Factorio Forums

AkQ wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:01 pm It’s obvious they’re trying to squeeze extra out of fans who have already supported the game over the years, making us buy the DLC with full price to access what should have been a fresh title.

Nice troll attempt haha

How would it be better for us that already own the game? Then what would the price be of the standalone game? We can upgrade to Space Age for 32 euros I think it's a fair price for a expansion, remember 20 years ago we would pay more (35 euros) for expansions.

Kyralessa wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:44 pm

AkQ wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:28 pm

Kyralessa wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:16 pm $55 bucks total (or even $70 total at current prices for both) is still a far better cash-to-entertainment ratio than I get from renting a movie, or going to see one, or eating an ice cream cone, or going to a water park, or pretty much anything.

You're comparing one-time-use entertainment forms to a digital computer game? Are you high or otherwise joking?

In terms of bang for the buck, yes, I find it a valid comparison. Terribly sorry you can't follow the concept; it wasn't my intent to confuse you.

Pretty much any computer game in existence has better bang for your buck than a single ice cream or some 2 hour visit to movie.

rekku wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:43 pm 1. SA DLC has more content than the base game.

subjective opinion, SA is as the continuation of the base game as you say later, you can't continuate something you haven't started.

rekku wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:43 pm 2. SA DLC costs same amount as the base game.

Not a reason for it to be a standalone, there has been countless example of expansion priced the same as the base game, namely for warcraft 3 and diablo 2 at release. It was good time before micro transaction, and is a positive signal imo.

rekku wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:43 pm 3. SA DLC literally has in Steam page description saying it is a continuation, a sequel, not an addition (extra content).

continuation, sequel, yeah that really fit what you expect from an expansion. Not a standalone where it would be harsh on new player that couldn't get the same time as the others to familiriaze themselves with the initial factorio.

rekku wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:43 pm 4. A very long time has passed and there are new people grown to an age where they are now able to enjoy this kind of games and are looking for new games to play that never heard of Factorio before and they are supposed to pay 70 dollars to play indie game?

If you have never heard of factorio you can safely try the demo, buy the base game, and later if you still have pleasure / time playing the expansion. Or not you'd still have the 2.0 features for free if you don't.

rekku wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:43 pm 5. Your friends can see you are playing SA instead of Factorio and join in if interested.
6. Your playtime hours would accumulate to see how much you have played original and the sequel separately.

They can if you post screenshot too, or if you tell them or invite them ... That's probably the tiny things that do not matter at this point. Not that the others reasons were convincing to me. Re-writing the list doesn't make it more convincing to me. I don't find any good reason in those.

They announced it as an Addon many years ago already. Even while the base game was still in early access they said that the scope of space expansion is too much for the base game itself and they wanted to limit the base project to something manageable so they could release it.

However they said back then already they would release it as an Addon once the base game is finished. They also totally had discussions internally whether to make it a sequel or not but they decided to make it an Addon. Which is fine.

So almost everyone who followed the FFFs knew that one day they would do the Space Expansion as a DLC to the base game. It has been talked about like forever.

That it took them 7-8 years to finish the base game and another 4 years to make the DLC is totally unrelated and more their work ethos. They put a lot of dedication into making it perfect and to fit their vision. More so than other companies.

You could just as much complain that Titan Quest which got released in 2006 got another addon in 2021. That one was even more surprising because they didn't even announce much of it.

It is not your place to question such decisions of companies. You are not their business advisor. If they think they want to invest their resources even after so much time into the same project then why the hell not? ^^

AkQ wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:01 pm I mean, really? What on earth (or space) justifies this as a DLC instead of a true standalone Factorio 2?

I bet if it were a standalone game and using most of the same engine, graphics and gameplay (except for the DLC content) you would complain just as much because then you would argue "what a rip off, it is even using the same engine/graphics again".

AkQ wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:01 pm It’s obvious they’re trying to squeeze extra out of fans who have already supported the game over the years, making us buy the DLC with full price to access what should have been a fresh title.

This "sentiment" is the most funny one however. Because what the hell dude. ^^

People who already have the base game... well... already have the base game.

Whether it would be a standalone game or an Addon would not matter at all whatsoever. People who already own the game would have to pay the same for a new game too.

AkQ wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:01 pm They’ve created a whole new experience, loaded it with content, yet we’re supposed to pay for the base game just to access it.

Looking at your account creation date, I assume you already own the base game. Because why otherwise would you be here since 2019. So what the hell are you even complaining about.

Want to play Robin Hood on the internet "protecting the poor innocent people who don't have the base game yet" and now would have to buy the base game too just to get the expansion? ^^

Dude, it seems like you never ventured into the realm of Paradox Software games. They release like one DLC after another for each of their titles and if you would want to get it all eventually you easily have to pay 200-300 bucks after a couple years. And you complain about a single DLC for Factorio already? ^^



I will tell you something. Majority of the people who are interested in the base/factory building genre very likely already own the base game. Hard for people interested in the genre to have overlooked Factorio with how it is praised everywhere.

There is always a sells curve... initially you get lots of sells, but eventually it dies down because everyone interested already has it and it becoming increasingly more difficult to attract more people. You could push more sells then with deal sales like on Steam, but they made very clear that this is what they will never do. So people waiting for that are waiting for hell to freeze over. End of story.

And I can understand Wube's sentiment in that regard because the base game itself is already totally worth the price and people have argued many times during early access already that they totally sold the game below its value because they could easily have asked 60 bucks for it as well. At least other stupid AAA titles like those yearly sports games by EA and whatnot ask for 70 bucks EVERY YEAR and they barely ever change anything about them and there is still tons of people buying these.


In any case no one is forced to buy the expansion. If you don't feel like it then just don't. They probably already made up for their expenses in the first week since release and can do without your 35 bucks. ^^


Anyway. I have seen a lot of ridiculous posts on internet forums in my time. This one takes its place among them.

AkQ wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:01 pm Alright, I have to say it: Space Age being a DLC is absurd. Ten years later, we’re handed this massive expansion that’s practically a new game in itself—new planets, space travel, tons of content that easily outscales the base game—and they slap on a purple DLC ribbon like it's a minor update. I mean, really? What on earth (or space) justifies this as a DLC instead of a true standalone Factorio 2?

There’s zero logical reason for this move except to cash in on existing owners, forcing everyone to buy the original game just to play the expansion. When I saw it on Steam, I nearly laughed out loud at how blatant it is. A sequel is expected to bring fresh gameplay, sure, but Factorio is unique. It’s a fully completed game, not some subscription-based service or MMO. And now they want us to treat this 10-year-later update like a small add-on?

Honestly, calling this pure evil feels fair. They’ve created a whole new experience, loaded it with content, yet we’re supposed to pay for the base game just to access it. The space update alone has more to offer than the original Factorio. It’s obvious they’re trying to squeeze extra out of fans who have already supported the game over the years, making us buy the DLC with full price to access what should have been a fresh title.

The whole setup screams cash grab. If they had just released Space Age as Factorio 2, it would make sense, be respectful to the fanbase, and attract even more players. As it stands, it’s frustrating and just plain disappointing.

I don't know why you're expecting DLCs to be a specific size or price, it's not like there are any "rules" about what can or cannot be done with them.
DLCs can be free or paid, they can be expensive, or cheap, they can be big or small - they can even not have any in-game content in them ! (Like soundtracks.)
This sounds more like you're so used to Steam (is this where that "purple ribbon" reference comes from ?), and a small subset of it to boot, that you're stuck in your ways.

Now for expansion packs, yeah, it's fairly rare for them to be as big and expensive as the base game, but then it's also not uncommon for the sum of all expansion packs to be bigger and more expensive than the base game. And there is no planned 2nd expansion pack for Factorio (Wube is planning to make an RPG next).

Finally, for this to be a standalone game, there would need to be major changes to the base game.
You would seriously want for Factorio 1 to be stuck on 1.1, with Factorio 2 getting something like the 2.0, as well as SA (and more, which would have delayed the game god knows how many more years), and being forced to pay the full price of ~65€ (and probably even more due to the extra years) for Factorio 2... on top of having paid for Factorio 1 if you already had bought it ??

Imagine complaining like this over spending $35 one time for a game of this quality.

subjective opinion, SA is as the continuation of the base game as you say later, you can't continuate something you haven't started.

Not a subjective opinion as there literally is more content. You absolutely can continue something that you have not started, done every day in multiple work places the second shift continues the job the first shift did. Star Wars Episode IV continued a story that you had never started. Every game or a movie starts from a point that is a continuation of the history of that world. It being continuation means it is the next episode of the thing and when it has the same or amount or more content than the original, then it is equal to it.

Not a reason for it to be a standalone, there has been countless example of expansion priced the same as the base game, namely for warcraft 3 and diablo 2 at release. It was good time before micro transaction, and is a positive signal imo.

Good that you took Blizzard as an example. They are one of the biggest money grabbing companies and this example pretty much supports the idea that the whole point of this being a DLC was to make more money from new players.

continuation, sequel, yeah that really fit what you expect from an expansion. Not a standalone where it would be harsh on new player that couldn't get the same time as the others to familiriaze themselves with the initial factorio.

Same time as others would probably mean thousands of hours as that is how long people have played this game. If it takes so much time to understand the mechanics, then the game is very badly designed. (Which it isn't as I as a new player just couple years back learned to play the game in an hour or so easily).
And it being standalone would not mean it doesn't have any of the features standalone games have. Obviously it would have a tutorial just like every other game.

If you have never heard of factorio you can safely try the demo, buy the base game, and later if you still have pleasure / time playing the expansion. Or not you'd still have the 2.0 features for free if you don't.

This makes no sense as if everyone else is playing the Space Age you would as a new player not play the space age? Also wow, you get an update for "free" if you PAID for a game.

They can if you post screenshot too, or if you tell them or invite them ... That's probably the tiny things that do not matter at this point. Not that the others reasons were convincing to me. Re-writing the list doesn't make it more convincing to me. I don't find any good reason in those.

Yeah so you would have to go through all the trouble of posting screenshots all the while it is too hard to exit game and start a game lol.. Also tell everyone in your steam friends everytime you play the game "Hello, I am actually playin SA if you are interested" LOL. Rather than someone who would be interested noticing you playing it and contacting you to join in.. Yeah, that goes beyond the tard level.

And you not finding any good reason says a lot. No matter what there is always some good reason for thing X.. Except in case of copium filled superfanboys who think X did nothing wrong.

rekku wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 2:39 pm And you not finding any good reason says a lot. No matter what there is always some good reason for thing X.. Except in case of copium filled superfanboys who think X did nothing wrong.

I find no reason because what you wrote is your personnal feeling, it's mostly as explained things i disagree with or find of little significance, like the fact that an expansion doesn't allow a player on steam to show their hour on 2 different things for the other people to see when looking at the profile.

rekku wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 2:39 pm Also wow, you get an update for "free" if you PAID for a game.

Yeah if you bought factorio 10 years ago, you get the 2.0 for free today, which is rare nowadays games that gets such good updates for free so many years after.

Your argument would be to deprive those players from the free update, and instead make them pay a new standalone game, while at the same time calling it cashgrab

rekku wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:26 pm DLC should not have more content than base game.
DLC should not be same price as base game.

SA being DLC is just a cash grab on future fans. It makes SA total price to be 70 dollars... Which is more than Triple A games for PC lol.. Only the Japanese companies ask for such money for their IPs such as Tekken, Final Fantasys etc. This is an indie game with 70 dollar price and that alone is just mindbogglingly crazy.

Currently if I want to buy Stellaris + DLC I'd have to spend... $136.86 (currently on a discount from its usual price of $290). That cost a lot more than just the base game.
Civilisation games are similar: You're spending a lot more than the cost of the base game on DLC.

I'm sure you could find many other examples.

My point is that: the price of factorio isn't $70 just as the price of Stellaris isn't $290 or even $136. You can get an incredible amount of fun playtime from just the $35 basegame, and it is already complex enough as it is. Then, once you're ready, you can spend $35 to get even more content on top!

There isn't more content in Space Age than in the base game. A single playthrough is more than twice as long as in the base game, but that doesn't mean there's more content. Go look at the crafting menu, and notice that 90% of what's there is from the base game. There are four new planets, but each one has less content than Nauvis, and each one incorporates base game content (belts, inserters, assembling machines, bots, etc.) heavily.

Even if there were more content, that doesn't mean Space Age should have been standalone. Again, what it fundamentally does is build on top of the base game. Asking for it to have been Factorio 2 is asking for a completely separate game that somehow contains 100% of its predecessor's content, which makes no sense. That's what expansions are for.

AkQ wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:01 pm They’ve created a whole new experience, loaded it with content, yet we’re supposed to pay for the base game just to access it.

Yes, because they specifically created the new experience for people already familiar with the base game. It isn't designed to be a player's entry-point into factorio. Base game already has enough complexity and depth for 100s/1000s of hours of playtime. Once you've mastered that, you'll be in the best position to enjoy and appreciate SA.

I'd guesstimate that their payroll costs are ~$5 million per year. If anything the price is too low. We ought to buy the game twice unless we want scammy microtransactions to take over.

Good that you took Blizzard as an example. They are one of the biggest money grabbing companies and this example pretty much supports the idea that the whole point of this being a DLC was to make more money from new players.

You're confusing Blizzard with Activision-Blizzard.

This makes no sense as if everyone else is playing the Space Age you would as a new player not play the space age?

Who is that "everyone else", and why do you care about them ?

And yeah, unless getting confused is something that you actually like (and some people do like overcoming that, not judging here), it's better for your own sanity (and wallet) to play games by only slowly adding expansion packs (and using main game versions that existed at that point, because game balance is too hard for devs to target multiple versions - this means playing latest 1.1 instead of 2.0 if you're a player new to Factorio).

I did wonder whether Wube would do better selling SA as an old-school standalone expansion. Most of us here already have the base game, so it's academic to us. But $70 for a potential new player may scare some away. OTOH if this was a standalone expansion, it would probably cost more than $35, and existing owners would end up paying more in total (unless there was some sort of offsetting discount for existing owners). As others have said, the fact that all the 2.0 QoL improvements come to existing owners who don't buy SA is a strong argument that Wube isn't just into cash grabs. Also having the vanilla nauvis-only game with the 2.0 QoL improvements exist at all isn't guaranteed if this was a standalone expansion (or sequel).

As for "Base + SA is really a sequel", I don't buy it. The arguments I have seen in this thread are mostly just word games. If another company tried to reuse the engine and art assets and call it a sequel, they would be ripped apart. Also the argument that it extends the end of the game and therefore it can't be a DLC is a non-sequitur. Same with the argument that because the DLC was released as a single large DLC instead of multiple small ones therefore it's a sequel.

The other point I'll add is that for many fans of Factorio, the price of the game ends up being much less than the cost of the electricity to play the game.

AkQ wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:28 pm

Kyralessa wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 12:16 pm $55 bucks total (or even $70 total at current prices for both) is still a far better cash-to-entertainment ratio than I get from renting a movie, or going to see one, or eating an ice cream cone, or going to a water park, or pretty much anything.

You're comparing one-time-use entertainment forms to a digital computer game? Are you high or otherwise joking?

Hold on, just going to tell my boss than I'm buying one-time-use entertainment instead of a digital computer game, so they need to pay me more. After all it's not comparable.

$70 is $70 whether you spend it on rent, groceries, booze, movies, restaurants, plane tickets, hotels, concerts, or digital computer games. The fact that this form of entertainment scales really well with the number of users doesn't cheapen the value you get from using it. If anything you seem to be making the argument that all games are underpriced. In which case this whole thread is even more pointless.

rekku wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:26 pm DLC should not have more content than base game.

Why not? Sure it's uncommon, but I must have missed when this was made into a rule.

rekku wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:26 pm DLC should not be same price as base game.

Same. Why not? When was this made into a rule?

rekku wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:26 pm SA being DLC is just a cash grab on future fans. It makes SA total price to be 70 dollars... Which is more than Triple A games for PC lol.. Only the Japanese companies ask for such money for their IPs such as Tekken, Final Fantasys etc. This is an indie game with 70 dollar price and that alone is just mindbogglingly crazy.

Go play AAA games then?? Or go play 5 separate indie games that cost $15 apiece if you think they are better value. Whenever I've seen the "price is too high" argument, people are always saying it's too high for "a game", or "an indie game". For many games this price would be too high. For me (and hundreds of thousands of others) that's not true for Factorio/SA. Do I wish it was cheaper/free? Sure. But we live in a world where sellers set the price and you choose how much to buy or not.

rekku wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 2:39 pm This makes no sense as if everyone else is playing the Space Age you would as a new player not play the space age? Also wow, you get an update for "free" if you PAID for a game.

Why do you care what everyone else is playing? This isn't a multiplayer-only game. Sure this will somewhat fragment the multiplayer community as most DLC does for most games (the exception being games where only the host needs the DLC), that's about the only decent argument to be made. But then again so do sequels and standalone expansions. And the multiplayer community is the minority of players. Also now 2.0 is apparently just "an update" like every other minor feature update? Go find another game which has released "an update" that's this big post-release. Especially ones that aren't subscription or micro-transaction based. You wont find many if at all. You seem to want to remove all distinctions within a class of things. A game is a game, an update is an update. But also $70 isn't always $70 depending on whether you spend it on a game or one-off entertainment.

nzer wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 3:38 pm There isn't more content in Space Age than in the base game. A single playthrough is more than twice as long as in the base game, but that doesn't mean there's more content. Go look at the crafting menu, and notice that 90% of what's there is from the base game. There are four new planets, but each one has less content than Nauvis, and each one incorporates base game content (belts, inserters, assembling machines, bots, etc.) heavily.

You are correct that playtime != content (a mistake lots of people unfortunately make) but then you go on to imply number of crafting recipes == content. In a game like factorio, I would argue that systems equals content. In terms of new systems we get recycling/quality/recipe with 12 outputs. We get elevated rails. We get space platforms and multi-surface logistics (and not the lame "mining-outpost" with "space-bots" version). We get spoilage. We get frozen machines. We get different electricity generation tradeoffs (solar having different outputs on different surfaces, water being abundant or scarce, electricity coming for free but in bursts on Fulgora). We have to use existing recipes where the relative resource abundance of various resources is altered (eg. it look me a while to adjust to heavy oil being free and water being limited on Fulgora). We get a larger variety of useful infinite techs. We actually have to deal with space constraints on some surfaces. We get spawner capture. Whether that equates to the number/complexity of systems in the base game is the relevant question for which has more "content".

shopt wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 6:55 pm You are correct that playtime != content (a mistake lots of people unfortunately make) but then you go on to imply number of crafting recipes == content.

Buildings and resources as well, not just crafting recipes. But yes, I am stating that those things are content, because they are. I don't mean to imply they're the only thing that counts as content.

nzer wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 9:07 pm

shopt wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 6:55 pm You are correct that playtime != content (a mistake lots of people unfortunately make) but then you go on to imply number of crafting recipes == content.

Buildings and resources as well, not just crafting recipes. But yes, I am stating that those things are content, because they are. I don't mean to imply they're the only thing that counts as content.

Right, but it's the only evidence you gave to make your case that "There isn't more content in Space Age than in the base game." I'm making the case that counting resources, buildings, recipes, techs, etc. is a very shallow way to analyse how much content is in a game. Most of us don't think Factorio is great because of the recipe and building count. Those that do probably go all in on Pyanodon's. Instead most of us love the number, diversity, and interaction of the game systems.

Take IR3's steampunk stage. Literally 2 new buildings (steam powered assembler, steam powered inserter) and a whole heap of new content opens up. Another 3 more buildings (steam powered telescope/radar, steam powered lab, copper boiler) and yawn, they are barely any different from vanilla. Not that I've gotten to Aquillo yet, but 1 new building (the heating tower) and that looks like it will be a whole heap of extra lot of content. And then there are mods which just add higher tiers of vanilla items, which is lots of buildings, recipes, and techs, but barely any content. Or mods which add new buildings, but they are basically just assembly machines by another name.

To those who denigrate Space Age by calling it a mere “DLC” all I can say is …

This isnt some small piece of DLC. ITs not adding Laharl to the latest Disgaea game. Its not a new map for your MOBA, or a new skin for your FPS character.

Space Age is an old school expansion. Referring to it as DLC denigrates and devalues the time, sweat, and tears that WUBE put into it.

shopt wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 10:37 pmAnd then there are mods which just add higher tiers of vanilla items, which is lots of buildings, recipes, and techs, but barely any content.

Those things are content, by definition. This is precisely the point I'm making. Content is not just "I have things to do" or "this is interesting." If an RPG had a DLC that added a New Game+ mode with some kind of scaling mechanic that gave you a bonus for each repeat, that would add a ton of replay value and interesting gameplay, but it would still be a small amount of content. In fact you could argue that's exactly why games like Factorio are successful in the first place; they provide interesting gameplay and lots of replay value with very little content, which makes them disproportionately appealing for how cheap they are to produce. As opposed to most AAA games, which have content oozing out of every orifice and still manage to be boring.

Space Age does not have as much content as the base game, full stop. If you remove everything from Space Age that comes from the base game, you will be left with a smaller amount of stuff than what was removed. What's left will also not work, because it all fundamentally relies on the base game's mechanics. It is also true, however, that Space Age is more complex and arguably more interesting than the base game, and has a higher overall playtime. These things are not mutually exclusive.

The overarching point here, which it seems like you agree with, is that Space Age is inarguably an expansion to the base game and is not standalone.

nzer wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 3:28 am

shopt wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 10:37 pmAnd then there are mods which just add higher tiers of vanilla items, which is lots of buildings, recipes, and techs, but barely any content.

Those things are content, by definition. This is precisely the point I'm making. Content is not just "I have things to do" or "this is interesting." If an RPG had a DLC that added a New Game+ mode with some kind of scaling mechanic that gave you a bonus for each repeat, that would add a ton of replay value and interesting gameplay, but it would still be a small amount of content. In fact you could argue that's exactly why games like Factorio are successful in the first place; they provide interesting gameplay and lots of replay value with very little content, which makes them disproportionately appealing for how cheap they are to produce. As opposed to most AAA games, which have content oozing out of every orifice and still manage to be boring.

Space Age does not have as much content as the base game, full stop. If you remove everything from Space Age that comes from the base game, you will be left with a smaller amount of stuff than what was removed. What's left will also not work, because it all fundamentally relies on the base game's mechanics. It is also true, however, that Space Age is more complex and arguably more interesting than the base game, and has a higher overall playtime. These things are not mutually exclusive.

The overarching point here, which it seems like you agree with, is that Space Age is inarguably an expansion to the base game and is not standalone.

Thanks for explaining. At this point I think we are mostly in agreement about substance, we are just disagreeing about the definitions of some words, which I'm happy to leave.

The one thing I would point out is that "expansion" and "standalone" are not mutually exclusive. Back in the era where DLC was called an expansion, standalone expansions were a thing, almost always with a discount for those who owned the base game.

As for "should" (which isn't you, that's OP and that other guy), I find all these threads about how Wube "should" price their games to be weird. Let Wube look after their own pricing strategy. Maybe they make more by making SA a $45 standalone expansion with a $10 discount for base factorio owners, maybe they make more with the path they took. I don't think a standalone is likely though, the one thread I see in Wube's pricing strategy is that you don't get rewarded for waiting to buy, and if there's a standalone expansion for <$70, that would have been a reward for waiting. The same reason Wube didn't do a base+SA bundle discount at release.