- Sep 10, 2009
Okay... I'm stunned. Just leave it at "That's a shit-ton of dollars... :O ".
This is incredibly misleading reporting. You should be absolutely ashamed. You've counted the packs and the individual items from those packs which are available alone. To get all the content you wouldn't spend nearly what you claim. Do your research next time.Steven Bogos said:So Just How Much DLC Does Evolve Have at Launch? $136 Worth
It'll set you back more than double the cost of the base game to get the complete Evolve experience.
At this point, Evolve's DLC policy [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139496-Evolve-Dev-Defends-DLC-Practices] is a pretty well-known point of contention in the gaming world. But just how much DLC is there available for the game, which just launched this week? At launch, Evolve currently has $136 worth of additional content for purchase - more than twice the value of the "full" retail game.
Breaking it down further, there are 44 pieces of $2-$7 Evolve add-on content listed on the game's Xbox Marketplace product page [https://store.xbox.com/en-US/Xbox-One/Dlc/Evolve/35299174-27da-43ba-a210-737fa4325267?page=1]. To be fair, these are all cosmetic enhancements for hunters, monsters and weapons, such the Kraken Wendigo Skin ($3), the Assault Ragnarok Skin Pack ($5), and the Goliath Bog Skin ($3).
On top of this, there is the $25 season pass [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/139428-Evolve-Shows-off-New-Monster-Season-Pass-Deluxe-Editions] which will eventually unlock four new Hunters. There's also technically the "PC Monster Race" special edition which costs an additional $40 over the game's base $60 price tag, and includes the content from the season pass a fifth monster, two new hunters and four additional skins.
So, if you go out and buy the base game ($60), with the PC Monster Race edition ($40), or just the season pass ($25), and then go out and buy all the DLC on the store ($136), you're looking at $221-$236 for a game that has just been released. And that's not even taking into account the poor Australians, who will likely pay double that.
Turtle Rock certainly wasn't kidding when it said the game will have lots of DLC [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136058-Evolve-Will-Have-Lots-of-DLC].
Source: GameSpot [http://www.gamespot.com/articles/evolve-launches-with-136-worth-of-dlc/1100-6425237/]
After looking through the store, it seems you are correct. The actual cost of the DLC when all of the packs are removed is $75. I have updated the article to reflect this. I apologize for not properly checking my facts, and will endeavor to make sure it does not happen againmartyrdrebel27 said:This is incredibly misleading reporting. You should be absolutely ashamed. You've counted the packs and the individual items from those packs which are available alone. To get all the content you wouldn't spend nearly what you claim. Do your research next time.
Game prices stay stable partly because they are largely an unlimited resource (like all creative works), and there is relatively little direct cost involved with each copy.MazokuRanma said:I'm sure this will be an unpopular point of view, but something no one ever seems to consider is that the price of games has been stable at $60 for -decades- now. Think about all the other things we buy - fast food, gas, clothing, etc. - and you'll note that all of that stuff has increased in price over time with inflation. A $60 Nintendo game in 1985 would cost over $130 today (and some of them retailed above $60 back then). 'Gamer entitlement' gets thrown around pretty often with no real basis, but it's hard to think of any other factor as to why we believe we should continue paying a maximum of $60 for a AAA game when so many things around us have increased in price, including the development costs of these titles. The only way to have the $60 price point remain a viable business option would be to increase the base cost of the game (and I'm sure that would go over well...), or to add random cosmetic options that add a second revenue stream. Personally, I'd rather the latter, as that's content I'm more than welcome to ignore.
All of that said, it's also worth noting that not every game is worth $60. Some should cost more at their launch, others less. As an example, I would personally still buy the next Elder Scrolls game (single-player, not the MMO) for $100 at launch. I spend enough time with those games that I would still get more than my money's worth out of them. Dragon Age: Inquisition is another that would have been worth that price point. I've put over 100 hours into it already and that was a single playthrough. That's less than $1 per -hour- of value I've obtained out of those games. Now, something like Destiny, which I enjoy but don't spend all that much time on, I would value around $40. I'm sure plenty of people would believe that game has $100 value though. And shorter games that are single-player focused, let's say around 6 hours of content, should consider capping at a $40 price point. Unless price variability becomes an actual market force, though, every game will stay $60 regardless of amount of content.
You pretty much hit my views on the head, these guys can go f$%k themselves!erttheking said:http://www.adrants.com/images/middle_finger_drawing.jpg
I'm on the same page as Jim. This is gonna be the game that fell out of the bullshit tree and hit every branch on the way down.
It's what Microsoft did with Windows 7. You want this super crippled version of Windows 7, subtitled "Home Basic"? It's the cheapest one! You want the full version of Windows 7, subtitled "Ultimate"? It's an outrageously expensive piece of software! They cut their product up into pieces, and then charge you for every feature separately, in order to extort as much money from you as possible.Grouchy Imp said:I don't have a problem with DLC as such (it's a nice way of extending the play-time of a game that you've played to death for the last six months/a year/two years) but day-one DLC is a fucking joke. Any content ready and available at time of launch should be included in the full title. I can even understand releasing a title early to compete with the release schedule of a rival title and then finishing the incomplete content over the coming months as DLC, but holding back ready-to-go content just to squeeze bucks out of players on release day is ropey as hell.
Not all of it. A good chunk of it (25-40 dollars worth) is about hunters and monsters that you play as.Colin Bagley said:Chill.
It's just skins.
You missed the point he was making. Google inflation and do some reading.Grumman said:No, it wouldn't. For one example, Super Mario Bros 2 would cost $5 today. [http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/ZP3N5PNR_eZUQV43Ukwtbl-QauOYWNMC]
There's no possibly off setting inflation here. Back in the day a game like Final Fantasy or other hit titles on the NES and SNES were a bonified hit if they sold a couple hundred thousand copies. Now there are publishers who consider a game a flop if it "only" sells 10-50 times that much. Compared to the doubling in price that people bring up if inflation actually factored into game prices, the number of units companies are moving so vastly outpaces any losses due to inflation that the market would have to shrink substantially for it to even be a point worth considering.CpT_x_Killsteal said:
Because, going by your analogy, the base house that you purchase isn't all that big to begin with. Sure, the wall looks nice, it's all fancy and shiny, the garden is lovely, and the exterior makes it look distinguished, but all you get in the beginning is one room. You buy your house, at full price - a price you would pay for a full regular house - and all you get is a living room. No bedroom, no washroom, no kitchen - just a living room. Upon moving in the people who sold you your house 'casually' mention, "Oh yeah and we also have some more addition you could add to the house, if you want. Just giving you some options, don't want you to have to pay for what you don't want." And the 'additional options' cost double to triple what they should.Trippy Turtle said:I don't understand why everybody hates DLC.
You can hate a game for being incomplete and charging full price for it + the dlc that would make it a full game. But if you they create more content and give you the option to buy it how is that bad?
Its like getting extensions on your house. You wouldn't ***** to the builder about how you already paid for the house and so he should do it for free.
I can't take anybody seriously when they say they will avoid a game just because it has a lot of DLC. Brings me back to all the gamer entitlement threads that popped up around here.
Pissed off Aussie here.Colin Bagley said:Every time I see people ***** about it costing $60. I have to do a double take.
PSN is asking for £54.99 for it to download. Which is insulting to UK customers because $60 = £39.07. (£54.99 = $84.48) But I payed £40 from Game (Store Credit from their loyalty card!)
And the Season Pass is £19.99.
So if anything, all this complaining about Pricing just seems petty, coming from you yanks.
And I'm a Brit. God only knows how pissed off Aussies are!