Topic: Can Sequels work as DLC instead of the actual new game?

Sometimes I wonder why many franchises don't get a sequel and two things come to mind. The first is that the games need to sell really well. The second comes to the designer's decision whether or not to make a sequel.

So I was observing DLC and I wonder, can DLC work as means of making sequels? You're having new content in it, the art assets don't have to be tweaked and most of all, you can easily tweak the game mechanics to improve on the original rather than making the whole sequel as its own content.

I guess it could to some degree. Super Mario Galaxy 2 would have probably worked well in this format.

Yup Galaxy 2 could've easily been about 5 different DLC packs for the original.

I wish they'd do the same with 3D World. Of all the games that've got post-release attention, I'm sad that's got nothing.

Going with the Galaxy example though. Galaxy 1 sold something like 11 million copies and Galaxy 2 sold about 7 million. I doubt you'd get that high a percentage of buyers with DLC.

This has already been done a lot, on various systems.

• New Super Luigi U (Wii U)
• InFamous: First Light (PS4)
• Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare (PS3/360)
• InFamous: Festival of Blood (PS3)

I'm sure there are other examples as well. Most of these are stand alone DLC games (some got a physical release later on), but also are connected to the last mainline games in their series (as a prequel, side adventure, or sequel), and as such you get the most out of them if you played the previous entry first.

Destiny's DLC packs are gigantic, enough so that they probably could have been a game by themselves.

The biggest problem with releasing a sequel as DLC instead of a new game is that only people with the original can purchase the new game, and how many people own that game still? Many sequels take years to release and it is unlikely for many people to keep a game that long and on top of that, it is unlikely for people to re-buy the game then buy the DLC sequel. Releasing a new game allows them to reach a wider audience and expand on mechanics using different engines and different technology, while DLC runs off the same tech as the original game just more content.

maybe it would make sense to do what they did with the new luigi bros u, where you can get it as dlc if you still have the original, or get it as a standalone game for a bit more if you don't have the original.

@DefHalan: I took long to observe this face so my apologies for not responding soon. But if you observe, sequels these days just modify the previous engine and make it better. I'm thinking as in what if you don't need the original to play the DLC? What if they were stand alone games on their own acting like episodes?

I think that people generally expect bigger and better from sequels whereas DLC often gets a free pass at being more of the same. True that DLC can be used to extend the life of a base game for years (look at World of Warcraft) but there soon comes a point where that original base game is looking stale and behind current technologies.

This is quite common practice, particularly more so in the past, with many games utilising assets from previous games as a basis for their sequels (in some cases, prequels), here are some examples that immediately spring to mind...

Super Mario Bros. 2 - What is known outside of Japan as "The Lost Levels", SMB2 recycled assets from the original Super Mario Bros. game. What's changed is that there are new levels, and some very minor changes (such as the addition of wind, poison mushrooms etc.).
Spear of Destiny - A prequel to Wolfenstein 3D which used the same engine and graphics as Wolfenstein 3D. The only changes is that there were some new textures, five new boss enemies, and one new non-boss enemy (boss enemies from the previous game were excised). Contains 21 levels as opposed to the original's 60.
Doom II - Used the same engine, enemies and graphics as the original Doom game. Includes several new monsters and some new textures and one new weapon.
Planet Strike - Used a slightly enhanced version of the engine used to create Blake Stone: Aliens of Gold, which was an enhanced version of the engine used to create Wolfenstein 3D. Some of the regular enemies from the previous game were given a "mutated" palette swap, boss monsters from the previous game are now treated as regular enemies (with low HP to match), and there are a small number of new enemies as well.
Pokemon Gold, Silver and Crystal - Possibly made using an enhanced version of the engine used to power Red/Blue/Yellow. Contains very similar gameplay and mechanics.
Pokemon HeartGold/SoulSilver - Uses the same engine as Diamond/Pearl/Platinum.
Pokemon Black/White/Black 2/White 2 - Uses an enhanced version of the engine used to create the previous main series Pokemon games released during the lifespan of the Nintendo DS family of systems.
Pokemon Omega Ruby / Alpha Sapphire - Uses the same engine as Pokemon X & Y. Contains some new graphics to differentiate it from the past game. Contains a small number of new 3D models, however, the overwhelming majority were lifted directly from X & Y.

There are countless other examples though.

I don't mind developers reusing existing assets if it means releasing entries in a franchise more regularly (such as the Pokemon games) or if the new content justifies a separate full release. In fact, Nintendo has done that many times this generation alone, with many 3DS games having a Wii U counterpart of some kind, such as Super Mario 3D Land on 3DS to the Wii U's 3D World, and the 3DS' Mario Tennis Open to the Wii U's Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash. I strongly doubt that the Wii U games would have been built entirely from scratch, particularly since the animations and gameplay between the two versions are so similar, if not identical.

I understand that DLC is a way for publishers to recoup the costs of development and to make a sustainable profit without raising the cost of video games at retail (as this would put off many consumers, particularly in an age where many have been spoiled by the ease of piracy and "free-to-play" mobile titles), but in some cases, I'd be happy to pay for a separate retail release where the additional content is substantial enough to justify it.

Thread title just defined the extinct expansion packs.

Essentially I would say, no. Sequels are designed to be the equal of the original while DLC (even standalone DLC) are essentially expansions. What I would rather see is more DLC built that can be turned into standalones and have them sit in the mid-tier price wise. New Super Luigi U, Dragon Age: Awakening, Undead Nightmare, and Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon are a few good examples of this. They all basically took an already built engine and remixed it up for something different.

Any sequel that could have just been DLC is a terrible sequel.

Then all sequels are terrible. DLC could technically even work in a different engine.

Point to some examples, please.

Examples of what could be? I don't know of any DLCS that boot up a different engine, I just know it is possible.

So then your point was unnecessary, as it applies to zero cases of actual existing DLC.
But sure, all sequels are terrible in the hypothetical scenario where DLC is actually made in a new engine instead of releasing a sequel.

I want more companies to reuse their existing games as small standalone downloadable spin-off titles. Like DLC but you don't need the original game to be able to play it.

My point was you were generalizing to make a point. So I generalized back to make your generalizing pointless.