Playtonic Confirms Post-Release DLC as the Next Stretch Goal for Yooka-Laylee

Keep looking upwards!

If it gets there, I'll be glad to take my free DLC.

It's 2 million pounds, not dollars. The DLC goal is not met (yet).

I don't recall them saying that this is the final stretch goal....just that any additional money raised will be used to polish and improve the game in addition to adding the DLC. They said the same exact thing with the orchestrated music stretch goal.

Not that I'm saying that they will continue to add stretch goals after this one is met, only that we can't assume that this is the final one.

Good DLC practices... hard to come by nowadays but damn well lovely to experience.

@brewsky Did they? I took the closing phrase of "improving and polishing the game" as PR speak for just hiring more coders and designers.

@MitchVogel Well...perhaps. But they said this when they announced the £1.5 mil stretch goal:

"Any extra money we raise will of course go towards improving and polishing the game."

Well they can still polish the game and use the extra money to make more content afterwards.

@brewsky Well, then, maybe they are planning more! Now I'm quite curious to see how far this will go. We still have over a month...

Fan of the approach, would be nice if this is the way it always is, in other Yooka-Laylee news, they've announced a Snake called 'Trowza'. Glad to see the British humour isn't missing in this one!

I don't think this would normally be my type of game but I must admit i'm quite looking forward to it now. I haven't backed it up to now, but the free dlc pack does make it quite tempting

Why cant more devs think like that ? First the base game and if there is money left and / or sales come in pretty quickly, and your team still has some pretty good ideas, then its time for DLC.

Nice! I am glad there seems to still be a market for 3D platforms since those were the vast majority of what I played as a kid and frankly I have been starved for one ever since Psychonauts. Time for a comeback I say!

@onery Like those in a game called... let me see... Mario Kart 8.

They got me at their 1 000 000 stretch goal! If only Slightly Mad Studios could have done the same

@onery I have no idea how this could possibly be considered good practice. A kickstarter game should never have paid DLC as far as I'm concerned. Even if backers get it free. The only reason I can sort of understand is because it seems Playtonics is at least paying for some of the development out of their own pocket.

@Fee Why is a kickstarter game any different from a game with a publisher? It's good DLC practice because A)Everything is free to backers B)They're only making it after the game releases and C)It will probably be good DLC not the 'pay $5 and we'll give you a blue shirt' type of DLC. (Basing off of how passionate Playtonic seem to be)

@Fee To reply to your good self, one will have to take a trip back in time back to when there exists a concept called 'Expansion Paks'. Back then when games were completed and pushed out to retail, developers set about making extra content for their games, maybe new campaigns or new units, and sold them as Expansion Paks. Some major examples include Warcraft 2: The Dark Portal, Red Alert: Aftermath and Doom 2: Hell on Earth; all of which expanded on their respective games with extra content. Granted there were a few expansion Paks that felt tacked on and honestly unnecessary (e.g. most of The Sims costumed expansion paks... Ughhh), but the benefits of adding content past a game's release to lengthen a game's lifespan outweighed poorly tacked on content that most well-informed consumers could avoid.

Sounds familiar? Replace 'Expansion Paks' with 'DLC' and you've got this gaming generation in the last paragraph (of course replacing names where necessary). However with the ease of digital distribution and the growing apathy towards proper game development in lieu for greater profit, we are seeing an ever increasing number of publishers/distributors pulling off shady practices, the cardinal sin in particular being cutting off content made during a game's development cycle and selling that as extra content. Day One DLC is the Devil's piss as it just means that developers willingly made their complete game incomplete by gating off content they know they have completed in order to make the extra twenty dollars or so.

I digressed a bit, but the point I'm trying to make is that DLC is not the inherent evil it's painted out to be. I for one am happy if a developer takes the time after they finish a game and release it to return to the game and add on new levels, characters, modes, etc etc that expands on the original game. I paid for good expansions in the past and I'll do so for good DLC.

PS: A note about Day One DLC... There will always be that 'Game of the Year Edition' that packs that in with almost every other content they'll eventually release so if you really want a game of that sort, practice patience maybe? Unless you're a reviewer of some sort or someone who works with games, you don't need to be up to date with that sort of thing. Only way to reduce bad DLC like that is to not partake in it at all.

DLC is something I just don't understand, especially for a small start-up like Playtonic. When they finish the game, I'd rather they move on and start working on their next title, rather than staying stuck on this one project.

Yacht Club is another example: I've had Shovel Knight for a year now, yet I know they won't be working on anything new for a while, thanks to the amount of promised DLC they've yet to deliver for that game.

Am I the only one that's actually somewhat wary about them announcing DLC if two million pounds gets raised? Like I can understand if it's during the period where the game goes gold but before the Kickstarter period even ends? Like, why is DLC even in Playtonic's mind now? This is not something that they need to be worried about right now; it shouldn't be a concern up until the game gets released. While it's good that they clarified it would work on it after the game releases, they shouldn't have to pressure themselves to add onto more contents after the game is finished as they already got enough to work with.

Glad there waiting after the game is out for it.

@onery I'm not going to mince words or act like I care what was said. Your long-winded response is just annoying to be honest. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm wondering something and though I haven't read your full post(Probably not even three full sentences but I skimmed to get the geist of it) I doubt it answered my question.

I have no problem with paid DLC, not even day one, however this is a fan-funded game. How is it right to make a stretch goal, and have fans cover the development costs, for something that'll line your pocket? It should be free since it's not costing you anything to make it why is it costing the consumer? Answer me that. And why dothe people who payed for the game only get the DLC free? They should get the game free because they're the ones who funded it. Everyone shoud get the DLC free.

In case my post was also tl:dr or the way I write is too confusing, only read this next part and ignore the rest.
Question: Why charge extra for something someone else paid for?

Answer that and leave out the pointless history lesson about Expansion packs. I can think of one answer myself. "You're going to charge for the game fans paid for so why not the DLC?" I think that's a pretty good answer, and it's fine if you think that answer's good enough. For me however, acting like the DLC is somehow seperate from the main project seems wrong to me here. They got all the funding at the same time, and even if they start making the DLC later it's still the same project. It's not like real DLC where a seperate budget is assigned for you to make additional content, this is all one budget. Besides getting a game funded for you is already a huge blessing and you get free money(I bet man-hours are covered in Kickstarter as well) when you sell the product so why do you need more? It's like you give someone ingredients to make you and your friends a burger. They tell you the burger will taste better with condiments so you give them those to add to it. They then charge you and your friends $2.00 each per burger and your friends have to pay an additional .50 for the condiments. Seems like bull to me but I guess some would say it's proper compensation for the workload. That's also not a perfect example since the backers that have to buy the game didn't give all that much, and the example assumes you gave all the ingredients...which no individual fan did. Anyway that answer is pretty good and might be good enough for some(which is ok) but not for me. If others are fine with it, cool but I'm not. Do you have another answer?

P.S. @onery: Sorry,(I'm not really sorry) I know I didn't answer you in the most civil way but a long post that had practically nothing to do with what I said(at least the beginning of it didn't but like I said, haven't read it all yet) or asked ticked me off. I guess I'll read your whole post now even though the condescending "well back in the day they had" will make me have a hard time. I hope you don't still have problems figuring out what I have a problem with but judging by past conversation's it wouldn't surprise me if you do. That's not a slight against you unless you still don't understand, that's a slight against the others I've met. Heck, maybe it's a slight against me, maybe I just have a weird way of talking that's difficult to understand. I doubt that's it because I've seen it happen to other people a lot too but maybe they have the same problem. Yeah, I understand my post also comes across as condescending but you had it coming. I don't usually see posts as blatantly combative as the one I'm making here, so maybe this post will get deleted, or I'll get banned but if that's the case I don't belong here anyway. I'm still debating with myself whether I hate comments more than I like them or not so I'll let the people in charge here decide whether I'll stay.

@Monado_III: Thank you for a good answer, though I completely missed it after my ( admittedly sensitive) button was pressed. I disagree that it's the same thing, and depending on the final price 5$ might be high. For example if it's like Mighty no.9 where the game is(numbers might be wrong) $20 and the DLC is like $11 it seems wrong. Is the game 55% bigger with that DLC? I doubt it. I'm kind of assuming this game will be $30 though so I guess $5 is cool. Anyway, if you're fine with the DLC that's fine. I won't argue with you it's your money/philosophy. Also backers who pay a certain amount get everything free and the DLC is possibly free even if you only give a penny(I haven't checked for asterisks yet) so it's a bit justifiable in that way. I still don't like it though.

@onery: I read your full post and I'm sorry(for realsies this time, like almost 68% sorry) it was not nearly as condescending as it seemed based on the first sentence but it had nothing to do with my issue. I also worded my first comment in a bad way, or rather it would have sounded better if I'd left out the first sentence. "I don't see how this could be seen as good practice."(paraphrasing?) sets the wrong tone. My bad bro.(sis?) Forgive?

Edit: Actually I said "I have no idea how this could possibly be considered good practice." which is really bad and makes me almost 6% more sorry. Makes it sound like I think you're an idiot for thinking it's good practice, which I don't. I legitimately had no idea why you'd think that, but I can sort of understand now, after thinking about it some more. Anyway, derp. It was my bad...well more like 82% my bad but I digress.

@fee no problem and no harm done guv. I do have a tendency to rattle on and on so I understand if my post/replies can feel out of place or as you put it feel condescending but believe me when I say that I have no such intentions. Personally, I believe history can teach us a great number of things and hence why I linked expansion paks of the past to DLC in response to your initial query. Also I like a good debate, even if I'm not the most eloquent or the most informed person to do so. Still, it is an opportunity to see both sides of a coin and I like that.

With that said, I'll just add some of my last couple of cents to your question: "Why charge extra for something someone else paid for?" [A little warning, I did mention that I do tend to go on, so be prepared for a long post if you can be bothered to read it (believe me, I have to prepare myself to read such posts myself). I'll try to leave a tl;dr option at the end but I fear it may not accurately surmise my post and thoughts so be forewarned.]

Honestly, as a standalone question it is a rather loaded question. I mean, one could answer that that's how business works. A retailer buys goods from a wholesaler and resells the goods at a marked up price to consumers for profit. It's standard business practice at best and honestly unless the retailer is marking up the prices to exorbitant prices, it's hard to fault the retailer as the profits obtained only serve to allow his/her business to continue running.

However, I understand that of course that this isn't really what you mean. With added context of Kickstarter and games, the question fleshes out a bit enough to perhaps provide some insight when attempting to answer the above question.

Having looked up some Kickstarter games for comparison, I've come up with some thoughts on the issue. Taking one of the more successful titles to have come out from KS incubation, Shovel Knight, one observes that while in the campaign itself it didn't outright promise DLC as stretch goals, during development the decision was made to have the extra features added to the game as post-launch DLC and to concentrate the main development time on polishing and releasing the game. It was also decided that these extra features were to be released as free DLC. So with this we have one of the best games of 2014 in a more or less complete form with extra content on the way for existing owners of the game. The only downside to this is that while working on these extra content, they are very much dependent on sales of Shovel Knight to float them (remember, they are a small indie company initially relying on crowdfunding) until they can plan and develop the next game. The extra DLC includes a remixed adventure featuring Plague Knight, a battle mode where one can play as bosses and a gender swap mode. Quite how much of these will see the light of day is not yet known (though I hope all of them do), but all these features add up to basically another Shovel Knight game potentially doubling the original game's lifespan. With this, had the developers at Yatch Club games decide to charge (reasonably) for this expansion I believe it may be a fair option.

Hand of Fate, another Kickstarter success, is a roguelike adventure involving cards. In the game's Kickstater pitch, stretch goals were introduced which include exclusive cards available only for Kickstarter backers as thanks for donating towards the game's development. Now these cards probably were just different in design and may not impact gameplay too drastically, however there still remains the fact that for non-KS backers the game is inherently incomplete with missing cards available only for KS backers. I don't believe the cards are planned to be released as DLC so the game will remain ever slightly less than that experienced by backers.

Finally Shadowrun Returns. This game was again, another wildly successful Kickstarter game and with the main game's development complete, the developers went immediately to working on what is effectively an expansion pak, Shadowrun Returns: Dragonfall. This once completed was released as paid DLC as an expansion that could only be played if you had the original game; though they released a director's edition that had Dragonfall as a standalone game with extra maps. With this, the developer is free to do what they like with their funds obtained from what is effectively the game, it's DLC and the DLC's final form. They have opted to go for another Kickstarter, which in itself isn't inherently bad as they have proved themselves competent from their previous one.

With these three examples we already see various approaches different developers have taken to pitch their games and subsequently deliver them. Keep in mind these examples are the more honorable of their kind and I recognize that there are many many dubious examples in Kickstarter. In light of DLC however we see the many ways one can introduce them, whether as free updates, exclusives or even as development completely separate and not mentioned at all in the original pitch.

In the case of Yooka-Laylee, the developer have decided to make an upper level stretch goal as a promise to work on post-launch DLC that will have no impact on current development for the game in question and to have it free for backers. This implies that the DLC will be available for non-backers and hence exclusivity will not be an issue. Also with what they said they want to avoid (feature bloating of funds causing effectively the Double Fine Adventure kerfuffle) they stressed that any additional funding will be used to improve on current features. This is not to say that this is foolproof but should they portion off and set aside an appropriate amount from the donated funds to work on the DLC (instead of blowing it all on extravagant parties and unrelated stuff) then it can be said that the backers have also funded the DLC (keep in mind that funding does not equate development, it is the prelude to). With that in mind, the fact that the backers get it free while non-backers have to pay for it is somewhat justified I feel. Also with sales from the game and its DLC the developers will have something to float them till their next project so we won't see them go down anytime soon (not that Yatch Club games are I believe, as sales of their main game should be strong enough to last till their next development process for their next game).

tl;dr It's not really about charging extra, but actually having the DLC or expansion as paid content rather as free updates. There exist many reasons and justifications for either side but really as long as the developers in question (Playtonic, if you're reading this make the collect-a-thon magic come back! ) are competent, trustworthy and deliver a strong and awesome product. If so, the question we should really ask is: "What does the DLC consist of and how much is it?" Should the DLC be a bunch of clothes for $6.99 then that's a rip-off, even for free. On the other hand if the DLC consists of several new levels, new multiplayer modes, new items and even secret playable characters… if it were to be priced at $6.99 one would feel as if Playtonic were selling themselves for cheap.

Note to all: remember in the end that in the end, Kickstarter is a platform for introducing ideas and concepts in exchange for funding and not a storefront. Project creators of course tempt backers with promises of delivering the products touted in question and this cannot be equated to a preorder as in the vast majority of products shown are mere concept arts, flash-in-the-pan ideas or even someone's rambling they decided to record and stick it onto their campaign's page. I don't blame fee's hesitance or disdain at Playtonic's recent announcement of their final stretch goal as really the history of Kickstarter has taught us to become so. I myself have backed numerous projects that are either in dev hell, delayed to bits or even just not working 'as advertised' (lol). That said, if a developer is being transparent with their plans for the donated money, shown competency in their relative fields and not lied or misled backers, then by all means contribute to those projects with caution and careful thinking.

I usually like to talk about DLC. @onery you cured me. I have no idea if I agree with you or not, but I just can't deal with that much text. lol.

@onery
I used to like debate, but now I hate it. People will not listen to you for anything. If it's an argument it's just a bad idea for me to get into it. If it's a question it's fine. That's why I'm not trying to convince you of anything. That's when it gets bad. This is just a question and answer. That can easily become a debate but I'm trying to practice avoiding that.

Yeah, I'd heard of Shovel Knight's DLC and the fact that they were giving out their DLC for free is part of the reason I was against other's DLC being paid. That said it makes sense that not all developers can afford that model and would need an additional cashflow between games. They don't know if they can always rely on kickstarter so it makes sense to try to get some extra money in the bank. I'm surprised(not really) that I didn't think of that myself. Anyway that is a much better answer and one I actually think justifies it. I still don't necessarily like it but it makes sense to try not to rely fully on kickstarter in the future. Honestly I was thinking of these companies more as dream hobbies(which I'm sure some of them are) than businesses and that's a bit of a mistake. Still, most businesses have to go through a bank, pitch their ideas to them, and take out a loan if they can't cover their costs. A nearly riskless endeavor like kickstarter can easily be taken advantage of so of course I still don't trust these things fully. Not to mention they get to keep all profits rather than having to repay the sponsors, plus tons of free advertising. Like I said in my previous post it's free money, but how much they're gonna need now and in the future really depends. If they think they need the "extra" it might actually be justified. I'm not that business smart so I can't really say either way.

That Hand of Fate would seriously bother me if I was into it. I can sometimes be perturbed when I can't get absolutely everything so I'd probably be hesitant to even buy it since I'd never even heard of it til now. I doubt the cards actually even matter but not being able to get them would bother me. I have the same problem with event Pokémon. I don't really even care about the Pokémon itself,(except Diancie but I've got that so) but the fact I can't get it perturbs me.

I don't have much to say about the Shadowrun game, other than that I'm a little confused about what you're telling me they did. Did they use funds from the game's sales to make the DLC or did they use the funds they had leftover after completing the main game?

I didn't read much on their plans or dev philosophies. My opinion changes a bit knowing they're trying to avoid adding too much initially and instead focusing on the features they'd originally planned. Makes the idea of the DLC actually being a separate project seem a bit more legit.

As for the tl;dr part. Whether or not having big DLC for cheap is selling themselves short or not sort of depends for me but I don't feel like going there right now. Heh.

You said in the end twice and didn't capitalize my name. The heck is wrong with you? That aside that was a good comment. Thanks for helping me understand a bit more why you'd be ok with this. Makes me more ok with it too.

@fee m(_ _)m

@aaronsullivan apologies, but I do tend to be long winded...