Selling story as DLC is scummy.. :/

Hmm, sound like an interesting concept. Will wait for the full release.

Hey, I'm sorry you feel this way!
We're a small team with limited means. Releasing episodically allows us to fund the development of a narrative heavy game. We've chosen what we think is a fair price point so that you can decide if you like it and should buy the next episodes when they become available.

Hope you'll give Herald a chance! :)

To be honest, I don't think this DLC approach is as bad as some seem to think. I'm usually against DLCs, because most of the time it's just squeezing another dollar out of an already expensive game, by shipping "extras" which ought to be part of the game from the get-go. Why is it any different here? Because it's nothing else but an episodic release. Sell the first part for a reasonable price to fund the rest. It's not like they want you to pay extra for a funky in-game hat.

EDIT: Kind of ninja'ed by Draakbeest ;)

Many gamers are just allergic to the term DLC, especially around here.

I'm not sure if the theme of the game is of interest to me, but for what it's worth, ~10 bucks seems like a reasonable price to me. Essentially what it comes down to is, you're receiving a partially completed game, and make a partial payment for it, which seems fair to me. It even has the advantage that people who don't enjoy it won't have to pay for the second half of the game. Unlike other full price games where you pay some 60 dollars, regardless of how much you ultimately enjoy the game.

Anyhow, I think I'll wait for the release of the remaining chapters, before I decide whether or not to buy a copy. Thanks for taking the time to post here!

Edit: The more I think about it, the more I like the way you decided to go about the pricing. When you buy TellTale games, or similar episodic releases, you have to pay for the whole game up front, and have no idea when the remaining chapters will be released. But you guys are only charging for the content which is already completed, so this is really a better deal for the customer.

feedback:

this is not the way to release this game. if you want to do the telltale thing, do the telltale thing. [make it cost a lot more than it should, but make that be a "season pass."]

this just seems...i dunno, crass? you're selling the rest of the story - that should have been there since this is a release - as dlc?!

better yet:

make a demo.

then charge $20/15 [whatever the end result is going to be] for the whole game.

... why? Aside from using different terms ( DLC, episodes, chapters, season pass whatever ) how would that be any better for the customer?

As I just added to my post above:

The more I think about it, the more I like the way you decided to go about the pricing. When you buy TellTale games, or similar episodic releases, you have to pay for the whole game up front, and have no idea when the remaining chapters will be released. But you guys are only charging for the content which is already completed, so this is really a better deal for the customer.

Edit: This approach also means devs have a greater motivation to actually complete their games, since they only get paid for the missing chapter once they are completed. Some episodic games remained unfinished for years(!) after the devs charged for the full price up front. I really fail to see how that is a better deal for the customer.

Worst case, people can just wait until the game is fully completed and buy it then. ( Most likely at around 20 bucks total, which is perfectly acceptable for this type of game. )

two reasons:

the first is that this feels like a pr blunder. dlc has come to be defined as "extra stuff for a game." season pass has come to be defined as "more stuff for the same game coming at a later time."

secondly: the demo path does sort of what they want. a lot of this seems wonky and a little weird on the surface. they "want feedback." ok, so we're now doing a staggered release where we're your beta testers, but we're paying you to test your game? uuhhh. then it should be early access, not a release. [cf: ghost of a tail, which is using this exact model in more-or-less this genre.]

moreover, a demo [say two or three rooms] gives folks a good indication of what they're going to buy into somewhere down the line. this feels sort of like shareware. annnnnnd i didn't know gog did that. [shareware, in case you're not aware, was an old "episodic" format from the bad, old days pre-internet. you'd get a little bit now [say, episode 1 - generally for free so that you would plonk down more money later for the whole thing.]]

edited: silly brackets. this is why i no longer write software.

plus: this /does/ feel a little sleazy.

Still seems like you ( and some others in this thread ) mostly take offense at their use of the term DLC, and probably wouldn't have complained if they had released it as "Part 1", at the same price point and with no practical differences other than different terminology. Just strikes me as silly, when it ultimately comes down to the same thing. ( People receiving the same amount and quality of gaming entertainment, at the same price point. )

A demo would be nice, as usual, but I guess it's difficult to create a good demo for this kind of game... ?

I do see it your way, there is just one little difference unmentioned, yet. When you buy a season pass, the developer has an obligation to deliver the rest of the game. With a mere announcement of two DLCs, they're not really legally bound to do so. Thus, worst case is being left with an unfinished game.

I agree. I think they should have put this as In Dev, charging $9.99 for the first parts, then going out of In Dev when the later parts are released and increasing the base price to $14.99 or $19.99—early buyers would get the upgrade for free, though.

It's mostly a terminology issue I guess.. but on their website they're talking about using interns to make the game.
That's also not tremendously cool IMO.

I suppose, but in reality, buying a season pass is no guarantee that you'll ever see the finished game, either. ( Shit happens. Sometimes it may take years to complete, or worst case the dev studio goes down entirely. ) The only difference is, in the case of a season pass ( or kickstarter campaign etc. ) you've already paid for the full game. In this case you're only paying for the content that's finished and available.

Legally bound? *sigh* People do die, you know, and with them their vision, dreams, and guidance. OTOH, sometimes it's the dreams that die... leaving their originator an empty carcass. Life happens, and sometimes that means death, either viscerally or soulfully.