As a f2p (free to play) player myself. I’ve noticed that Generation Zero has alot of DLC’s that aren’t free and I feel like there should be a couple more DLC’s that are free. If there are then deffinently let me know and completely ignore this. What’s everyone’s opinion on this?
They need to earn money to put food on the table. And free stuff doesn’t do that. You probably wouldn`t like to work for free. So why should the developers do that?
11 Likes
Aside from the 2 story expansions, most of the DLCs are unnecessary and in my opinion straight up bad. You really don’t need most of them.
2 Likes
Yeah the amount of DLC’s is honestly kinda dumb. Just one after another at this point.
Not even the fact that they are paid packs is th eproblem, the problem is that they are often lower quality then similar base game items. Not to mention they are unbalanced half the time. There is also the problem where a ddecent amount of content for a major mechanic is all locked behind a paywall (Base building)
You can say, “do not buy them if you do not like them”, all you want. Time and resources are being spent on this subpar content that should honestly being going into improving the base game people already bought.
Honestly, if they need to keep releasing constant packs to keep money coming in at a good rate, that is a problem where the solution is not more paid packs.
I am no expert on how things works either. But I would say the devs still probably get paid if the game does not make good money. They may lose their jobs if the managment decides the game is no longer worth keeping the team on (a bad thing, but not an instant one either), but they dont just start not getting money while continuing to work. That is assuming the game even needs the pack money in the first place to cotinue work. Either they actually need it or they realized it sells well and it is easy.
4 Likes
Well, you think they’re bad, there’s a difference.
2 Likes
They are indeed bad, objectively.
2 Likes
Well, yeah. If you say they’re good, then that’s just you thinking they’re good as well.
I wouldn’t call them just bad.
Unnecessary is the right word.
In my eyes the best low price dlc have been the resistance weapon pack and the tactical equipment pack.
The base stuff pack is ok and fun, but I just play not enough base defences.
The us and soviet weapon packs are bad in my eyes. One reason is the missing support for their issues. Last but not least, I bought them because they were cheap and I wanted to try the new stuff, but I almost didn’t use the us and soviet weapons. Just the G79 is a nice addition for bombarding structures or doing splash damage.
If there would be a new game plus and I would start a new run I would use everything I could get and which is better than what I have…
But not right from the start out of the plundra like it is now. Did I mention, that I once made a suggestion for an alternative implementation of the dlc packs? 
4 Likes
But I am not saying they are good or bad. I leave that to each and every person to see for themselves. I was just pointing out that what you were claiming is not a fact, it’s subjective.
5 Likes
Fair enough. I was just trying to give my thoughts but I suppose the post does come off as matter-of-fact. I’ve edited it for clarity.
2 Likes
I think the price on the dlc:s are pretty good.
6 Likes
Free to play ?? 
GZ is not a f2p concept and you usually have to pay for the game.
Don’t know about that XBox live pass thingy though but iIrc you have to pay a monthly fee for that, too ?
So imho also not exactly a f2p concept ? 
Anyway, there have been some free expansions to the original base game and also some paid DLCs that are in no way mandatory to play the game. And so I didn’t buy all of them. Not even on a discount during Steam’s summer sale…
But I do think paid DLCs are a valid option for developers to generate some money after a initial game sale. Especially if these DLCs are not mandatory to play a game and everyone is free in his decision to buy or not to buy.
My 2 Ct
2 Likes
It’s pretty simple for me , balance the huge amount of hours this game has given me over years with a tiny DLC fee😉
The devs have to earn something.
I know it’s not to everyone’s taste but there not expensive or compulsory, there are some really nice additions and weapons that are fun to swap around, however that’s just my take on it 
5 Likes
I fully understand this argument but it gets a little weird when all of the DLCs add up to $80. If they sell the DLCs at half price to 1/5th of 24hr’s worth of active players that’s around $7000 and I know that’s rough estimation but the argument of them needing the income is completely valid to a point.
I just wonder about maybe bundling all weapon DLCs and things like that to make it more affordable to play with everything. A wild comparison would be Train Simulator, which has $9000 in DLC. At some point it’s a little much from a user’s perspective, even if the dev cycle dictates that as a fair value.
I suppose I shouldn’t respond to old posts, but I just logged back checking on the state of the forum after being away for a year.
The more DLCs, the higher the total sum. That’s not weird. The prizes for single DLCs at Generation Zero are totally ok for what you get in total.
And most of them are sold with discounts most of the time.
I think we should be glad to still receive both, paid and free new content and free new features.
There are bundles.
On steam for example there are 20 DLCs listed. A few are free and in total the prize is at 36,30€ currently, including both story DLCs. The game itself currently costs 4,99€.
This is my thoughts exactly. I bought the game and played it without any DLC to see if I liked it. I did like it…a lot, so I decided to buy some of the DLCs to contribute to the development of the game.
To me it’s somewhat similar to being a patreon for a YouTuber. If you like the core you can show your support by paying a small sum that will hopefully go to even better content that you can enjoy.
4 Likes