So Just How Much DLC Does Evolve Have at Launch? $100 Worth

[SergejH]

You know what is worst about this "day 1 cosmetic DLCs"? That every troll and attention seeking kid starts, who dont really wants to buy it, fill every forum with new and new threads about how this s***s and that we all should boycot 2k and turtle rock.
So, when someone interested in game comes, he see just bi**** about cosmetic DLCs and may say "F*** that, i dont care about no stupid costumes" and buy a game. Why? Because all relevant threads/posts about how average this game is, problems with performance/multiplayer DCs are just buried deep beneath. And even many reviews, that i read spent half the time b****ing about dlc.
To be honest, i would buy this a second time. I played it for about 15 hours, got bored, most probably never look back, but i enjjoy it most of the time. And 1 last thing. You know who you have to blame for those day 1 DLCs? Just you, who are preordering...

 

[gonenow]

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.

Personally i'd rather just buy a sequel or an expansion a year or two later that is done properly with stuff like skins etc just being left to the modders rather than wasting developers / artists time. Its very hard to justify DLC purchases when the base games these days barely have more than 4 hours worth of content unless its a JRPG.

 

[Louzon]

Man...none of this DLC is required to be any better. It's all cosmetic stuff that you only buy if you think it looks cool. The new hunters and monsters would be slightly different, but still, without them I don't see still doing well at this game being that difficult. If you're mad that they're trying to sell you skins, you're missing the point that it's actually a really fun game that can be a blast with friends. Don't like new skins? Don't buy 'em. Problem solved.

 

[Scorpid]

Man...none of this DLC is required to be any better. It's all cosmetic stuff that you only buy if you think it looks cool. The new hunters and monsters would be slightly different, but still, without them I don't see still doing well at this game being that difficult. If you're mad that they're trying to sell you skins, you're missing the point that it's actually a really fun game that can be a blast with friends. Don't like new skins? Don't buy 'em. Problem solved.

That would be great if if it was a f2p game. But it isn't, its a 60 dollar game that has had features stripped from it that by all means should be in the base game but instead they took stuff out and turned around and charged for it with more stuff that could of been in the game to come. But if you are fine with the 60 dollar game being nothing more then an entry fee than I guess there is no problem.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

That content being day one DLC should be in the full game, not sold seperately. Whether it's skins, monsters, maps...they released them all at the same time, seperately. This should be a F2P model. In fact, it was mentioned on Jim's page somewhere that the game was initially proposed to the ex-THQ guys as a F2P idea. I guess the new publisher really likes their juicy dough.
This is certainly shameless, though i care little for this game in particular, i fear other publishers may push things further. You can defend this practice all you want. It's still day one DLC, and that equates to 'could've been in the base game.'
Kudos to an early mention of Turok Wars! Learn from the past, people! It was done miles better, years ago. Ok...dodgy use of measurement there. Apologies.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

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.

But hey, it's just optional. If you want you can just keep your $300,000 good looking living room, nobody is forcing you to buy a room to sleep in, a room to wash/use the toilet in, a room to cook/eat in - nope, it's completely your choice.

Yup, thats completely unrelated to the DLC.
That's a case of it being a shitty uncomplete game that they are charging full price for. DLC is still a postive even in this situation: If you have the money, you can make it a full game.
Probably not worth it, but hey, better to have the option than to not have it. By blaming this entirely on DLC you only hurt actually good DLC in games that don't try and pull this. To use the analogy again, removing the ability to purchase a bathroom does not solve or help the problem. It gets rid of a solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.

Personally i'd rather just buy a sequel or an expansion a year or two later that is done properly with stuff like skins etc just being left to the modders rather than wasting developers / artists time. Its very hard to justify DLC purchases when the base games these days barely have more than 4 hours worth of content unless its a JRPG.

I completely agree with all of that, I just don't like how the base game being worthless is being blamed on the DLC. There is good DLC out there and it can be done well. It just often isn't done well so a good concept is being treated like some dodgy practice devs are doing.

 

[Baresark]

I don't see a problem with selling cosmetic DLC. The outrage over that is ridiculous. I also don't think the cost of 4 more hunters and Monster is that bad considering that will be 5 more things to level and get all the perks for. Any future maps or game modes will be free. And nothing bars you from playing with anyone with the new content.

Hell, I don't even have the game, I was never very interested in the game, and I still can't hate them for doing what they are doing. The bulk of the money is in skins, which don't make a difference in the game at all.

 

[GAunderrated]

DLC used to be a great concept on extending the life of a game but developers and publishers have turned it into a worthless concept. I am against all DLC. I'd rather buy a complete and interesting game at full price than dump money after purchase.

 

[GreyNicor]

Snip

Front page still says $100 and also doesn't show you have made an editor's note (no Update: or anything).

OT: Meh, could be $0 could be a million, it wouldn't change a thing for me because I still won't buy a full priced game thats multiplayer/bots only.
I just don't trust my internet and there are perfectly fine games that came out a year ago or before that are a lot cheaper.

 

[zumbledum]

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.

Hates too strong a word , the issue i have is DLC always seems to be extremely bad value, its replaced expansions which used to offer fair value.

the game costs £35 for that you get the complete engine and game , all the lighting sounds physics , systems etc etc

then the season pass dlc for £20 pounds that just offers 4 new hunters, they dont have to do any more work on the base game thats all done so you paying over 50% again for around 5-10% more

to take your builder option its like them trying to charge you over 50k for a 10k extension on 100k house. ofc you would complain infact you would tell him to go fuck off.

It works because its underhanded and relies on a mechanic called impulse buys , it use the same hook and catch method of a heroin dealer.

its anti consumer, manipulative and piss poor value. and it works which is why they do it. but i notice evolve has now slipped down to 3rd on steam top sellers so maybe a few people are wising up and giving it the wide berth it deserves.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

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.

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 again

Thanks man. Incidentally, I too am upset about the DLC practices in place here, although nobody seems to be pointing out that call of duty had been doing this exact thing for ay least two games with over priced skins. Buy yeah, I just got mad because it seemed like sensationalist reporting. My apologies for my aggressive tone.

CAPTCHA: Zombie Attack. Sorry captcha, Turtle Rock doesn't make Left 4 Dead anymore.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

... although nobody seems to be pointing out that call of duty had been doing this exact thing for ay least two games with over priced skins.

I have notice this with COD recently too. However, not only does COD have a fairly acceptable single player story based campaign, but the packs arent (as far as im aware) day one DLC. Also the multiplayer hasnt been carved up to sell either. Except the recent zombies mode, but fuck that shit.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Good enough reason to never buy this.
Then again, I'm pretty much giving up on 8th gen gaming (partially due to this I guess) and rather like to stick to the consoles I have now.

 

[Zulnam]

DLC has become the arm-sweat of Satan. Yeah, I said it.


It used to be expansions, in which you would get a whole new campaign and a, lot of times, tons of other awesome stuff (units, weapons etc.). Skins used to be something you UNLOCKED.

Then they created DLC since "folks no buy disks no more". Sure, fine, it was alright for a time, but then they changed the formula. Now, DLC is mostly the stuff you buy in F2P games... in your P2P game.

Publishers have this bad habit of showing no respect towards the clients. This will only get more out of hand as long as people buy them.

*puts tinfoil hat back on*

 

[RandV80]

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.

Like someone else pointed out video games are software and pretty much all the cost is in initial sales. Games have been able to keep their prices stagnant despite of inflation because sales have risen dramatically compared to those old Nintendo days. Also if the sale price isn't enough to make a profit on the game the developer can always scale back the size & scope of the game. Basically publishers know how to make money here, and they know how to do it on a $60 ticket price.

That said I do agree with the sentiment. Gamers are so set on the max price, that potential projects have to be restricted to those sales projections. But it's a shame for games that have a devoted audience that sometimes developers can't just put a higher price tag onto the game and make a bigger game. Like I believe there is a good deal of crossover between fans of the Civilization and Total War series, and my dream game would be Civilization: Total War. As a joint project if they could charge $100 for it then the game would be feasible, but with the limits in place it's just too ambitious.

But the problem is in this case, the kind of thing I'm talking about has nothing to do with adding a bunch of chintzy little skin packs and the odd new character. To artificially inflate the price by hacking away all these little pieces and charging them separately from the core game is just crap.

 

[Lightknight]

Oh, so it's basically exactly what we thought. Tons of DLC, some actual game content and everything.

Oh well. Does anyone know how many people can play in offline mode?

 

[ryukage_sama]

I remember EA being overzealous in the pre-orders and limited edition stuff for Kingdoms of Amalur, but at least that game easily had 40+ hours of content. What's Turtle Rock's excuse?

 

[Lunar Templar]

While I'm not against cosmetic DLC, or most DLC for that matter ...

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.

this -.-

if, AT LAUNCH you have enough DLC released to double and then some the price of the game, your not only doing it wrong, your basically worse then EA and you should be ashamed of your self.

 

[Lightknight]

While I'm not against cosmetic DLC, or most DLC for that matter ...

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.

this -.-

if, AT LAUNCH you have enough DLC released to double and then some the price of the game, your not only doing it wrong, your basically worse then EA and you should be ashamed of your self.

There is one potential saving grace though. If they could honestly claim that all of the DLC (aside from skins, which I don't care if that's DLC) was created between code cutoff and the release of the product. Then it's just a testament to just how much they can pump out in this little time rather than the dickery we're accusing them of.

 

[Lunar Templar]

While I'm not against cosmetic DLC, or most DLC for that matter ...

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.

this -.-

if, AT LAUNCH you have enough DLC released to double and then some the price of the game, your not only doing it wrong, your basically worse then EA and you should be ashamed of your self.

There is one potential saving grace though. If they could honestly claim that all of the DLC (aside from skins, which I don't care if that's DLC) was created between code cutoff and the release of the product. Then it's just a testament to just how much they can pump out in this little time rather than the dickery we're accusing them of.

While that is very likely true all this was made between that fun time between the game being done and the start of the next one ... (I don't subscribe to the rather ignorant theory that all DLC is cut content)

It still feels icky knowing they have effectively double the cost of the game, at launch, before the game has even had a chance to prove it self worthy of even that initial 60 (or what ever it costs where you live)