Evolve Will Have Lots of DLC
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Time to play Devil's Advocate here.
Pricing aside, a lot of people here think "DLC? Fuck this game!"
I think Evolve seems like an ideal game to add lots of DLC into.
The entire game revolves around a handful of key things. Most importantly are The Monsters, and the Hunters. Followed by the levels, and the creatures.
If Turtle Rock continually adds more of these elements, then the game could remain active for a very long time, without the need to ever release a sequel. Who knows what their long term plans for the game are. But they did mention they plan to keep it afloat for a long time. Whether or not this means they'll ever release a sequel for it is anyone's guess. But a game like this, which is centered around very specific key elements, could benefit a lot from additional content. More monsters, more characters, more levels, more wildlife. The idea of this sounds good to me.
I think if Turtle Rock wants to avoid the brunt of controversy here, they should follow a DLC plan similar to Payday 2. In which only one person needs to own the DLC, and other players may join in with that person to share in the fun. That would be fair for both sides, I think.
Pricing aside, a lot of people here think "DLC? Fuck this game!"
I think Evolve seems like an ideal game to add lots of DLC into.
The entire game revolves around a handful of key things. Most importantly are The Monsters, and the Hunters. Followed by the levels, and the creatures.
If Turtle Rock continually adds more of these elements, then the game could remain active for a very long time, without the need to ever release a sequel. Who knows what their long term plans for the game are. But they did mention they plan to keep it afloat for a long time. Whether or not this means they'll ever release a sequel for it is anyone's guess. But a game like this, which is centered around very specific key elements, could benefit a lot from additional content. More monsters, more characters, more levels, more wildlife. The idea of this sounds good to me.
I think if Turtle Rock wants to avoid the brunt of controversy here, they should follow a DLC plan similar to Payday 2. In which only one person needs to own the DLC, and other players may join in with that person to share in the fun. That would be fair for both sides, I think.
Except that. Fuck everything about that.Steven Bogos said:
You should know that quick shoddy sequels aren't exclusive to gaming, they are in everything. The first game not being made to accommodate a sequel, and it having to be pumped out quick means they tend to suffer in both story and gameplay.Strazdas said:
However not all series suffer from this, Gust pushes out yearly Atelier games and their quality is in no way lesser, and in fact Totori (2010) is worlds better than Rorona (2009) is.
Not that its a bad thing regardless, its like if they started pumping out yearly Yakuzas...would the quality decline...likely but you know its still a Yakuza game so I'd really not care.
The public cannot act as a cohesive unit in dealing with such things, they will as they always have let companies do such things.
You know how long they've done that, and its not just been them. Resident Evil for example had things like Dual Shock editions, and "X editions" (think that'd count), and I doubt it stops there.
Its been a thing forever and you're taking a stand like they are just know turning the wheel.
These guys are talking about making DLC AFTER release. Alien Isolation`s DLC was made BEFORE release. There is nothing wrong with supporting a game after release with new content.Efrit_ said:
So let me get this straight. "...made these modular pieces--the way the whole game fits together means we can make new maps, new environment types, new wildlife, new monsters and hunters, and all of that stuff just plugs into the game."
How could you not add anything you wanted in to the game before? That's bullshit and you know it, Chris. That's not how "game development" works. You can code in and build any content into the game when you want. What you mean to say is, "we know a lot of gamers don't understand how game engines work and how coding works, so we're going to lie about how 'hard' it was to give people the 'dlc modules they wanted' (whatever that fucking means) and how development actually works so that we can build it up to be this amazing service for the player."
Cut the bullshit, Chris. You just want to chop up your game into a DLC festival and make the player pay more than the fair share for next to nothing. "It's a business" and "it has to make sense" isn't an excuse. You don't need more than say $50 for your game per sale. You just WANT more than that from people. Stop pretending like your doing anybody a service or providing something that gamers want.
Terraria adds new maps, new environment types, new wildlife, new monsters and hunters, and all that "stuff" for free. And they didn't even have the funding you have, Chris. And, get this, the original price was $20.
How could you not add anything you wanted in to the game before? That's bullshit and you know it, Chris. That's not how "game development" works. You can code in and build any content into the game when you want. What you mean to say is, "we know a lot of gamers don't understand how game engines work and how coding works, so we're going to lie about how 'hard' it was to give people the 'dlc modules they wanted' (whatever that fucking means) and how development actually works so that we can build it up to be this amazing service for the player."
Cut the bullshit, Chris. You just want to chop up your game into a DLC festival and make the player pay more than the fair share for next to nothing. "It's a business" and "it has to make sense" isn't an excuse. You don't need more than say $50 for your game per sale. You just WANT more than that from people. Stop pretending like your doing anybody a service or providing something that gamers want.
Terraria adds new maps, new environment types, new wildlife, new monsters and hunters, and all that "stuff" for free. And they didn't even have the funding you have, Chris. And, get this, the original price was $20.
What in the world are you on about they did not say the pieces are already made just that the game is set up to add them, it taking more work to make more stuff is kinda exactly how game development works. Terria while a great game has what 2 maybe three major updates over the course of years, not excalty a well supported game and also how is it an example of content magically appearing when it takes said time for the content to show up.Demonchaser27 said:
I'm on about the fact that he's "pretending" like it was any harder to add new content to Left 4 Dead then it is in Evolve. It's not. When you build a game you add content to it. That's just it. The ease and simplicity is all on the code and engine your using. And even then its not magically easier to add content to their game then it is to anyone else's. It's based on their knowledge of the engine or coding language their using. What Chris said makes very little sense. And I'm sorry but experience with this industry has taught me that people talking the way Chris does about DLC have no intentions of releasing anything related to a "finished product". Particularly because they have already decided they will have DLC, meaning they already plan to have content made and severed off as a seperate purchase. A lot of studios do it and it doesn't make it any more justified.zerragonoss said:
Not to mention Chris here is wording this as though its some wonderful thing for the community, which clearly, if EA and Ubisoft stories of late have anything to say about that, it isn't. This is no different than what EA has being doing with a lot of their games lately.
And my reference to Terraria is simply because its a perfect example of how you can release a great game, while making profit with a limited budget and still manage to give the players more. Mainly I said this because he said, "this is a business and it has to make sense" as though it couldn't be done any better. As though no other examples of it being done better existed. And Terraria's content IS support irrelevant of whether it took time to come out or not, as it came as patches for free. DLC is not support because they are demanding money from the user. Your not supporting the game, your supporting your wallet.
Both are despicable. Alien: Isolation is despicable because whatever part of the game is available at launch should be in base game. Day-1 DLC is bullshit. This is even more bullshit. I'll never buy Evolve. Fuck them. Right in the eyesocket.Efrit_ said:
CAPTCHA: pound cake
I've been spoilt by the likes of Warframe into getting new content for the game for FREE. A price tag on a multiplayer only title just pushed me away and this news is te poverbial final nail in the coffin.
Looked nice and intesting for what it was, but no.
Looked nice and intesting for what it was, but no.
When they say they couldn't make new special infected for left 4 dead they don't mean to imply that they literally can't. What they mean is that in left 4 dead every map had been designed with all of the special infected in mind, hence why left 4 dead 2 maps are very different from left 4 dead 1 maps and why left 4 dead 1 map had many edits done to them before being released for left 4 dead 2. If they were to make a new special infected for left 4 dead then they would have to either A. make the special infected in a way that it doesn't force them to edit any of their maps which would limit their options as all of the current special infect fill in every role needed. B. make it but also edit every map for left 4 dead. Then it would either have to be a free update (for a lot more work than it would take to make a couple of maps) or they would be forced to split up their non dlc players with their dlc players or only allow the players with the dlc to spawn as the new special infected, which could play a vital role in the new map design, then what happens if 1 team doesn't have anyone with that dlc would they just have to work without said special infected. I am not saying it's not possible to make a new special infected for left 4 dead it just a lot of work as every piece in left 4 dead was designed with every other piece in mind.Demonchaser27 said:
Now let's look at evolve, 4 changeable playable characters (as long as you have 1 of every role) apparently there will be 17 of these at launch so 5x4x4x4 combination of playable characters. Now they can just release a new playable character and as long as it fits its role (medic, supporter, assault or tracker) it can easily slot into the game. What's that like, it's like a moba you can just release a new character of any role and as long as their balanced don't have to worry about editing everything else. Same goes for the monster (which their will apparently be 5 of at launch) just make sure it's balanced and it can act as a replacement. That's what they mean with modular pieces, the only piece modular in left 4 dead was the map and that's why they only released maps for left 4 dead.
Well after having done some research, I can't seem to find any example of what your referencing here about Left 4 Dead. As far as playable characters went when I played, there were no classes. Everyone did what everyone else could do. So technically there would have been nothing wrong with adding a new character into that. As far as special infected I'm assuming your referencing Left 4 Dead 2, since I didn't play that one much. Because in the first game the special infected were set up so that they essentially just slapped them anywhere they felt like. The smokers were cool as long as they're was ANYWHERE with a long distance, sometimes though they didn't even hide them far away. The Boomer was placed in multiple environments, indicating that it didn't matter much what the environment looked like or played like. And on top of that The Hunter also was slapped anywhere they felt like. The only exception was the Tank. But that was just a limit because he had to fit through doors. (I.E. they didn't put him in small corridors with human sized doors much because he couldn't properly fit through them). Which is a very small hindrance, honestly.nuba km said:
Unless there is something that I'm missing, I don't see how if you made a "truly" new infected who uses drastically different abilities to the others, as opposed to a reconfiguration of existing infected, you wouldn't have to always make a new room to fit it. Unless these "modules" refer to a room layout? In which as long as I fit into that layout then my new infected can work, however this isn't getting rid of limitations, this is just planning for them. Which to me means one of two things:
1. They've already planned to make the "new" DLC infected and are essentially selling you something that was already made/planned during development of the original game you buy.
OR
2. They are still restricting themselves to particular map setups (modules), they just now made *more* map modules giving them slightly more freedom than they had with less map setups in Left 4 Dead, due to these new modules. But under this, it means that anything they release would have to be almost identical or partially related to enemies that are already in the game unless they *hold back* designs for later purchase which just doesn't really justify buying to me.
Either way though, I'll likely not play this game. Mainly because I just don't see it going down a good road. They are going to, as you said, have fixed classes (which is fine on its own) but will essentially release "new" playable characters that have to fit into these roles, which makes them almost the same as another character that was already available. At best they can combine a couple of classes abilities together, but that is still, as someone said earlier them just reconfiguring content I have already bought figuratively speaking (i.e. a "new" Medic that has the Assault guys rush move, that just uses an animation similar to the Tracker's shove back attack). Then they are doing essentially the same thing with maps and enemies. I would rather buy something completely new rather than a reconfiguration of something I already have. Modders can do that. This would be like if Mojang didn't allow Minecraft to spawn new map types, but just used the random generator to spawn a new map and then sell it as though they built it, when they didn't. And even if they did manually reconfigure the map themselves they would just be copying and pasting existing assets in a different configuration all around the map space, which means I'm paying for that which I already have in the game laid out differently.
left 4 dead had to be made so you can use each special infected anywhere, that's why it was carefully designed, how do you make a room that allows,(versus mode) a playable character that dies in basically one hit, a playable character who pounces and pins a player to the ground and a playable character that drags people long distances. That's just for left 4 dead 1, and then you also have to make sure that no point of the map is easily abused by one of these characters and keep a nice flux in safety and danger for the other team. Also no point can be safe enough from these characters that the players feel safe. Having played hundreds of hours on versus mode I can tell you that any point of map can be used by a special infected but it is way more effective on many occasions to wait for them to reach 1 or 2 rooms down the map. Also left 4 dead 2 maps are a lot more open space then left 4 dead 1 maps, not by accident but purposely so to keep both the spitter and charger balanced but their roles to split up the enemy team is still necessary. Both the spitter and charger are needed for this role simply because the change in environment often means that at each point one of the two is significantly better at doing said job. The left 4 dead 1 maps in left 4 dead 2 have many small edits made in them to keep the charger from destroying the survivors in corridors. Also any character added to the game would just be a skin not a new playable character, any character they could add with different effect let's say slower but more health would not be an interesting change to gameplay.Demonchaser27 said:
1. Or they make the game then once it is being shipped turn their heads to a white board and go 'so now that the game is complete let's see what we additional content we can make' e.g. mechromancer in borderlands 2 which while thought of while the game was in development wasn't being developed until the game had shipped and contained new mechanics (deathtrap and all the moves that came with it and anarchy are 2 examples)
2. I think you are misunderstanding modular in this context, they don't mean diablo style modular maps where they make a whole bunch of small parts which can be slammed together semi randomly to make something playable. modular means interchangeable i.e. they can make a new monster without worrying how it interacts with any of their other monster mechanics as their will only be 1 monster at a time. Same goes for any of the classes. You seem to have this idea that they can just reasonably include every idea they have into the main game and sell it for $60. I mean 17 playable characters and 5 monsters is a lot considering that so far every announced character is extremely different but does their role.
(each class has more abilities then I am mentioning)
Medic: keeps team alive
medic 1 uses a healing gun to do this, medic 2 can't heal but can raise players back form the dead, each medic has a different set of weapons (one has a sniper which creates weak point on the monster) they also have other unique abilities (one can generate a a.o.e. cloak field). as you see both fit the role but do it in very different ways which changes how you play them or play with them or how you play against them.
Assault: damage
assault 1 has 2 medium damage long range high accuracy weapons that means as long as he has a line of sight of the monster he can do reasonable damage (don't know his abilities). Assault 2, has dual flamethrowers and gas grenades, this allows him to flush out the monster from hiding places and control its movement using the threat of high damage.
Support: supports
Support 1 has a gun that provides a high resistance shield as long as you?re aiming at a player. Support 2 can detach his head and use it as a uav (which is useful as your ui doesn't show where allies are so using this you can either help track the monster or locate lost teammates).
Tracker: find the creature
tracker 1 has a harpoon gun which slows down the creature allowing your team to catch up with it and he also has a cage deployer which creates a spherical force field (about 200m radius) trapping the monster and forcing it to fight your team (lasts about 30 sec). tracker 2 has a pet which can help fight but also continually tracks the creature meaning your team always knows roughly were it is forcing the monster to keep moving.
As you can see having set roles doesn't force characters to play the same, just think about any time you had a large group of people complete the same task, it gets done in different ways.
Welp, Evolve just went onto the list of games I won't touch at launch.
Just too many warning signs.
The fact that Ashton specifically claims
It might not even be intentional on their part either; what sounds like a statement of confidence for their product to them, could sound arrogant to the paying customer. Especially if they're already familiar with the price gouging practices common to the rest of the business.
I'm going to wait and see, but after this announcement, my gut tells me that Evolve isn't likely to be worth my money or time.
Just too many warning signs.
While technically true, that's an extremely optimistic take of the situation when you consider the larger scale trends in DLC practices across the rest of the industry.archiebawled said:
The fact that Ashton specifically claims
is cold comfort for those of us who have seen that before. I cannot think of a developer who has gone the "it's a business" route who also hasn't used that as justification for milking their customers.Ashton said:
It might not even be intentional on their part either; what sounds like a statement of confidence for their product to them, could sound arrogant to the paying customer. Especially if they're already familiar with the price gouging practices common to the rest of the business.
I'm going to wait and see, but after this announcement, my gut tells me that Evolve isn't likely to be worth my money or time.
I think in this post free dlc world we just need to come to terms with evaluating the worth of a game based on what is there rather than what we think should be there. If the game turns out to be huge amounts of fun you'll probably be glad they have an infrastructure in place to sell more of it and the financial incentive will actually cause them to make more. Just trying to look on the bright side.
Yes, other industries suffer from this too and i agree that costumers are the ones letting it happen. Im not taking a stand like it just happened. i was always taking this stand against bad practices. You however seem to try real hard to excuse them.Rozalia1 said:
It isn't a "bad practice" which is what you fail to see. Not listening to your customers unhappy with certain things would be bad practice yes...however you're a tiny minority not even worth thinking about. Catering to you and losing money, now that would be a bad practice.Strazdas said:
Hey I'm a Ziggler guy so I know how it is to be part of such a group, however you have to take a more neutral standpoint and see things how they really are.
So people who dont like their games being taken apart and sold in peaces for more profit os a minority not even worth thinking about?Rozalia1 said:
And yes, gutting your game to sell it for more later is bad practice.
There is no reason to take neutral standpoint (not like you do that either).