What's the difference between an "expansion pack" and DLC?

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Doc Cassidy

Doc Cassidy

Notorious Bum Driller
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
I keep hearing boomers trying to call DLC by weird names. They insist there's a difference but I think it's literally the same thing.

Is there a difference between DLC and "expansion pack"?
 
You wouldn't call DLC like a piece of horse armor an expansion pack.
 
Expansion packs were usually large additions, sometimes entire new games built on top of the old one, they also used to come on CD, you didn't download them.

DLC is funny hats and skins for $20 a piece.
 
To me DLC is smaller than an expansion pack.

DLC could be a new weapon or an extra map while an expansion pack would be almost like a new game.

The obvious example is Battlefield 2 which had an expansion pack called Battlefield 2 Special Forces

BF2SF added completely new maps, teams, and weapons. While retaining the same core game play as BF2 it was for all intents and purposes a totally new game.

Of course that was back in 2005 and I think the line between the two has been blurred over the years.
 
Expansion Packs were like a whole new sorta game ontop of the regular game. It would use a mixture of old and new models and textures, all that shit, and sometimes it wouldn't require you to have the main game.


DLC can be this but it can also be just any add on content
 
Is there a difference between DLC and "expansion pack"?
Click to expand...
No. Their both cut content that for whatever reason didn't make the deadline for release, so they instead charge people for it.

Or to put it in another way, this:
be0.jpg
 
All expansion packs are DLCs but not all DLCs are expansion packs. Expansion packs to me have a somewhat large scale, think of something like Opposing Force for Half-Life or the Shivering Isles for Oblivion. DLCs can be anything from that size to just some cosmetics and skins.
 
In the beginning expansion packs would be released anywhere from 6 months to a year after the game hit the shelves, whereas DLC is shit they locked behind a paywall and could even be in the main game file, or the disc.
 
An expansion pack would add a new campaign, new weapons and possibly new multiplayer modes all for $15-20. DLC is just offering anything and is just piece meal offerings such as $2 for this weapon skin, $5 for the new map, etc.
 
An expansion pack was pretty variable. You could have two whole new campaigns with full story like in Warcraft II, or you could have a handful of new missions and units like Red Alert's Counterstrike expansion.
 
Here's my view:

Expansions and DLC are two different concepts but with a lot of overlapping ground between them.

An expansion:
- Typically substantial
- May or may not be a standalone product
- Does not always, but usually does, require the base product to run.
- Can be downloaded or bought physically (while that's still an option)

DLC:
- Could be anything between substantial and "just a palette swap"
- Can be entirely new content, or may be bundled with the base product and requiring activation (looking at you PDX)
- Always tied to the base product
- Is generally always downloaded, unless you've bought a physical GOTY or something
 
As many have said it's generally the amount of content which determines what could be considered an Expansion Pack instead of just DLC.

Something like Iceborne for Monster Hunter World is an expansion pack, it was essentially a sequel to the game built on top of the old one for a reduced cost. Stuff like the map packs that they used to sell for Call of Duty was just a DLC, because all it did was add a small amount of content to an existing game without making changes to anything else.
 
The obvious benefit of (old) expansion packs for devs/publishers was that after shipping the main game they were very familiar with the tools, production pipeline and engine. While planning and pre-production on the real sequel was happening they had enough people to make more of Game 1. Smaller in scope with a smaller budget, lower price for the customer and shorter devcycle, it just made sense.

That's what sets them apart from DLC imo, expansion pack means one thing while DLC can be almost anything(including being an expansion pack).
 
One thing to keep in mind that back in the old days it was not even profitable for businesses to dish out just horse armor. They had to go all out, especially back when cdroms and floppy disks were a thing with PC gaming.

With download speeds being improved they don't have to go all out anymore hence DLC.

Edit typo.
 
Last edited:
Expansions were usually extra stuff that a third-party added on to give the vanilla game more life and playability. DLC is the same thing, just first-party support.

Same thing, just different name because different times.
 
All expansion packs are dlc. Not all dlc are expansion packs. An expansion pack is a term used back in the day which usually is a substantial addition of content to the game. Such as a campaign, characters etc, while shit like yellow highlighter gun skin is just normal dlc. Smh I'm not even that old but this a normie as fuck question.
 
They are both marketing terms describing essentially the same thing. There is no difference except maybe that when expansion packs were being sold, it was something you had to buy in store. When DLC came out it was a big deal because it was an expansion pack that was DOWNLOADABLE. On the rare case that you can purchase a DLC in a store it’s likely a serial number on a card, so you’d end up downloading everything. I also have a feeling that when DLC was first starting to be a thing, it was reserved for small items like additional weapons or armor for example, because anything else would take forever to download. Also pretty sure DLC started out as a term more used with consoles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom