Search for new games to share.
Syntax for writing comments.
Frequently asked questions.
Community rules and guidelines.
Comment has been collapsed.
This seems clunky.
The system has some benefits, but it's not really huge. The filters are pretty useless, as the tags often apply to all DLC or almost none. The top sellers category could be interesting, if it wouldn't be empty (or only reflect recent sales).
The actual volume of DLC for the games listed in Valve's announcement is insane. Fantasy Grounds: 1166 DLC; Train Simulator 2019: 568.
Anyway, can't speak to the usefulness of this, but those DLC quantities were pretty eye opening.
Only if you consider all DLC "a must" to complete some imaginary thing. Most of games like these have DLC as to provide a collection of pieces for fans to make their own set-up, so to speak. Buy a base game. Buy a few trains you like. Buy a route or two you prefer. Play, enjoy, drive it 1000 times. That's it.
Trying to buy every TS dlc would be as silly as trying to buy all the model trains and little houses and human figurines and ramps and towers and... you know what I mean.
Sure, for games like Witcher 3, not buying let's say heart of Stone makes you miss a piece of story. Nothing is missing if you don't own a very specific steam loco from 1786. You have another one. Unless, you really really want that single one. But then you ignore all the rest of them.
I think whether you consider them to be must own or not, having 500 pieces of DLC available for one game is excessive under any circumstance.
I mean, would you do that? Would you create a new paid DLC for each recipe in GnC? For example.
It's simply a different model. You also should consider, at least in Train Simulator's case, that the base game is upgraded for free each year to the current edition. As NB264 points out, this isn't your typical DLC model where you're required to own everything in order to "not miss out." It's an à la carte option that appeals to collectors/enthusiasts, which is typically the standard consumer for actual train sets and such.
This isn't to claim that the model is perfect or anything. It's just one of the varied approaches we're seeing with the rise of "games-as-a-service."
"It's simply a different model"
No pun intended? :)
I understand your point though. It's basically a virtual train hobbyists store.
No, what I've considered is W3-type free DLC that brings in a new level / mini campaign set in a separate setting... but decided against it in the end for some technical reasons (I've added challenge level nr 2 in the game itself as new content instead). Might go back to that idea if I ever finish GnC2.
But that's not against my point. Some games work with a few "required" dlc, others have millions of them like LEGO. You don't need every LEGO ever made, you just need those sets you like and want to combine. That's how it is with TS.
And one big thing that explain "more DLC's at ALL Games (not only this 2), as the most gamers like it", Steam take lower payment for DLC's then for maingames. So the Devs hold the maingame "cheap" and add content with DLC's. That brings them much more money als a higher priced maingame with the "main DLCs" inside.
If i like it or not i can understand that step.
Steam take lower payment for DLC's then for maingames
Steam take lower payment for DLC's then for maingames
Can you link any source for this? Internet is big, but this is the first time I've heard of this statement...
No, i readed it at one or 2 sg threads a few days ago. I think by a epic thread where the people talked about the much cheaper prices of epic for the devs.
And when i remember me right it was a dev that wrote that.
I know you are a dev too so maybe you have other sources (too) to find it out/question.
Don't make you think if developer needs to ask you for source your claim?
Not all devs knows all..
Not each human knows all...
And when he 100% sure known it isn't true he not questioned for the source...
He can now dig deeper or not. His choice (and everybody else too).
sg isn't important for me and i use it maybe 1% from the time 6 months ago. I havent enough energy and don't waste it at online things, so i will not dig deeper and try to find answers because it really isn't important for me
I'm a tabletop gamer and I've used Fantasy Grounds myself (although not the Steam version). It's a virtual alternative for tabletop gaming that supports multiple systems from multiple publishers each with multiple rulebooks and adventures - let alone all of the optional cosmetic add ons, etc. It isn't really part of the traditional game/DLC model - it's effectively a platform unto itself that happens to be available through Steam. I'm not saying it is either right or wrong - but it is certainly one of the things that should make certain +1 completionists sit down and have a deep think...
Not a fan.
I have never been a fan of the big icons / tables, are they trying to make it mobile friendly? Cus there's no point, steam is on PC, not like you can install the games on mobile. Changing things for the sake of change is a huge waste of time and resources. I always chose compact views on everything like gmail and other sites.
Maybe it'll dissuade games from making too many dlcs since it's harder to browse and buy? Being hopeful here.
It would have been better if it was left the same with "view all" on top as an extra option
plus correct me if I'm wrong, now I have to go to each dlc page and add them to cart individually rather than checkbox and add to crate, right ?
They listened to feedback for once and added back the View All list on the store page.
Wow, they actually did. I can use the "See all" button working again.
But did they do it or maybe it's my enhanced steam plugin who bring it back 😅😅
The only positive thing I can say about this is the ability (if the developer makes a list) for different types of DLC to be listed together. (e.g. New levels could be listed separately from new characters, skins, or soundtracks, etc.)
But navigating that listing is now an awful bloated mess.
I can't help but wonder how they thought this was ready to go public.
When I'm browsing DLC, I want to know how much there is for one game, the cost of owning everything (the old simple list also fails to accomplish that when some of the listings are packs of DLC), whether or not I already own the content, the cost for each item individually, what the content actually is (the scope of the content), and how well received each piece of content is. (Also, if there's unavailable exclusive DLC, which the old listings don't show either.)
The new interface helps marginally with one of those things (scope of the content) and fails completely to improve upon the old listing in every other aspect.
Woulda been nice if they implemented easier access to a list for DLC for all games owned, I personally don't care for the bazillion of DLC Train Simulator has.
Oddly enough a few sales had that, but not anymore and just during sales. Like... what?
Just like the (now not so) new developer/publisher pages -- just unusable for my old brain and small screen. What's wrong with a simple list? Sure, redesign if you have nothing better to do, but give me a way to opt out so I can keep the old one that just worked.