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

[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)

 

[Valkrex]

Seeing as 90% of it is skins... people are overreacting. Simple as that. As for the Season pass... well I feel that's a little too expensive for what it gives, but seeing as all maps and modes are free. FREE. And it won't split the community since you can play with people who have monsters and hunters you don't its not that bad in the grand scheme of things.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

...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.

I must disagree here; that is nonsense. The development cost of these games has absolutely nothing to do with their worth or their value to us as consumers. Gamers do not give a damn how much a game costs to make. The only thing that matters is how good the end product is. We are not responsible for the rising cost of development, that responsibility is borne entirely by developers.

AAA gaming, arguably, has moved towards an absurd business model of ridiculously costly games that need to be blockbusters with multi-million units sold just to break even. Gone are the cheaper games, made for a more modest $10-20mill that are profitable after 750k units sold. Games that appeal to a smaller audience. No, now it's $50-100mill budgets, made to be generic and have "mass market appeal" to try and sell 3mill+ units just to break even.

If developers choose to spend such absurd amounts on developing blockbusters, that's their prerogative but they are not "worth" any more than a game made with half the budget for a similar amount of content. It's not up to us, the consumer, to fund it either. A product is not worth what a business says it's worth; it's worth what the *customer* is willing to pay. Development costs are the responsibility of the business, not the customer.

 

[stormcrow5]

People are so up in arms about skins.....At this point it is all pure cosmetics that have ZERO effect on the game, make you look a little different and if you want to spend 2-5 bucks to do that go right ahead just keep in mind NOTHING is going to make you spend a single cent more after you buy the game. I know later they will add hunters and monsters that will be more pricey yes but games have been adding content to their game forever, Why everyone is getting mad at Evolve for doing what all the others do is beyond me.

The game is easy to make DLC for sure, A new monster can add dozens to hundreds of hours if you are invested in the game and enjoy it so what 10-15 bucks for a new one is worth it. A new hunter class just adds once again more game to play to mix it up for you. Sure free things are great and everything is better free but they are still putting work into it and creating more content so if they charge for it, I understand.

 

[Zydrate]

Evolve looks like a neat game, but this is not how DLC should work.

 

[AstaresPanda]

I think the issue is its got about the same amount of content as Left 4 Dead just double the price and with added DLC for stuff that for pc gamers would be considered free in a update or at least like with TF2 its there if you want it. People are bitchinging as they feel ripped off and pulls you outta the game thinking im missing loads of shit, from a game that got delayed and still dont have as much substance. Think about it its like if they put out L4D but you can only play as acouple of the special infected gotta pay for the others at a later date.

 

[gonenow]

Seeing as 90% of it is skins... people are overreacting. Simple as that. As for the Season pass... well I feel that's a little too expensive for what it gives, but seeing as all maps and modes are free. FREE. And it won't split the community since you can play with people who have monsters and hunters you don't its not that bad in the grand scheme of things.

Given reskins are pretty much the easiest thing to make they really shouldn't be wasting time on it when they could just let the game's community make them (like with left for dead). Personally I'd rather they redirect their attention to more important things rather than try and cash in on shiny objects.

 

[EffectiveKill]

People are so up in arms about skins.....At this point it is all pure cosmetics that have ZERO effect on the game, make you look a little different and if you want to spend 2-5 bucks to do that go right ahead just keep in mind NOTHING is going to make you spend a single cent more after you buy the game. I know later they will add hunters and monsters that will be more pricey yes but games have been adding content to their game forever, Why everyone is getting mad at Evolve for doing what all the others do is beyond me.

The game is easy to make DLC for sure, A new monster can add dozens to hundreds of hours if you are invested in the game and enjoy it so what 10-15 bucks for a new one is worth it. A new hunter class just adds once again more game to play to mix it up for you. Sure free things are great and everything is better free but they are still putting work into it and creating more content so if they charge for it, I understand.

Gamers love to get up in arms as well as jump on the bandwagon (lets not forget L4D2 and how everyone was going to boycott that game, and than 90% purchased it day one), and this article did fail to mention that all future maps and modes will be free.

 

[Commissar Sae]

Welp, having played the beta, I can say the game was a lot of fun, but at 70$ for the base game here in Canada, I can't see myself buying it full price. The DLC is mostly cosmetic, so I don't really care, but the other monster would have been nice to see implemented into the game rather than as dlc.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I've never purchased any "cosmetic" DLC in my life, and I don't ever see myself spending actual money on them (or this game), ever. But I DO care. Why's it my problem you ask? Why should I even care? I'll tell you why, because it's setting a fucked up example, that's why. DLC already comes in enough malicious forms. Skins are something that should be: unlocked, cheated in, done by the community, whatever. Or just plain free. Unless the base game itself is free, or at least cheaper. This is freaking skins in a full-priced game, which always used to be free. That's why people are excited.

Of COURSE you have the option to just not pay. But this is shitty practice, and opening the floodgates for more of this type of shit in the future by other game companies. And any and all calling out of it is well justified IMO.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

atleast is cosmetic, but since they plant to sell monsters and other gameplay changing elements i really cant get behind this

i wish devs would simply handle their budgets beter so we dont have to buy the game, and the season pass and the microtransactions so it can make a bloody profit

 

[Valkrex]

Seeing as 90% of it is skins... people are overreacting. Simple as that. As for the Season pass... well I feel that's a little too expensive for what it gives, but seeing as all maps and modes are free. FREE. And it won't split the community since you can play with people who have monsters and hunters you don't its not that bad in the grand scheme of things.

Given reskins are pretty much the easiest thing to make they really shouldn't be wasting time on it when they could just let the game's community make them (like with left for dead). Personally I'd rather they redirect their attention to more important things rather than try and cash in on shiny objects.

Yea that's what they should be doing that now, but during the weeks leading up to launch when the art team has nothing to do its perfectly reasonable to churn out some throw-away skins.

 

[shintakie10]

... 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.

Show me how the multiplayer was carved up to sell as dlc. Please.

In fact, anyone show me how the multiplayer was carved up to sell. There isn't a single hunter or monster that's available for dlc yet. The only thing we even know about is the monster that people got for free for preordering, and that's not even out yet.

As of yet, no one has found anything in the game code that shows that any monsters or hunters were on the disk at time of launch.

We don't even have any data on what the next monster/hunter will be (again, outside of the preorder one that isn't out yet).

All future game modes and maps will be absolutely free, you wont be locked out from playing against (or on the same side as) any future monster/hunter dlcs.

There's literally nothin to indicate that anything content wise was held back in order to sell as dlc later.

So yeah, again. What proof do you have, any proof at all, that would justify your statement?

 

[Shuu]

Yeah... When you shove a bunch of additional content on the periphery of your new game, you're basically telling me "Just wait it out. Just wait and buy the complete editional later on, when it will innevitable be cheaper."
Is that what you want? Because that's what you've taught me to think games industry!

 

[Britisheagle]

People liken it to L4D in terms of gameplay. Lets hope it holds its value as well as L4D too so it becomes available for next to nothing in the coming months. MAYBE then I would consider DLC, but until then they have irriversibly damaged themsleves through this bullshit.

 

[Strazdas]

$100 Worth

No. What is 100 dollars is how much they are asking for the game. how much it is worth comparing to other similar games? around 20 dollars.

I'm not going to buy Evolve because its not my kind of game, but the overblown rage mobs that form around every game launch, trailer, and announcement not made by one of the cult leaders like Valve or CDprojekt worries me more than anything any game company has ever done.

Have you actually read those anouncements? the rage mobs are justified. ill answer the same as i did to that Rock Turtle CEO a week ago: if you dont want gamers to think you are doing shady stuff - stop doing shady stuff

The reason Valve and CDP are hailed as they are are solely because they are really the only ones not doing shady stuff nowadays.

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.

You are working under wrong assumption that price should be static and raise with inflation. It does not. There are things to consider, such as competition, economy of scale and increased userbase. Movies cost more to film than games to make and yet they still sell for 10 dollars a pop. why? because there is a lot more buyers. as the amount of buyers rose MULTIPLE TIMES in gaming it makes sense that LOWER the price would give you more money with more consumers. after all the actual moving costs (the cost that are added each aditional sale) is very small and most of the costs are static (costs of developement). Basic economics would actually say that game prices should ahve fallen. And they did - look at all the sales that didnt happen before.

Also if you want another example - communication industry. things like internet and cell phones also dropped in price as wide adoption appeared. in fact in my country cell provider costs were the only industry based on CPA classification (classification of industries) that were in deflation for over a decade.

Yup. All of that DLC, all of that cost, for a multi-player-only game. And no, "Multi-player but with bots" does not constitute as a proper single-player campaign.

i dont mind them ultiplayer only thing. in my opinion games should be in two ways. singleplayer only or multiplayer only. those that try to mix both usually fail at both. When i play multiplayer i play games that are designed for multiplayer from ground up.

 

[TKretts3]

Yup. All of that DLC, all of that cost, for a multi-player-only game. And no, "Multi-player but with bots" does not constitute as a proper single-player campaign.

i dont mind them ultiplayer only thing. in my opinion games should be in two ways. singleplayer only or multiplayer only. those that try to mix both usually fail at both. When i play multiplayer i play games that are designed for multiplayer from ground up.

Multi-player only isn't the problem, the problem is when a multi-player only game, especially one with such a lack of base content (Coming from my experience playing the betas), prices itself as a full game. Like somebody said earlier in the thread, even Call of Duty has an, albeit, short (~10 hour) fully voiced single-player campaign, a co-op mode for the campaign, a 'special' mode (Zombies, Aliens, et cetera), a good amount of maps, and multiple customization options for your character and weapons. There are DLC packs but they're not completed and released at the same time as the base game.

With that much content in the base game, much more than Evolve, you'd expect it to cost more than double what Evolve costs, but it doesn't - it costs around the same price. That isn't because CoD is under-priced, it's because Evolve is over-priced. The same goes for something like GTA V. Tons of content, tons of potential - oodles more than Evolve. Yet they're around the same price. This is actually one of the main things that people are complaining about in the Steam reviews; they're not saying that the game is bad, just over-priced and with a 'less than admirable' DLC model.

 

[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.

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.

I guess it's what you would define as a feature. If the hunters that are included in the game have new weapons that I would have to buy, I think that's a feature. If they have a new paintjob that does nothing to affect their stats, that's more of a player preference to me. Yes, new hunters and monsters will cost money, I don't think they're going to be overpowered, never-lose, must-buy-to-win purchases. I just feel that the rage is a little misguided in this case, because the gameplay is very fun and a good time with friends, but people are mad that they have to pay if they want a stat-less costume change.

 

[NeutralStasis]

It is getting depressing to see "gamers" defend poor business practices. When you pay for a game, you should get the damn game. Not a platform for the company that makes it to try to make even more money. It is treating your customers like fools. So, in short, it is foolish to defend a company who would not urinate on you if you were on fire.

Jim Sterling has said a great deal about this over the past year or so...maybe even longer. He is correct that these are practices that treat their paying customers like adversaries. This is happening to too many games now and becoming the norm. DLC, in its concept, was supposed to content added at a LATER DATE that would interest and add to the gamer's experience.

Skins and such are fine, but not day one. That is leaving content out on purpose for the simple reason to rake in more cash. If the skins were released a month from now, perhaps it would not be as bad, but not day one. I have seen defenders of this practice say that the time between the completion of the game and release date is being used to create these DLC items. If there were true, announcing the DLC months prior to release...while the game is in alpha and beta....would see that this is a lie.

I worry for the future of gaming if the gamers are content with crappy practices being used on them.

I will be voting with my wallet on this and other games like this, and not purchasing it.

 

[shintakie10]

It is getting depressing to see "gamers" defend poor business practices. When you pay for a game, you should get the damn game. Not a platform for the company that makes it to try to make even more money. It is treating your customers like fools. So, in short, it is foolish to defend a company who would not urinate on you if you were on fire.

Jim Sterling has said a great deal about this over the past year or so...maybe even longer. He is correct that these are practices that treat their paying customers like adversaries. This is happening to too many games now and becoming the norm. DLC, in its concept, was supposed to content added at a LATER DATE that would interest and add to the gamer's experience.

Skins and such are fine, but not day one. That is leaving content out on purpose for the simple reason to rake in more cash. If the skins were released a month from now, perhaps it would not be as bad, but not day one. I have seen defenders of this practice say that the time between the completion of the game and release date is being used to create these DLC items. If there were true, announcing the DLC months prior to release...while the game is in alpha and beta....would see that this is a lie.

I worry for the future of gaming if the gamers are content with crappy practices being used on them.

I will be voting with my wallet on this and other games like this, and not purchasing it.

The only dlc announced months prior to the release of the game were the season passes. The current dlc that everyones bitching about was never announced at one point, ever (unless you try to butcher logic and say all dlc was talked about since they talked about it being a great platform for dlc). Its all skins that probably took a few days to bang out after the game went gold and the art team had nothing to do.

The ridiculous hyperbole of the antidlc side is beyond ridiculous that I can't even think of a word other than ridiculous.