Evolve Dev: "I Don't Like People Thinking We're Doing Dirty, Underhanded S***"

Gluzzbung

New member
Nov 28, 2009
266
0
0
AntiChri5 said:
Then stop doing dirty, underhanded shit.
Exactly my response. It's like someone saying "I'm not racist, but..." and then completely falsifying the first part of that statement by saying something racist. This guys is basically saying "We're not doing underhanded shit, but we do want you to preorder a special edition of the game at double the price of the standard game because, if you don't, you'll miss out on actually having fun and you don't count as a customer to us."

What a clown.
 

DarkBlood626

New member
Nov 9, 2008
142
0
0
Oh, you?re offended that people who have been screwed over more times than can be counted don?t take you at your word when you say the same crap they've been fed time and time again?

Cry me a river. You're the ones who announced DLC before we saw even a single screenshot of the actual game. You are the ones who said that the game was made from the ground up promote its DLC. You are the ones who set it up so I can pay for the game before I know it is worth any money or pay $15 for a single playable character.

You want some good will? ******* Earn it.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
I genuinely cannot understand the outrage about this.
The problem is that Evolve is a retail game structured like a Free to Play game.

Buy the game, get the basic starter pack (four humans, three monsters and Daisy).
Want more skins? Pay money.
Want more monsters? Pay money.
Want more human characters? Pay money.
Want to accelerate your XP Grind? Pay money.
Want to skip the grind and get unlocks up front? Pay money.

Want to unlock this extra stuff by playing your full priced retail game? Haha good one.

I feel a bit sorry for Turtle Rock in this situation, they were clearly forced into this by THQ but they are going to suffer most for it. When the reviews come out saying that what's there's good, but there's very little of it and it's clearly a vector for DLC money they'll be the ones missing sales targets and bonuses.

If the game was £15 (or actually F2P) this wouldn't be such an issue, but it's not, it's selling itself at full price, where it won't be staying for long.
 

gamegod25

New member
Jul 10, 2008
863
0
0
And we don't like games built around selling DLC first and being a game second. So I guess we're even, bub.

"We have the game set up in such a way that we can expand upon it if that is the desire."

Well clearly YOU desire it since you are already selling it before the game is even out. When that "cool shit" that you just couldn't fit in is already for sale (completed or not) that IS shady and underhanded.

The fact that you don't "quite understand the knee-jerk negative reaction to DLC" means either you're lying or you really are fucking clueless if you can't even understand why people are up in arms.

And no I'm not going to cut them slack even if it was THQ's idea. After Destiny I'm fucking done with this pay full price for the bare foundation and pay extra for the rest of the game bullshit. They are at the very least complicit to this shady business and no matter who's fault it is it doesn't change the fact that they are doing it anyway.

Maybe if they offer a complete package with everything at a discount then maybe I'll buy it. Cuz I played the early access beta demo and it is NOT that good.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
I think the reason why so many people are disappointed with the way Evolve is turning out is due to how interesting the concept sounded.

To have this game you're liking the sound of and enjoying the way it's taking shape suddenly revealed as a DLC heavy and very expensive game is a pretty sure way to dash a lot of hopes.
 

EMWISE94

New member
Aug 22, 2013
191
0
0
There's nothing wrong with basing your game around DLC, heck if done right it can be a welcome thing (and by done right I mean that the base game doesn't cost too much and feel like half a game and the DLC isn't overpriced). What is wrong is making it seem like you're selling part of a game and then selling the other stuff later.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
Only thing i hear is the DLC. Not heard much about the actual game apart from 4 players against a player controlled monster. They should have released this via PSN/Live/Steam for £25. An then had lots of DLC packs which added extra monsters and characters and weapons. Thing is if the game is great fun then they will sell lots of DLC as people will always want more content for a game they love.
 

small

New member
Aug 5, 2014
469
0
0
i did raise an eye brow at all the different edition announced and being sold, dlc being announced, pre orders offered before a single screen shot of the game was even released
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,940
480
88
UK
Gender
He/Him
I like the way that they handling the DLC (ie, not splitting the community, not pay2win etc), but the problem that I have with it is just how much they have peddled the DLC and what you can get instead of peddling the game that isn't even out yet. I think that I'm with RedDeadFred here when I say that I know more about what you are going to release post-launch as opposed to what is actually releasing with the base game.

That and it is starting to sound a lot like a F2P game in how it does it's business model. Get the game and have access to 4 Hunters and 3 monsters, and then any more post-launch content will have to be paid for. That, and DLC saturation is never a good thing. Hell, I used to play a lot of Payday 2, and then I look at the store page now, and there is now £65 worth of DLC content. What on earth happened? I just never want to buy a game, then be faced with a wall of DLC that blocks me off from feeling like I actually own the whole game.
 

Darxide

New member
Dec 14, 2009
81
0
0
Zhukov said:
I don't find it dirty or underhanded. I think the automatic hysteria over DLC is a bit dumb.
People have been burned by terrible companies doing terribly unethical things with DLC just to make a buck. I understand that, but to automatically try to shove anybody who produces DLC into that box makes you just as terrible as those terrible companies. Even if a game is designed for DLC that doesn't make it bad or the company bad.

I've looked over what the DLC polices are for Evolve and find nothing wrong with them in the slightest and the people blindly jumping on the bandwagon that there is something wrong with it I only have one thing to say: You are what's wrong with gamers today. You ARE the problem.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
well done. now i really dont want to get the game if thats their business practice.
just put these idea all in and not deliver half a game and ask for more money afterwards for more content that should be already in the game.
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
The game is being sold at full AAA price and then has the nerve to have 50% more of its content behind a paywall.

People are pissed because they don't accept this level of gouging. Sell the game at a reduced price or include all the DLC with the full game.

You can't eat your cake and have it too.
 

AT God

New member
Dec 24, 2008
564
0
0
Their DLC practices aren't the worst thing to me, supporting a game after release with DLC isn't always evil, Payday 2 has done a great job of it, if they didn't do DLC they would probably be on Payday 5 by now. That said, I think the devs did something smart in their implementation of DLC, first off massive amounts of game updates occur when DLC comes out that is free, and often times they alternate paid and free DLC. Plus players can still access some of the DLC without buying it so it doesn't separate playerbase, although I assume Evolve will do this too in some manner.

My biggest problem with Evolve is the preorder mess. I rarely preorder games and Evolve's crap merely reinforces this stance (plus I can't afford full price games anymore).

If Evolve wants to be viewed differently, they shouldn't mention DLC in any specific sense until the game is out, and they should ditch the season pass because they do nothing but make things look shady.
 

NoX 9

I Want A Hug!
Jul 2, 2014
82
0
0
I haven't really been following this game at all, but isn't this the one that asked for pre-order money before a single screenshot was revealed, and did that silly 'lots of diferent pre-order packages' thing? It's not a Kickstarter title, is it?
 

Sanunes

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2011
626
0
21
For me the problem isn't really the post-launch DLC plan, for they have been upfront about it and with that said I wouldn't buy any of it for it sounds overpriced for what it offers. My issue and the reason why I won't be buying the game is how the physical game is being sold, its the same reason why I stopped buying Ubisoft games anywhere near launch for I don't want to feel like I am playing Eve Online trying to figure out what edition I am going to buy. Couple that with a bonus that is exclusive to a specific console you lose me as a customer.

Now with current trends and whatnot, the model I am willing to support is the three version release. The base game, a collector's edition, and a digital edition that has the digital bonuses from the collector's edition. I might not be completely happy with it, but it doesn't feel like I need to buy multiple copies of the game to get what I really want.
 

Beetlebum

New member
Oct 14, 2011
39
0
0
DLC announcements are a minefield. Oversell it and people will feel like they're being ripped off, undersell it and people will doubt you'll support your game.
In Evolve's case, by focussing so much on the pre-order, the DLC and the season pass, they make people think that the full game itself is a much lesser version. If they had waited until after the game was released before announcing DLC's this whole situation would play out much different.

In simple marketing terms: Don't start pushing a superior product before the initial product hits the shelves.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Wish my Quote function was working...but apparently the GreyGoo ad. believes it's more important than my ability to directly reference someone else's post. I don't mind the ads on this site, I just wish that whoever was putting them in knew their coding better because this is fucking ridiculous.

Anyways, tangent aside, I actually watched Jim's video on this very subject the other day. He likened this kind of thing with Watch_Dogs which quite literally did have a flow chart so you could see which features were in which version of the game you were buying. Does anyone else miss the good ol' days when games were uniform? Back when you could get a game on PC and it'd be exactly the same as the version your friend has on his PlayStation? That's what my big deal is over this (well that and the fact that the way they've marketed this game does make it seem like little more than a store-front to sell people DLC). So long as a dev is picking and chosing which version gets what bonuses and features, there will always be a mob screaming that they butchered the game up to sell select pieces with select versions.
 

Falterfire

New member
Jul 9, 2012
810
0
0
Kopikatsu said:
I genuinely cannot understand the outrage about this. Frequently DLC has to be 'built into the game' in that, without framework already being present in the game, stuff can't be added at all. That doesn't mean the DLC has (or could be) finished before the game was finished and is intentionally being held back to be sold later. I hear this a lot from developers of fighting games, who have to set up dummy 'slots' with some data attached in order to add DLC characters later.
Well the first problem is that games are by their nature an unknown amount of content. Games are the only things that get expansions/DLC rather than just sequels and they also don't have a standard length/amount of content. The net result is that no matter how much content you make, some portion of the audience will feel it's not enough. They expect to get the full game for the purchase price (Which isn't unreasonable) but since there's no way to define what the 'full game' is people then think that all DLC is part of the full game.

It's not like there's a measuring stick you can use for content to say "Okay, this game has this much content, it's complete. Everything past here is DLC" so quite a few people think that ALL content should be part of the main game. This gets even more complex when you add in indie titles that DO release a bunch of stuff for free so people think all games should be able to do that (Not realizing or not caring that you can't just churn out free updates when you're paying a whole team of programmers and artists and animators for every update you build)
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
DLC itself isn't a bad thing or a good thing. Its a tool, something that used to be called "expansion packs". Despite what nostalgic views people have, not all expansion packs were great, not all of them were huge additions to the game, and some of them were absurdly priced... almost the price of a full game.
That being said there are some absolutely stupid DLC practices (SFIV and Mass Effect 3's on disc I'm looking at you) and those should definitely not happen if one wants to keep consumers buying one's product.
I'm also one to say that DLC is not a right because you bought a game. Meaning that not having said DLC does not equate to the game being somehow incomplete when released (though that can happen and companies that didn't finish certain parts pre-release should release them... Ubisoft ACII, now I'm looking at you).
Not all the cool shit developers want to put in games can make it into the game, and a developer/publisher is not required to put those things into the game post-release (they also shouldn't advertise features or content that didn't make it either but thats a different point). If said developer/publisher chooses to work beyond the point where the game build is in its release-final form to add extra content to the game in the form of DLC, that is their prerogative. How they go about releasing said content and whether or not they attach a pricetag to said DLC is up to them. However they should take care if they're to price said DLC to do it in a way that makes customers feel they've got their money's worth.
Also DLC should never make a player feel he/she is missing a vital chunk of the game without the DLC, unless we're talking a huge expansion pack or something.
Once a game is released, unless it is completely broken and unplayable, it is a finished product. Anything released afterward, aside from bug fixing patches, is nothing the dev/pub owes the customer.
If they choose to release DLC for free, thats great. If they overcharge for something clearly not worth the asking price, don't fucking buy it. Demanding they release all post-release content for free because "I bought the game, you owe me" is bullshit. They owe you nothing except a game that is playable all the way through and patches to fix any issues that would present said thing from happening.
 

Neeckin

New member
Feb 5, 2013
37
0
0
I'd say the problem is that you are not selling us a game, you are selling us a dlc cash cow platform. You are locking more then half the game behind paywalls, even at full retail price. It's obvious you want to make as much money as possible from this