Ill agree with the OP in that theres something inherently offensive about the idea of essentially paying for the game twice by getting a season pass and still not receiving the DLC, some of which affects actual gameplay.
I really don't always mind the giant list of dlc. For instance, a couple of my favorite franchises (Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings) release a ton of DLC, which keeps people employed between large projects and can enhance the experience. The difference, of course, is they're almost entirely aesthetics and soundtracks (outside of expansions) and they don't have a "season pass". The expansions, meanwhile, are priced according to how substantial they are, and most of the core changes within them are made available whether they purchase it or not to everyone via patches to allow multiplayer between all players.
I suppose everyone has their own line that dlc should not cross... I don't mind it as, again, it can add a lot for those who want it (I get everything Paradox makes lol) and it does allow otherwise superfluous employees in between major projects to continue to work.
This Naughty Dog example, though, is perhaps the worst I've yet come across. The very idea of the "season pass" offends the hell out of me as I inreasingly find many modern games and shooters are a $100+ investment to play online (looking at you, CoD, Battlefield, and soon to be Battlefront), but that you'd still not get the DLC they release in the meantime? That's absurd.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
