It’s a tricky balancing act. If we put aside the cosmetics being disliked for a moment, one thing we wanted to avoid was splitting the playerbase by selling a DLC. Vermintide 1, despite being able to play DLC maps hosted by a friend who owned them still got flack for splitting the playerbase. Perhaps those calls were unfair, but we decided to go one step further and provide QP access to the new maps for all players so that the matchmaking system could just continue to deliver the same experience to all players regardless of DLC ownership. Maybe we won’t do it again and go back to a more traditional model.
Putting the QP DLC FFA map complaint aside, there are the complaints that the DLC costs about a dollar more for a similar package in V1. The team is bigger, every year the cost to employ 1 person goes up, and the cost to stay afloat as a company goes up. We truly believe V1 and V2 were an absolute bargain given the love and time and money that went in to creating them both. It might be argued that with a bigger team players should see bigger things, and this is true in the long term, but it’s not going to be an immediate thing. Bigger teams can of course create more, but getting to that stage takes time and can actually result in less work as people are coached & trained and familiarise themselves with tools, processes, flows and cultures.
Nothing is ever as black and white as it seems and… yeah. I’ve probably gone beyond the original question but I hope it’s helpful all the same.