مدیر فروشگاهToday, multiplayer games are on the rise. And the developers realized that with good long-term support, the game could bring much more profit. And now they provide new content for almost free, instead of selling everything in card packs for $15 as before. And although DLC has now become more optional to purchase, its importance has changed significantly over time.
Lukas Rajcevik discusses how downloadable add-ons have changed in recent years and what the problem is with this using the example of Battlefield 1 “In the Name of the Tsar”.
So I played the latest addition to Battlefield 1 “In the Name of the Tsar”. It has new modes, maps and weapons. Which gave excellent variability, an amazing picture and an awesome arsenal. But in the end I was disappointed, and this is not the fault of the game itself. She just has worse symptoms.
In the last generation of games, multiplayer was mainly supported after release through downloadable content, which became more expensive over time. In this same generation, most games provide content for free, making money from microtransactions and loot boxes. Of these two evils, I still prefer the lesser. I prefer to pay for the game once rather than shell out an extra 15 or 20 bucks over time for additional benefits.
But at the same time, the new content does not have its own basis, as it was before. Maybe this thought comes from my cynicism. But as with the sudden onset of the Russian winter, it seems to me that the priority of modern DLC has noticeably changed compared to those that came before.
Take for example these multiplayer games: Titanfall 2, Halo 5: Guardians, Overwatch
They all use a popular model and spend years solidifying their foundations. But without preliminary acquaintance, could anyone tell what the differences are between the version of the game at the start and after significant updates? In the case of Halo 5 levels like Urban, Torque And Tyrant bring external diversity, but inside they have nothing new.
These maps have a different layout than the ones on release, but they don’t add any gameplay features to the core experience.
New levels in Overwatch make dynamic changes, but in small doses. Like for example the bridge on Eichenwalde in escort mode, or reaching the lunar surface with zero gravity at Horizon. But these are only a few separate sections of the maps, while the rest of the levels play identically to their predecessors.
And here we have Battlefield https://3dicecasino.co.uk/mobile-app/ 1, which does not look at the presence of an expensive premium, shares similar differences. To eliminate any fears about this expansion, I will say that it has good variety and scenarios.
But if you look at what EA calls an “add-on”, it turns out that in all this time, only one new level really brought something new to Battlefield 1: Albion.
In this map, players control boats to capture points located on many islands. But fans of the series are already familiar with this gameplay thanks to the recent Battlefield 4 and even Battlefield 1942.
This is where the main problem lies. Today’s additions do not “complement” the game, but only “expand”. They do not bring a new gaming experience, but one that has already existed before. They don’t offer new ideas, they just dress up old ones.
Another example of dressing up: the controlled bomber “Ilya Muromets” for an airstrike is nothing more than a controlled bomber from “China Rising” and an airstrike from Battlefield 1943.
Now, in the case of Overwatch and Halo 5, there is an explanation for this. These games build their dynamics around characters and abilities – which is why the levels have to be adjusted to them.
Halo 5 is all about movement: dodging, charging, striking, climbing, and running. That is why the levels here are so large and have a lot of free space.
Overwatch has more than 20 heroes, each of which should be equally playable. And its large patches no longer introduce new cards, but rather new heroes, each of which slightly expands the experience.
You can understand why, for example, Blizzard doesn’t experiment with level design and doesn’t fool itself with it. But for Battlefield 1 this far-fetched explanation sounds like a coincidence.
The new elements from In the Name of the Tsar may be fun, but none of them make this DLC unique. The same cannot be said about “Close Quarters” or “Armored Kill” for Battlefield 3. Or “Vietnam” from Bad Company 2. Even with the additions to the very first part it cannot be compared.
They not only improved the balance of infantry and armored vehicles, but also introduced new gameplay features and modes. Previously, expansions in the Battlefield series took the main game as a basis and seriously expanded it. Remember, for example, the jetpack in The Secret Weapon of WWII, grappling hook from Special Forces or a special design for each level from any DLC for the third part. And what they added to “They Shall Not Pass” and “In the Name of the Tsar” is not even close to this.
“Close Quarters” focused on skirmishes with infantry, “Back to Karkand” allowed you to see your favorite maps from Battlefield 2 in a new light, “Armored Kill” added giant maps for large-scale tank battles, and “End of the Game” gave maps corresponding to different seasons.
Battlefield 1 has two more additions that could fix this. But the release of Battlefront 2, Call of Duty WWII and Destiny 2 suggests that DICE will have little interest in this and will follow the general trend. Multiplayer games in general have moved towards services. Something that will be reliable and constant. But we still have players who would happily appreciate the original game without the additions, patches and everything else that came to it. And they would be happy to remember what attracted them the first time.
Remember those glorious times when Team Fortress 2 didn’t have hats, Counter-Strike wasn’t played for weapon skins, and Mercy in Overwatch calmly revived several fallen comrades at a time? And I remember. But we won’t be able to try these games in this form.
New DLC has its benefits for both players and developers. The first ones get what they want and continue to enjoy the gaming experience with which they are already familiar. At the same time, developers can create content using fewer resources.
Ubisoft announced that it plans to introduce about 100 operatives into Rainbow Six: Siege. Well, since apart from their weapons they differ only in how they knock down doors and what mines they lay, their plan is quite feasible.
This practice would be quite suitable for small indie developers like Insurgency And Chivalry: Medieval Warfare. Which, thanks to free content, would attract more and more audiences. But certainly not for paid add-ons for games that already have their own fan base and which we often saw in the seventh generation.
But the best additions and DLC for both single and multiplayer games became famous precisely because they moved their original source forward. They are known for their uniqueness, originality and significance. But at the same time, they did not prevent you from experiencing the original the same way it was on release. And this is a feeling that has disappeared from multiplayer games in recent years.
Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3, despite their years of evolution, replenish this magic. And Battlefield 1 and many other games are already something that, as for me, I can no longer appreciate with a fresh look. This is what I miss so much.
If you are interested in more translations, then everything is in my VK public page and in my personal blog StopGame.
