Evolve Dev Responds to DLC Criticism

[ryukage_sama]

This could go either way. It will depend upon how full/complete players feel the original game is. Same players felt underwhelmed by the content offered in Titanfall and Destiny which were both developed with long-term DLC in mind. This pattern is distressing to me. Turtle Rock may have found the best balance of being able to share DLC, but I'll wait to see how successful this is for both the devs/publisher and the players. If nobody buys the shareable DLC, other games won't adopt the strategy.

 

[Elijin]

Id rather see a game which the developers plan on supporting it well into the future, than the gambles with titles where developers throw them out, then if they dont hit their sales mark, totally abandon all support for the title.

 

[Dandark]

I'd be all for this and would applaud their attitude toward DLC as being great...If they weren't charging full price for the game.

The game is already going to be short on content for how much your paying, knowing that there will be plenty more content as long as you continue to pay doesn't make the deal any better. I'll wait for a price drop and then consider getting the game but it's been setting off so many warning signs for me that I don't want to risk it.

 

[loa]

I think you can only go the league of legends tons and tons of "dlc" characters route if the freaking game is free2play.
At some point it becomes ridiculous like if the combined cost of the DLC exceeds the cost of the game.

 

[Rednog]

That's great and all assuming the game makes it off the ground. Seriously Evolve has the exact same problem as Titanfall in that it's reliant on a community forming around it. People raked Titanfall over the coals because it didn't have enough for some people on launch. Titanfall added a bunch of content later, it still didn't save the community from drying up. Evolve's dev is really banking way too much on this being a hit. I personally didn't hear anyone raving about the game after the beta, so for them to be this optimistic is a little worrying. Seriously, the market is fairly volatile when it comes to multiplayer only games. What happens when their community dies off in a month and finishing the DLC becomes more costly than profitable? I honestly see this going the way of Titanfall.

 

[Deathfish15]

"When Evolve hits the shelves, none of the DLC will be done," says Turtle Rock.



And yet....there is the pre-order DLC; there is the "Special Edition" DLC. The whole concept of this game reeks of a poorly designed multiplayer only cash grab. I'm expecting the reviews to average 70/100, Yatzee to burn it heavily, and overall the game to be forgotten by July. It's pure tripe.

 

[IDS3Remix]

Still after all these years, think one of the games that actually did DLC right, was Dark Souls. The game was packed full of content upon release, and only received DLC content when it was asked for by the fans that were thirsty for more. I cannot trust devs anymore that make DLC after the game's release a selling point, regardless of their intentions. Even if the devs behind Evolve have the best of intentions, they're following the same model that has turned me of other big AAA titles, and after Destiny, I won't be fooled again by a game that has minimal content at launch, and is reliant on DLC to keep it alive. Give the players a product so good that they're begging for DLC, because it seems like now days, devs are telling us that we want DLC, instead of actually putting out a product worthy of an initial $60 purchase.

 

[L. Declis]

Hmmmm....

You see, the game has what, 2 monsters and 8 hunters to start with? And this is a £40 game? And then I have to pay more and more for what is variations on the same gameplay?

I mean, the free maps are nice, and as an ex-player of Killzone and Space Marine, those map packs always split up the community into such small parts that it effectively killed it off.

But I just don't think there is enough there for a full release. Either price it at £15 and then sell DLC, or price it at £40 and put all this amazing DLC you're working on in the game. But both? I have avoided games I wanted far more for far less.

 

[Belaam]

This has been on my wishlist for a while now, but the more that is revealed about the game as time passes, the less likely I am to get it this year. You know that in a year they'll have a bundle deal for the game and all DLC for probably less than the game at release. Unless things change radically, it looks like my Feb. game will be The Order.

 

[Valkrex]

Wait... people are mad about this? A developer flat out saying half the DLC will be free and that the paid stuff won't split the community and people are MAD?!?!?

What the hell...

 

[elvis-66]

Wait... people are mad about this? A developer flat out saying half the DLC will be free and that the paid stuff won't split the community and people are MAD?!?!?

What the hell...

The comment above you states it perfectly, the game comes with 2 monsters and 8 hunters; after that you have to pay for more, in no way is this a good deal. A game should choose its delivery method - "up front" or "nickel and dime". I loved left 4 dead 1 and 2 and when I heard the devs were making a new game that was a possible spiritual successor I was on board. But when the grind pre-order and the fact that for a full price purchase I will only get half a game (two playable enemies? Thats it?) was revealed this came out of my purchase list.

Maybe im just old but does anyone else remember when you bought a game and you got to play a game? Instead games are buggy monstrosities or spend all their time trying to find the "goldilocks" zone where they can give us the minimum game possible for our money whilst offering to charge us more with the promise that it may be worth it down the line.

 

[Nachtmahr]

The complete edition for this game currently costs 100USD on Steam. That's insane, especially when the whole reason I would play this is a decent variety of monsters and hunters. I am absolutely not buying this, even though I previously looked forward to it. I find this a disgustingly exploitative business practice.

Where are the 2 and 4 pack deals that generally come with games like this, to gift several copies to friends after purchase? If I still care after a year I might buy it during a Steam sale, when it inevitably falls to 20USD for the whole package. Games like this never stay expensive for long. I have a hard time believing that this is the kind of business model gamers appreciate.

 

[Falcon123]

Maybe im just old but does anyone else remember when you bought a game and you got to play a game? Instead games are buggy monstrosities or spend all their time trying to find the "goldilocks" zone where they can give us the minimum game possible for our money whilst offering to charge us more with the promise that it may be worth it down the line.

See, when you say "the minimum game possible", you're making a value judgment that the game as it stands on release is not worth the amount of money they're charging for it. If so, cool. You've decided the game isn't worth that price, and thus, won't buy it. It's just not what you're looking for. But the developers clearly think they've delivered a product worthy of release, and the people who buy it should do so because they agree.

Buying a game for the DLC is like buying a DVD for the bonus features. It's extra content that you can choose to buy if you want to, and not if you don't. You'll still have the main game regardless.

If they were holding back features for Day One DLC, that's one thing. But as this article says, none of the DLC is going to be ready by the time the game is released. It's bonus stuff for a game you don't have to buy if you don't think it's good enough on its own merits. I don't see the problem.

 

[Ragnar47183]

umm... isnt the game coming with 3 monsters and 12 hunters then a 4th monster for free if you pre order it? According to steam anyway.

I find it funny how mad you guys are getting over a game that isn't out yet. Why not wait and see how much content is there before grabbing your pitchforks? A game like depth launched with 1 diver type and 1 shark I think and its doing pretty well now.

I think its the right choice to not block out people from the dlc and split the community. We should be praising this not getting angry! He even says youll be able to play with all the dlc content with someone if you dont have it but they do so why are we mad again?

 

[Outcast107]

umm... isnt the game coming with 3 monsters and 12 hunters then a 4th monster for free if you pre order it? According to steam anyway.

I find it funny how mad you guys are getting over a game that isn't out yet. Why not wait and see how much content is there before grabbing your pitchforks? A game like depth launched with 1 diver type and 1 shark I think and its doing pretty well now.

I think its the right choice to not block out people from the dlc and split the community. We should be praising this not getting angry! He even says youll be able to play with all the dlc content with someone if you dont have it but they do so why are we mad again?

At least someone can fucking read before going into "Hate it without reading about it fully and make up bullshit things about the game"

 

[Cecilo]

It's really a shame. When I first heard about Evolve I was thinking Parasite from Warcraft 3's custom maps. And with all this talk of DLC it has just completely pushed me off the idea. Which is a shame since it looks nice. But I don't need to be charged for things that should have been in the game in the first place.

And for Ragnar's comment, Depth did well because it had a more reasonable price (25 dollars), Evolve is asking 60 dollars for something some people feel is being rushed out the door to get people to buy more DLC.

 

[tzimize]

If the stuff is needed for the game, there is such a thing as free dlc. Some developers actually do this!

DLC is usually overpriced garbage anyway. And saying that its gonna have lots...just makes me less interested in the game.

Free DLC is nice for the customer and all, but its generally not a good business decision unless you have some form of constant revenue comin in. You'll see a lot of things where people try to do right by their customers to the detriment of their own studio which doesn't help anyone in any case. Smite is an interestin example because the buy every god ever pack is a wonderful idea for the customer but its a fuck awful business decision that I've been told they have admitted was a terrible business decision that they wish they hadn't done. It doesn't mean they don't think that doin right by your customers is a bad idea, it means that they realize not bein paid for your work makes it hard to keep doin more work.

On topic!

Personally for me it just depends on how the base game is. I'm never one to scoff at DLC if it adds a lot to the game. Its why I skipped a lot of the Mass Effect and Dragon Age DLC, overpriced garbage is what that was. 3-4 hours for 15 bucks? Screw that noise. However F2P games like Heroes of the Storm or STO I've spent a ton of money on characters/ships because the amount of time I spend playing those characters ships vastly outweighs the paltry 10 bucks I spent on them.

If the base game is good and the new hunters/monsters interest me I'll be down for buyin them.

Its the same for all DLC really. There's a lot of people who instantly gag when they see DLC like its the worst thing in the fuckin world. I don't understand these people. If its bad DLC, feel free to gag all you want because I'll be right there with you. However good DLC that is actually worth the cost of admission is a wonderful system for game devs and for players. Not splittin communities and allowin people to play with those who don't have the DLC? That's a good system and it should be celebrated, not shat on. If it was made after the game was released then there really shouldn't be a problem with it.

The problem is that DLC is there instead of something better. DLC in almost all cases is shit. A main offender being for example CoD (thank god I dont play it). Rehashed levels for exorbitant prices. What we COULD have instead, is moddable games.

The thing is, if a game NEEDS to rip off its customers after release, someone should have done a better job with the budget. If a game WANTS to rip off its customers after release, its just (or in a fair world should be) bad business, at least long term. If your customers see that you are ripping them off, they will abandon your product, and hopefully not come back the next time around. If you just make a good game instead, people will usually like it, buy it and play it. If you in addition make it MODABBLE, you will extend the lifecycle of the game, the value of the game (to no real cost to the company because it doesnt have to develop ANY addition content afterwards) and the goodwill of the company. A game with a lot of good mods can make much more sales as well. Half life would be a prime example of this.

DLC gets in the way of all this. Who wants to pay 20? for a shitty map pack if there are five billion at least as good fan made free maps? No one. DLC is in the way of modding. Modding have given us mountains of great content. DLC is bad value, its unnecessary and greedy. It benefits NO ONE but the money grubbing developers. Give me ONE example of DLC as valuable (to the customer) as say CS, action half-life, DOTA (granted from just a map editor, but the editor is powerful enough to make want to call it a mod), RPG levels in Starcraft/WC3, Black Mesa, DayZ or the endless amount of extra levels/conversions for DOOM for example. This is what we COULD have instead of DLC, but we WONT have both, because no one would buy the shitty content if they could have all this awesomeness for free. DLC is bad, and anyone buying it should feel bad.

 

[Fulbert]

...all this talk of all this extra DLC, before the game has even been released, is of naturally making fans a bit nervous...

Polanball, are you of writing news for Escapist now?

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

It's a blatant cash grab move worthy of EA. It's all well and good to announce that your game will have DLC, it's entirely a douche move to release information, sometimes including screens or video of it.