They’re trying to push numbers higher by releasing DLC they had prepared previously when they thought the game would sell well.

This is forced DLC. Third, they’re making precise calculations about fixes and bug fixes to maintain player belief. If they release DLC, players can say the game was fixed and the DLC changes lots of things and fixes more parts. They’re calculating what to fix, when to fix, what to add, what not to add, while pushing small DLC to make spreadsheets look better.

Paradox’s Portfolio Strength vs. Firaxis’s One-Franchise Dependence

Paradox is a bigger company that can weather storms of negativity. They typically get positive reactions and reception to DLC. If one doesn’t work, they’ve got all these other games to fall back on. City Skylines 1 just received the race day expansion for its 11th anniversary. Paradox almost has it nailed down despite releasing lots of DLC. They tend to be high quality and bring new things to games.

Firaxis’s last game before Civ 7 was Marvel’s Midnight Suns in 2022. That’s a long time between releases. Midnight Suns didn’t perform particularly well. Long periods without hits create problems when releases fail to meet expectations and subsequent DLC doesn’t resonate with players.

Firaxis faces potential existential crisis. They’re relying wholly on essentially one franchise with nothing significant from XCOM. One franchise must bankroll the entire studio.

Comparing Business Models

Firaxis has long lead time between development and release. Their business strategy requires making games that release with generally positive reception, adding cosmetic DLC or microtransactions, delivering two major expansions, then moving to pre-production for the next title by DLC 2’s release.

Whether Civ 7’s development cost exceeded budget relative to revenue from Midnight Suns and Civ 6 sales remains unknown. They might not be hurting for money. But businesses maximize profits, not just stay afloat. They need to justify efforts on Civ 7 through profitable spreadsheets.

Paradox purposefully releases games to gauge reception based on individual segmented teams’ work. Firaxis likely has only a handful or one or two major teams working on all games simultaneously. Paradox clearly has multiple dedicated teams for Stellaris, Victoria, and Hearts of Iron.

Paradox workshops games, releases them to see reception, takes community feedback, releases free updates consistently, and does expansions where free updates usually launch alongside to justify players returning and purchasing new content.

Imperator Rome as Paradox’s Own Failure

Civilization 7 compares better to Imperator Rome than Stellaris or Victoria 3. Paradox expected generally positive reception for Imperator Rome without reviews telling them how much work was needed to make the game a good platform for DLC.

If the game was received well, it would have had the same life cycle as Stellaris and Victoria 3. The problem was mixed reviews at launch. Reviews were optimistic but many said, “I want this game to be good, but it’s going to take years because it doesn’t justify itself in Paradox’s catalogue or against Total War.”

Paradox looked at sunk cost fallacy and decided it wasn’t worth time and money to continue working on that game as a platform for DLC. At the end of the day, they’re trying to make platforms for DLC.

The Concurrent Player Collapse

Civilization 7 reached 80,000 concurrent players when it first launched. Within two months, Civilization 5 and Civilization 6 had overtaken it in concurrent player counts. That’s a real concern for a company relying wholly on essentially one franchise. This represents a real issue for Firaxis’ future viability.

Three Types of DLC

Three distinct DLC categories exist. Microtransactions include species packs for Stellaris like aquatics or plants, or content creator packs for City Skylines. These add small cosmetic or minor gameplay additions.

Mechanics packs or standard DLC include expansions like the ones mentioned for Hearts of Iron and major Stellaris releases. These add substantial systems and features.

Expansion packs represent older-style massive content additions. Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance introduced a fourth faction, brand new campaign, and completely changed game dynamics. Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour added Generals challenges that opened up entirely new worlds for RTS. These were essentially standalone games despite being expansions.

The Shift From Physical to Digital

The change from expansion packs to DLC happened around superfast internet adoption. Physical media required going to shops and buying DVDs. Memory limits existed – couldn’t exceed 4.7GB on DVD. First games came on CD-ROM, going back to floppy discs for earlier titles.

Developers were restricted and had to maximize information on discs to sell products. They released games, returned to offices after release parties, and said, “Okay, let’s make our expansion pack.” They proceeded to create huge amounts of content optimized to fit on one data storage device.

Now these restrictions don’t exist. Digital distribution facilitates delivery of smaller packs. Everything is on storefronts like Steam. The transition from huge expansions introducing new levels, races, mechanics, game modes, and entire campaigns to smaller microtransaction-style releases and mechanics packs happened because digital delivery enables it.

Adam’s Controversial Take

Expansion packs disappeared in favour of DLC and updates. Developers took mechanics parts out of expansion packs and put them in free updates. They took big changes and put them in paid DLC. This split the traditional expansion pack model into two separate delivery methods.

The Economics of Pre-Digital Development

Before DLC entered common consumer vernacular, a completely different understanding existed about validating product prices. Games in the 1990s were packed full of content comparatively despite modern games being bigger, fancier, and prettier with larger development teams.

Small teams of four or five people innovated consistently in genres. Expansion packs existed because small teams created innovative strategy games without ability to pull community information about what people wanted. They released games, returned to offices, took the same tools with almost no changes, and kept making campaign missions. They’d design new factions and release without knowing community reception to original games.

That’s just how development worked. They weren’t worried about innovating on games as much as developers now need to justify new prices, new expansions, and new marketing angles. They were basically modding their own games using existing dev kits.

Do Restrictions Help or Hurt?

Physical media restrictions forced comprehensive packages. Developers maximized information on discs, released complete games, then created substantial expansion packs optimized for data storage devices. Now those restrictions don’t exist.

Is the absence of restrictions a negative? It allows developers to release unfinished games with plans to add content over time rather than being forced to ship complete products upfront.

The Indie Developer Exception

The discussion separates big publishers from indie games and smaller companies. Big publishers have strategies with everything prepared in advance. Paradox has year-long calendars and roadmaps. Firaxis is firefighting.

Smaller publishers or solo developers often do what was done in the past. They release complete games and only think about DLC if games sell successfully. They’re not planning in advance.

Rimworld exemplifies this approach. It was in early access, released as a huge success, and felt 100% complete at launch with nothing lacking. Developer communication indicated they weren’t prepared for such success and then prepared DLC afterward. This looks similar to older games that had physical releases requiring completely finished products.

Solo developers can’t afford to not release complete products. They need to encourage purchases before thinking about future content. Paradox has flat sales targets. Rimworld developers or Songs of Conquest developers didn’t know if games would succeed when creating them. They finished complete packages and decided on roadmaps after release rather than before.

Challenging the Charitable View

This may represent too much goodwill toward developers. If releasing a game, developers must have DLC in mind. Why wouldn’t they? Whether AAA or indie studios, if releasing games with belief in them, they start thinking about what DLC will be.

Indies must release comprehensive base games to ensure strong sales funding DLC development. Paradox can release vehicles for DLC because they’re financially strong, can take hits, and ensure DLC strategies keep them profitable over consistent periods.

Financial sense supports DLC planning regardless of studio size. DLC doesn’t need new engines, new settings, new lore, or new models. Developers create new maps or mechanics building on existing foundations. It’s cost effective to release DLC following base games. DLC costs less than entirely new titles.

AI War and Age of Empires 2 as Positive Examples

Regardless of DLC creation intentions, the concern isn’t vilifying DLC generally. Stellaris took 10 years to get DLC that would never have been part of base games. There’s no argument about cut content. These features required 10 years of feedback and fleshing out popular systems.

AI War from Arcen Games releases expansions with good reception because of content amounts. Chris McElligott-Park releases factions and entire new mechanic systems that vastly change gameplay. Positive Steam reviews for AI War 1 and 2 expansions discuss how games feel completely different with included mechanics or provide reasons to replay games. Expansion prices are justified.

Age of Empires 2 took an entire lifetime before getting cool story packs. These represent DLC done right – substantial content added to already complete base games.

City Skylines: Paradox’s Worst DLC?

City Skylines does some of the worst DLC in Paradox’s entire catalogue. The content subscription cannot be justified from all of City Skylines 1. Price tags or discounted prices don’t add meaningful content to games.

The first expansion added free day/night cycles and then added buildings. For players not caring about cosmetics who want features and mechanics, the value doesn’t exist. The snow DLC adds winter-themed maps but doesn’t add seasonal mechanics.

The first DLC that added free day/night cycle updates lets players take criminals from police stations to prisons as paid content. That’s update material for other Paradox games from the same publisher.

The race day expansion for the 11th anniversary should have been free. Development has ended. Paradox kicked Colossal Order aside, scoured their talent, and replaced them with new developers for City Skylines 2. City Skylines 2 came out middling with players asking for updates.

Paradox kicked Colossal Order to the curb, handed dev kits and engines to Tantalus (who does console ports and remasters), paid them a contract for this race day update, and put a price tag on it. This rings poorly as exploitation of a completed game’s 11th anniversary.

In Defence of City Skylines DLC

City Skylines is the second most played game after Stellaris with 6,000 hours logged. Many City Skylines DLC were brilliant and really enjoyed.

Mass Transit was great introducing trams and airships. Campus allowed entire university campuses. Industries was brilliant introducing forestry and oil industry dedicated zones. Airports allowed fully-fledged international airport construction.

The only missing expansions are the most recent ones like Plazas and Promenades and Financial Districts. This refers to major expansions introducing new mechanics, not content creator packs or smaller additions.

Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder

Maybe beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Loving a game intensely means appreciating and enjoying expansion packs. Thinking a game is merely alright makes players entirely dismissive of developers trying to introduce new content for something they’re not interested in.

This becomes the climax and summary. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, perfectly illustrated by completely different takes on City Skylines DLC quality based on personal investment and playtime.

Contact & Links

Episode Verdict

This episode provides essential framework for evaluating DLC practices across strategy gaming’s publisher spectrum. Three DLC types emerge with meaningful consequences. Microtransactions like Stellaris species packs provide cosmetic additions. Mechanics packs introduce new systems without completely transforming core gameplay. True expansion packs like Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance or Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour function as standalone-quality content fundamentally changing game dynamics.

Paradox emerges as controversial but ultimately successful. Publishing three to four expansions yearly means even 10% success rates yield memorable transformative content. Hearts of Iron 4’s No Step Back overhauled the entire game through logistics systems. Stellaris’ Utopia introduced ascension perks and megastructures that became essential rather than optional. Victoria 3’s trade DLC adds fundamental international market mechanics that should have existed at launch. Despite controversies, Paradox’s portfolio approach with dedicated teams allows weathering individual title storms.

Firaxis faces genuine crisis with Civilization 7’s disastrous reception. Every DLC has overwhelmingly negative Steam reviews because players feel content should have been included in the $70 base game. The game reached 80,000 concurrent players at launch but Civilization 5 and 6 overtook it within two months. For a company relying almost wholly on one franchise, this represents existential threat. Firaxis’ traditional strategy of developing games for generations then releasing two major expansions has been disrupted, forcing free anniversary updates rather than normal DLC progression.

The shift from physical expansion packs to digital DLC fundamentally changed content delivery economics. DVD and CD-ROM storage limitations forced comprehensive expansion packs. Digital distribution through Steam eliminates storage constraints, enabling smaller content drops but potentially encouraging unfinished base games with plans to add content over time.

Indie developers receive partial exemption from criticism through necessity. Solo developers and small teams must release complete products to survive initial sales periods. Rimworld and Songs of Conquest exemplify this by shipping complete base games, achieving success, and only then developing substantial expansions. However, planning DLC conceptually during base development makes financial sense regardless of studio size.

The City Skylines debate perfectly encapsulates how personal investment determines DLC value perception. One perspective sees Paradox’s worst DLC catalogue with cosmetic buildings and features that should be free updates. The opposite perspective through 6,000 hours of playtime praises Mass Transit, Industries, Campus, and Airports as brilliant expansions. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Loving a game intensely makes expansion packs feel valuable. Finding a game merely acceptable makes new content feel dismissive.

For publishers developing DLC strategies, players evaluating purchases, or developers planning post-launch support, this episode provides critical framework distinguishing transformative expansions from predatory microtransactions. The Paradox model succeeds through portfolio diversification despite individual controversies. The Firaxis model has collapsed under Civilization 7’s failure, forcing crisis management through free updates. Indie developers must ship complete games before considering expansions, but planning DLC during development makes financial sense. Quality ultimately depends on whether developers use DLC to extend beloved experiences or exploit player investment through minimal-effort cash grabs.

Next Episode: Non-strategy games for strategy gamers.

Discover more from Critical Moves

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.