Dungeon Defenders PC DLC not coming to console

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 1 February, 2012

Blame "the realities of the console world".

Dungeon Defenders' PC DLC will not launch on PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360, developer Trendy has revealed.

This includes the current and future Holiday DLC, the New Heroes Pack, the Barbarian character, Assault Mission Pack, Nightmare Mode and Shops.

Why?

Trendy outlined a raft of reasons on its forum, and explained the patching process on console.

"This is for a variety of technical and business reasons including patch size limitations and patch stacking requirements, as well as the massive restructuring of the current console game that would have to take place, the QA processes necessary to prepare those changes for submission, and the opportunity cost of pursuing other projects," Trendy explained.

"There are two key differences between patching on consoles and patching on PC: approval processes and platform-restrictions. The former forces content to be finished well in advance of their release on console. The latter includes restrictions such as patch size (4mb on XBLA, unless you're granted an exception), content, etc.

"For example, XBLA patches stack, so it would require anyone who downloads Dungeon Defenders to immediately download all of the subsequent patches on launch. So, even if we were allowed to update console like we have on PC, anyone who downloaded Dungeon Defenders today would immediately have to download multiple gigabytes of content via a series of updates, before actually launching the game."

Despite this the console versions of the tower defense game will get some DLC, such as expansion packs The Lost Eternia Shards: Mistymire Forest.

Trendy finished by apologising to console players. "I will say this failure eats at the very core of some of us (including yours truly). Many of us are avid console players. In fact, some of us haven't picked up anything besides a controller to play games in years.

"However, the realities of the console world still prevent us from bringing this content to consoles."

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (18) Latest comment 4 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • levitate #1 4 months ago

    "However, the realities of the console world still prevent us from bringing this content to consoles."

    It's a harsh, terrible, ghastly, world we live in when some games aren't released for the ever-thriving consoles and only for the 'dying' PC.

  • arcam #2 4 months ago

    I just don't understand why MS would not allow a patch more than 4MB in size. What do they gain from that restriction? And is a patch different from a title update, because he seems to suggest that an 'update' could be GBs in size?

  • tankboi #3 4 months ago

    @levitate

    I was thinking exactly the same thing whilst reading this. Oh dear, there is one title's DLC that console owners can't have. My heart bleeds.

    Some people want their cake...and actually eat it too! :)

  • 00.00.01 #4 4 months ago

    @tankboi
    So it's ok to release a title on all platforms (and make the profits), yet DLC will only be developed for one platform. They should've thought about that earlier on, they've bumped into similar release issues for the regular title as that had to go through QA as well... And if they stick with their arguments, at least release if for PS3. No such '4MB-limitation's there.

  • arcam #5 4 months ago

    @Eurocensor But he specifically says in the story that XBLA patches are restricted to 4MB unless you are granted an exception.

  • DefendoCroc #6 4 months ago

    What a crock of shite, they are the most piss poor excuses i have heard in quite some time ... Trendy knew the so called console 'limitations' when they made the game, but they still said DLC was coming .. this was clealry jsut a lie in order to lure people in. They can FO.

  • Slipstream #7 4 months ago

    These are terrible excuses. I quite enjoy DD too, too bad it's no longer getting anymore additional content despite already recieving an extra stage as DLC. Are they saying they can't drip this DLC to the consoles to reduce the upload limit for an Arcade game that isn't really all that big in scale to begin with? Okay.

  • UncleLou #8 4 months ago

    People should complain about (and to) the console manufacturers about the factual and financial hurdles, not the devs of an indie game. The PC is an open platform which makes such things much easier.

  • TeaFiend #9 4 months ago

    The first parties also view the patch system as just that, patches. Fixes to the game. Correcting some errors. Not adding new content, that is downloadable content.

    I am very happy to only have to download a few mb as a patch, rather than a few gb. Makes it quicker, rather than install game for a while, update game for a while then finally get to play.

  • arcam #10 4 months ago

    @Eurocensor

    I see. So basically how it works is "patches" (bug fixes etc.) need to be small because everyone needs to download them, but "updates" can be bigger because they are optional anyway?

    Perhaps they are unable to deliver that DLC without needing a patch more than 4MB? Dungeon Defenders is co-op after all, so I guess everyone's game needs to be updated. If MS aren't willing to make an exception for them, then what choice do they have?

  • kangarootoo #11 4 months ago

    No doubt this will get negged, but I also have to say that I'm not sure what makes their situation different from that of other devs, except their codebase.

    The same barriers are in place for every other (cross platform) game. Its not the end of the world if they didn't plan things in a way that made console DLC possible, and I can understand why they would want to avoid saying that straight out for PR reasons, but all the same.

  • TeaFiend #12 4 months ago

    @arcam Nope! The guy who was quoted said misleading things to be misleading. Microsoft terminology for the file you download that corrects issues in the original game is "title update". This is the same as update, patch, fix, etc.

    The only way to get more content added is to make DLC. With DLC you can never guarantee everyone has the DLC.

  • kangarootoo #13 4 months ago

    Two questions for EG on the subject of their +/- system.

    1. Do you think it is working?
    2. What is your definition of working?

  • arcam #14 4 months ago

    @Eurocensor @TeaFiend

    Yeah, the fact that he cites other economic issues means it probably isn't simply a technical problem.

    The QA process for patches on consoles takes longer, but that's not an excuse for not delivering the content at all

    Well, it is an excuse if it means that makes the DLC less financially worthwhile (and I guess it must, or they would do it).

    What he says about opportunity cost is probably the key - the time spent making it work within the console patch system could simply be used more productively doing something else more profitable.

  • TeaFiend #15 4 months ago

    With PC you can (in theory, but really bad practise) keep pumping out patches at no additional cost and use the community for free bug fixing (call it beta access and people will love you), the consoles do not have that as the first parties must review the patch before release and charge you some money for it.

  • tankboi #16 4 months ago

    @00.00.01

    I don't actually care about the reasons. I am just amused at consoles getting the hand that is usually, and frequently, dealt to the PC.

    Besides, it's only DLC. All DLC is just an add-on, an after thought. A non-essential bonus. I am sure the next trillion games that release DLC will in fact be on console so don't worry.

    It's so funny that everyone is shouting 'its just a lame excuse!'....LOL

    ....actually, ROFL! These are games developers, not high-school teenagers doing their homework. They are not making excuses so they can bunk off and go play GTA whilst smoking weed and signing on FFS.

    If it made money-sense for them to make the console DLC then I am sure they would have done it. I believe him.

  • George-Roper #17 4 months ago

    To everyone saying they're talking shit, just stop and think for a split-second.

    Why would they want to purposefully remove themselves from multiple revenue streams, if there wasn't a legitimate reason for it?

  • tankboi #18 4 months ago

    @Eurocensor

    It's still not an 'excuse' though. If they didn't make enough money from consoles then that is a legitimate reason rather than an excuse, as so many here are claiming.

    I don't think they would have lied though. I just don't see what that would accomplish, or change the outcome.