By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Evolve Launches With $136+ Worth of DLC

iceboy151 on 12 February 2015
Ruler said:
iceboy151 said:
The Last of Us has weapons behind a paywall and you people complain about cosmetics.


true, but the last of us has actually a single player mode and an actually good single player mode with a touching story, thats the difference between evolve. 


That changes nothing. We're talking about microtransactions, not single player.

TLoU's microstransactions are worse than Evolve's in terms of what's locked behind the paywall. Evolve's are just priced too high.



 

                          

 

Around the Network
Anfebious on 12 February 2015

Evolve: The new age of DLC. This game truly is the evolution in DLC.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Chazore on 12 February 2015
Ruler said:
curl-6 said:

Disgusting.

Every year the video game industry sinks lower and lower. Microtransactions, day 1 DLC, games releasing borderline unplayable and needing extensive patching just to work properly...

Back in 2013, gamers gave me hope when they rose against the Xbox One's DRM policies, but nowadays it seems we're fine with being bled dry.


Not everything is bad now, look at games like bloodborne it wont have any of this stuff and thats one of the best looking AAA titles coming up

We also got Witcher 3 with them giving out free DLC and that's another best looking AAA title as well.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

jlmurph2 on 12 February 2015
poklane said:
As someone on NeoGAF pointed out, it's way below $136. There's individual skins, and skin packs which contain multiple skins at a lower price. You'd reach the $136 price if you buy every individual skin and every skin pack, which would mean you'd be buying some skins twice. If you only buy the packs you'd pay about $61. Still ridiculously high, especially for a game which just launched, but nowhere near $136.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=990617


Yeah they're fluffing the numbers a bit.



Aeolus451 on 12 February 2015
AnthonyW86 said:
Aeolus451 said:
The Fury said:

I'd say those are fine. They aren't you missing out on content, just paying to progress quicker. You can still get all the content by playing the game, no?

Of course this is in the knowledge that they are essentially what used to be cheats back in the day. Skins are what use to be unlockables. :P

DLC sucks, might be a reason why I never buy any.


I just don't like the fact they aren't really earning their progression in the game and that the game dev/pub is selling that to players. I buy some DLC like expansion packs or sometimes cosmetic stuff.

 

Personally i think playing a game just unlock certain things is a waste of time. If a game has good singleplayer and you unlock everything in one playthrough it's fine but sometimes you have to replay or keep playing to unlock things. Especially if a game is mainly about the multiplayer.

 

In fact unlock DLC is the only DLC i ever bought. For example i bought Sports Champions for local multiplayer and then i discovered i hade to play many hours of singleplayer just unlock certain levels and characters for multiplayer. So i bought the unlock DLC for like 3 bucks, the hours of time i saved with that are way more valuable to me than 3 bucks.

 

And i will never buy any content DLC unless i really have the feeling it's conent that they probably couldn't have implemented in the original release. I'm not going to support the habbit from developers to withhold content from a game and try to make more money of it later. In fact in light of the massive amount of day one DLC for Evolve i have decided not to buy the game, and maybe pick up a used copy later.


I guess we're opposites on that then. Honestly, I'll probably pick up the game later on too because I was interested in the game itself and not it's dlc. 



Around the Network
curl-6 on 12 February 2015
Ruler said:
curl-6 said:

Disgusting.

Every year the video game industry sinks lower and lower. Microtransactions, day 1 DLC, games releasing borderline unplayable and needing extensive patching just to work properly...

Back in 2013, gamers gave me hope when they rose against the Xbox One's DRM policies, but nowadays it seems we're fine with being bled dry.

Not everything is bad now, look at games like bloodborne it wont have any of this stuff and thats one of the best looking AAA titles coming up

 I agree it's not all bad. 

 But there is far too much of it in my view, and I feel like devs are constantly testing how far they can push us.



Intrinsic on 12 February 2015
OttoniBastos said:
I read a thread on neogaf talking about inflation and how $60 in 1992 =/= $60 in 2015 that made me wonder... it's really fair to AAA games be locked at $60 price point? i mean, i don't want games to be more expensive, don't get me wrong but..looking from the devs perspective:

-AAA Games are becoming way more expensive:
-Software price drops really fast these days(6 month old games for less than half of the price)
-It's not like devs are not charging more than $60 already(see: OP).

If you think about two of the biggest reasons why Video game market crashed back in the 80's were #1 huge amount of shovelwere/bad games and #2 lower price point for softwares.

These two things are happening right now! We have a lot of shovelwares(indies AND AAA) and the Software price point fall too fast.

Of course,back then devs didn't have DLC,microtransactions,DRM,etc... but still....

Don't be fooled by such slanted analysis. yes, $60 back then is around $100+ now, but the thing such analysis fails to mention is that back then the average AAA game didn't go on to sell 5M copies. 

The market is much bigger now. That aside, there are also tons of ways devs can make money from games these days than what were possible back then. Ways that don't involve gouging their user base. Think about it, how many people can afford to spend $120-$180 on a game? If asked to choose, do you really think publishers will choose to sell 1M copies of a game at $150 or sell 5-10M copies of the same game at $60? cause that is what it means. Raising the cost simply means you reduce the demand. Economics 101. 

and as for this game, well.... they can keep their really good content that gamers would love to pay for to themselves. Hell maybe they should buy it themselves. When it's all said and done, this game will bomb, and they should ask themselves what would have happened if they just gave everything at $60. I think publishers are beyond stupid these days. 



SlayerRondo on 12 February 2015

They should have put all this content in the game from the beginning.

From what I'm hearing the game needed a bit more content to begin with anyway.



This is the Game of Thrones

Where you either win

or you DIE

ExplodingBlock on 12 February 2015

Dear God...



CosmicSex on 12 February 2015

It took me a while to understand what everyone was complaining about with the DLC (I was just stuck on the fact that the core game sucked ass and it wasn't worth $60 ) but now I get it.

This one trick pony; empty husk of a game shouldn't be charging extra for anything. And if we don't speak out against it, video games will become like mobile games overrun with micro transactions.