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

otakon17

New member
Jun 21, 2010
1,338
0
0
Wow...
WOW.
$160 for all the content huh? But then again, Borderlands 2 had that much content for DLC. But then again it had a full multiplayer/single player campaign and a massive world to explore with tons of enemies to fight and those came out months down the line and weren't announced really until they were about to be released for the most part.

AND REMEMBER FOLKS! This is only for the forseeable future of EVOLVE as it gets up in age longer it'll get more monsters and hunters to add to the selection! Only $7/$15 a piece! What a STEAL!

Christ it's a full price retail game with MOBA style character progression via buying them or GTFO.
 

thetoddo

New member
May 18, 2010
214
0
0
Scorpid said:
Louzon said:
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 think your definition of "feature" is overly broad. While you have to pay to change your shirt color seems odd to me, it has no effect on my gameplay and can be ignored if I'm happy with my current shirt.

To me a feature would be a game mode, series of maps or any type of weapon/defensive upgrade that gives you an advantage and that you only get by paying. Evolve is not doing that. All game modes/maps/hunters are available (after doing the unlocks which can usually be done within a couple games with each character), buffs/perks are earned by levelling up, and with the evacuation mode you get a TON of variation on the standard game modes.

If the monster and hunters they're going to charge you for were actually done, they'd have likely shown up at the end of the betas because Turtle Rock has done an awesome job of using the betas to tweak balance.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Lunar Templar said:
Lightknight said:
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)
Oh, I don't personally believe that it was actually created during that time. I'm sure a lot of this was done before hand and may or may not have been completed recently. I was just pointing out that that's always a possibility. This is just so much stuff that I really don't think that will apply here.

If the game by itself feels complete like the reviews claim, then it feels bad but really isn't.
 

martyrdrebel27

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,320
0
0
RedDeadFred said:
Ya, people can argue that a lot of these are just skins. However, even Call of Duty doesn't charge for this kind of shit (or, at least they didn't in the last version I played). Skins should be something you can unlock to allow you to customize your character and show off your accomplishments. I'm okay with F2P games doing it since they obviously need to make money from something, but charging for something like character customization, a thing that's free in most other AAA games seems pretty underhanded to me.

That's just the skins... the rest is much worse IMO.

From what I've seen of the game, and from what a couple of my friends have told me, Jim Sterling's review seems to be pretty spot on.
call of duty absolutely does this... i haven't played CoD since MW3/Blops, and even I know that.

call of duty sells not only weapon skins, but character skins, characters, gamemodes and even announcers.

but nobody's running their mouth about that...

EDIT: in response to another detractor, i pointed out that they sell not only everything i already listed here, but also pay2win items like extra class slots. and STILL... nobody's running their mouth about that.
 

martyrdrebel27

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,320
0
0
Scorpid said:
Louzon said:
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.
so, by your logic, call of duty should be f2p? sells every useless thing that evolve does, but also sells pay2win type shit like extra armory slots and extra class slots.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
martyrdrebel27 said:
RedDeadFred said:
Ya, people can argue that a lot of these are just skins. However, even Call of Duty doesn't charge for this kind of shit (or, at least they didn't in the last version I played). Skins should be something you can unlock to allow you to customize your character and show off your accomplishments. I'm okay with F2P games doing it since they obviously need to make money from something, but charging for something like character customization, a thing that's free in most other AAA games seems pretty underhanded to me.

That's just the skins... the rest is much worse IMO.

From what I've seen of the game, and from what a couple of my friends have told me, Jim Sterling's review seems to be pretty spot on.
call of duty absolutely does this... i haven't played CoD since MW3/Blops, and even I know that.

call of duty sells not only weapon skins, but character skins, characters, gamemodes and even announcers.

but nobody's running their mouth about that...
Really? Guess they've changed. The last one I seriously played was MW2 and I remember the customizable stuff being free. I think the reason people don't give CoD grief for this around here is because everyone recognizes the games as cash grabs now anyway. To use a different comparison with another FPS: it would be like if Halo started charging for all of the different armors and colours you could use instead of unlocking them through completion of legitimate challenges. I'm assuming they haven't changed this even though I haven't played Halo since the third game.
 

Scorpid

New member
Jul 24, 2011
814
0
0
martyrdrebel27 said:
Scorpid said:
Louzon said:
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.
so, by your logic, call of duty should be f2p? sells every useless thing that evolve does, but also sells pay2win type shit like extra armory slots and extra class slots.
Ummm Yes... I think CoD is a terrible series but it at least has the Single player game to give a smidgen of justification but I wouldn't buy a CoD game either just like how I'm probably not going to buy Evolve. Nothing upsets me (and you too I hope) worse then the feeling of getting ripped off with these DLC practices. Which is all I feel lately from the triple AAA industry, nickle and diming BS. I don't get happy when I see some piece of shit DLC that could of easily been included into the original game but the developers stripped it so they could charge 2.99 for it, much less pay to win features in a MULTIPLAYER GAME!
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
TKretts3 said:
Strazdas said:
TKretts3 said:
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.
I dont have a problem with multiplayer game costing a full price as long as it has the content to be worth full price. Evolve doesnt, but thats hardly the fault of the genre and more the fault of Turtle Rock.
Like i said in my first post, Evolve does not have 100 dolalrs worth of content, it has 20 dollars worth compared to what else is on the market.
 

Thomas Barnsley

New member
Mar 8, 2012
410
0
0
You know this sounds no worse than TF2. They have cosmetic items for sale at similar sorts of prices, but no one minds. Sure it isn't F2P, but that would just be ludicrous.

It's a shame people shit on this game so much. It tries so hard to do new things.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
TKretts3 said:
And no, "Multi-player but with bots" does not constitute as a proper single-player campaign.
Far too true...I'm having Payday 2 flashbacks.

"Chains? Houston? What the hell are you doing all the way down on the ground floor? Oh god are those Bulldozers!?"

*Chains was Downed!*

"No, stop shooting at the MRU's invincible chest and hit him in the head! Oh FFS, don't try reviving Chains in the midst of the Bulldozer sandwic-!"

*Houston was Downed*
"GODDFUCKIT this AI is STUPID!"
 

Blazingdragoon04

New member
May 22, 2009
220
0
0
Thomas Barnsley said:
You know this sounds no worse than TF2. They have cosmetic items for sale at similar sorts of prices, but no one minds. Sure it isn't F2P, but that would just be ludicrous.

It's a shame people shit on this game so much. It tries so hard to do new things.
It isn't free to play. That's why Evolve is seen as wrong for having so much cosmetic DLC and TF2 is just fine. TF2 is a completely functional, free to play game with quite a bit of content. The cosmetic items are purchasable if you'd like. Something TF2 does differently, and better I must say, is that just about every item is obtainable through just playing the game over time. Every weapon and cosmetic item CAN theoretically be obtained just by playing the game. Spending real money just speeds up the process towards obtaining a specific item you want.

So we have one game that is complete from moment of install, free to play, and everything can be obtained eventually, while we have another game that costs $60, is not complete since more content will be released later that affects game-play that you will have to purchase, and cosmetic items that can only be obtained by spending more money.

If anything, the success of TF2 and Valve in general should show that their way of conducting business through TF2 not only works but is viewed as consumer friendly. The fact that Evolve didn't follow that model just goes to show that they either don't know how to or that a consumer-friendly way of doing business was not their goal.
 

William Ossiss

New member
Apr 8, 2010
551
0
0
The Preened Mr. Fust said:
These people are a joke. I'm going to go ahead and toss them into the dung heap with EA and never buy their games. Any single one of those skins could have been a piece of additional content in the game that would have taken zero effort to implement. If Smash Bros can toss in extra characters that are just a reskin, these guys could have too.

This sort of thing is getting out of control.
Yeah... nevermind that everything available is purely cosmetic and in no way, shape, or form affects the gameplay. You want to look different? Well, buy the skins. Smash bros put in different gender characters to be diverse.
erttheking said:
Colin Bagley said:
Chill.

It's just skins.
Not all of it. A good chunk of it (25-40 dollars worth) is about hunters and monsters that you play as.

And even then I'm getting freaking overload from a game that's already asking for 60 bucks and then shoving so much shit in my face. It's not like LoL where the base game is free.
Yeah, but everything else can be unlocked through gameplay. You want to drop 40 bucks to unlock everything? Go for it. But they don't tell you that is your only option. They allow you to unlock everything.

While LoL has the base game free, you earn in game coin for characters. Want a skin? Pay real money. Just like Evolve.

Sure, there are character packs and monster packs coming. but those aren't out yet.

I suggest stop basing opinions on random news articles that have nothing to do with the gameplay, but are just simply there to complain or attain shock value.
Usually a bad bet when you do. Or, you know, Find out for yourself, first. Then make a judgement.

KoudelkaMorgan said:
No one is making you buy the stuff, unless you are playing one of those f2p games that literally are barely 3 steps away from being a popup on your screen asking for $ after every action.
This. This describes the MOBA scene to a T.
 

Thomas Barnsley

New member
Mar 8, 2012
410
0
0
Blazingdragoon04 said:
Thomas Barnsley said:
You know this sounds no worse than TF2. They have cosmetic items for sale at similar sorts of prices, but no one minds. Sure it isn't F2P, but that would just be ludicrous.

It's a shame people shit on this game so much. It tries so hard to do new things.
It isn't free to play. That's why Evolve is seen as wrong for having so much cosmetic DLC and TF2 is just fine. TF2 is a completely functional, free to play game with quite a bit of content. The cosmetic items are purchasable if you'd like. Something TF2 does differently, and better I must say, is that just about every item is obtainable through just playing the game over time. Every weapon and cosmetic item CAN theoretically be obtained just by playing the game. Spending real money just speeds up the process towards obtaining a specific item you want.

So we have one game that is complete from moment of install, free to play, and everything can be obtained eventually, while we have another game that costs $60, is not complete since more content will be released later that affects game-play that you will have to purchase, and cosmetic items that can only be obtained by spending more money.

If anything, the success of TF2 and Valve in general should show that their way of conducting business through TF2 not only works but is viewed as consumer friendly. The fact that Evolve didn't follow that model just goes to show that they either don't know how to or that a consumer-friendly way of doing business was not their goal.
TF2 wasn't free at launch. You had to pay for it, as well as all the cosmetics in the shop. F2P was implemented later.

My point is, when you get past the cosmetics, which are nothing especially new and terrible and aren't worth arguing about, it's DLC model is just like any AAA multiplayer game. In fact, you could say it's better. People seem to forget that they've thought this through: maps are free to avoid dividing the community, and even if you don't purchase a monster or hunter you can still play along side them. Everyone can attempt to kill Behemoth. And even if this still irks you, at least they tried to explain themselves, that requires some balls.

This game doesn't deserve an extra helping of shit from you guys is what I'm trying to say.
 

Blazingdragoon04

New member
May 22, 2009
220
0
0
Thomas Barnsley said:
Blazingdragoon04 said:
Thomas Barnsley said:
You know this sounds no worse than TF2. They have cosmetic items for sale at similar sorts of prices, but no one minds. Sure it isn't F2P, but that would just be ludicrous.

It's a shame people shit on this game so much. It tries so hard to do new things.
It isn't free to play. That's why Evolve is seen as wrong for having so much cosmetic DLC and TF2 is just fine. TF2 is a completely functional, free to play game with quite a bit of content. The cosmetic items are purchasable if you'd like. Something TF2 does differently, and better I must say, is that just about every item is obtainable through just playing the game over time. Every weapon and cosmetic item CAN theoretically be obtained just by playing the game. Spending real money just speeds up the process towards obtaining a specific item you want.

So we have one game that is complete from moment of install, free to play, and everything can be obtained eventually, while we have another game that costs $60, is not complete since more content will be released later that affects game-play that you will have to purchase, and cosmetic items that can only be obtained by spending more money.

If anything, the success of TF2 and Valve in general should show that their way of conducting business through TF2 not only works but is viewed as consumer friendly. The fact that Evolve didn't follow that model just goes to show that they either don't know how to or that a consumer-friendly way of doing business was not their goal.
TF2 wasn't free at launch. You had to pay for it, as well as all the cosmetics in the shop. F2P was implemented later.

My point is, when you get past the cosmetics, which are nothing especially new and terrible and aren't worth arguing about, it's DLC model is just like any AAA multiplayer game. In fact, you could say it's better. People seem to forget that they've thought this through: maps are free to avoid dividing the community, and even if you don't purchase a monster or hunter you can still play along side them. Everyone can attempt to kill Behemoth. And even if this still irks you, at least they tried to explain themselves, that requires some balls.

This game doesn't deserve an extra helping of shit from you guys is what I'm trying to say.
You are right in the sense that yes, they explained their model up front and said what their plan for DLC for the game was going to be. That does take effort and I give them kudos for that. But if I, or anyone else, disagree with said practice telling me about it beforehand does not grant them a free pass on it.

Maybe the game doesn't deserve as much backlash as it's getting; it's the norm now and why should we subject it to any more criticism than any other game for doing the same thing? I disagree with this and commend the people being so vocal with their backlash because maybe we'll finally get somewhere with DLC being used poorly. If Evolve is just following the AAA norm with DLC and is getting this much backlash, then maybe the norm is broken? Too many great games have done this; from Borderlands to Dark Souls. Offer up a complete game, announce DLC later, then repackage it at the end as a complete edition.

Maybe it was the huge amount of DLC right out of the gate that prompted it, maybe it was the publisher and developer being so cavalier about DLC and how this game was prime for using it as a vessel for DLC, or maybe this was just the straw that broke the camels back. Who really knows for sure. But if this game is just cruising along at the norm and getting this much ire then it's about time the norm changed back to something more consumer friendly as I sincerely doubt everyone up in arms against Evolve's business practices are just a tad too entitled for their own good.
 

Thomas Barnsley

New member
Mar 8, 2012
410
0
0
Blazingdragoon04 said:
Thomas Barnsley said:
You are right in the sense that yes, they explained their model up front and said what their plan for DLC for the game was going to be. That does take effort and I give them kudos for that. But if I, or anyone else, disagree with said practice telling me about it beforehand does not grant them a free pass on it.

Maybe the game doesn't deserve as much backlash as it's getting; it's the norm now and why should we subject it to any more criticism than any other game for doing the same thing? I disagree with this and commend the people being so vocal with their backlash because maybe we'll finally get somewhere with DLC being used poorly. If Evolve is just following the AAA norm with DLC and is getting this much backlash, then maybe the norm is broken? Too many great games have done this; from Borderlands to Dark Souls. Offer up a complete game, announce DLC later, then repackage it at the end as a complete edition.

Maybe it was the huge amount of DLC right out of the gate that prompted it, maybe it was the publisher and developer being so cavalier about DLC and how this game was prime for using it as a vessel for DLC, or maybe this was just the straw that broke the camels back. Who really knows for sure. But if this game is just cruising along at the norm and getting this much ire then it's about time the norm changed back to something more consumer friendly as I sincerely doubt everyone up in arms against Evolve's business practices are just a tad too entitled for their own good.
That makes sense I guess. The only thing I really have to say now is that I just wish it had been a different game everyone turned up the heat on. The innovation commentry or constructive criticism or whatever you call its of a new and exciting IP are getting drowned out and boycotted over something that generic, well established titles like Battlefield have been doing for years. All because of some $3 skins bolstering this '$100 Day One DLC' headline.

You can imagine how that's frustrating for someone who likes the game.
 

Blazingdragoon04

New member
May 22, 2009
220
0
0
Thomas Barnsley said:
Blazingdragoon04 said:
Thomas Barnsley said:
You are right in the sense that yes, they explained their model up front and said what their plan for DLC for the game was going to be. That does take effort and I give them kudos for that. But if I, or anyone else, disagree with said practice telling me about it beforehand does not grant them a free pass on it.

Maybe the game doesn't deserve as much backlash as it's getting; it's the norm now and why should we subject it to any more criticism than any other game for doing the same thing? I disagree with this and commend the people being so vocal with their backlash because maybe we'll finally get somewhere with DLC being used poorly. If Evolve is just following the AAA norm with DLC and is getting this much backlash, then maybe the norm is broken? Too many great games have done this; from Borderlands to Dark Souls. Offer up a complete game, announce DLC later, then repackage it at the end as a complete edition.

Maybe it was the huge amount of DLC right out of the gate that prompted it, maybe it was the publisher and developer being so cavalier about DLC and how this game was prime for using it as a vessel for DLC, or maybe this was just the straw that broke the camels back. Who really knows for sure. But if this game is just cruising along at the norm and getting this much ire then it's about time the norm changed back to something more consumer friendly as I sincerely doubt everyone up in arms against Evolve's business practices are just a tad too entitled for their own good.
That makes sense I guess. The only thing I really have to say now is that I just wish it had been a different game everyone turned up the heat on. The innovation commentry or constructive criticism or whatever you call its of a new and exciting IP are getting drowned out and boycotted over something that generic, well established titles like Battlefield have been doing for years. All because of some $3 skins bolstering this '$100 Day One DLC' headline.

You can imagine how that's frustrating for someone who likes the game.
Yeah, I can imagine it's frustrating. It hurts your overall chances of enjoying it because fewer people are going to buy it and thus will probably lose people quicker to hop onto the next big bandwagon game.

I think the fact that it was so new and so brazen to flaunt it's DLC probably didn't help. Usually it seems the best approach is to be timid with the new IP, drum up a lot of goodwill, and then move towards the milking phase once you've established a good wealth of followers who believe in the quality of your work.

But yeah, it sucks, I get it. Hell, I wanted to build a computer just to get this game for the longest time. Loved me some L4D, saw the game as PAXEast and it looked great, and I love class based games. I just can't justify purchasing the game right now though because it's doing something I don't agree with with it's practices and I don't want to support that. Not buying it and voicing my opinions on the matter is all I can do.
 

rgrekejin

New member
Mar 6, 2011
267
0
0
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).
That simply isn't so (at least, not in the US). $60 didn't become the de-facto fixed price for a new game until the Xbox360/PS3/Wii generation of consoles. In the Gamecube/PS2/Xbox generation, the default new game price was $50, and there was a very noticeable jump in price between generations. $50 was also more or less the default for N64 as well (I don't really remember what PS1 and Dreamcast were, as I was principally a Nintendo purist in those days). SNES and NES were weird, in that there was no standardized "new game" price. Some titles were more expensive at launch than others. For SNES, the range was $60-$40, with "new" prices dipping down towards $35 for some titles towards the end of its lifespan. New games on the NES varied from $30-$50.

Of course, handhelds followed a similar trajectory - new Gameboy games cost $25-$30 back in the original/Color/Advanced days. They transitioned to $35-$40 somewhere in DS/3DS era.
 

Xannieros

New member
Jul 29, 2008
291
0
0
Back when games were complete at launch, gun/character skins were free unlocks for doing extra content or "Achievements."
All this extra content to be released at launch is horrendous. People will still make the argument that it was done after the game was finalized. DLC should expand on the games life span, not to be released at launch and appear to be made of cut content.

I will toss this publisher into the ignore bin along with EA. This game reeks of Titanfall hype and is not worth the full price + extra DLC.