Evolve Will Have Lots of DLC

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

People are getting all riled up by this right off the bat and swearing off buying the game altogether. What if the core game is excellent and well worth 40, are you really not going to bother because there's also a load of optional DLC to buy?

I'm not a massive fan of this trend but at least you get a choice over what's worth your cash as opposed to, for example, a monthly subscription. It makes a lot more sense to judge the game itself by its own merits and keep the dlc as a separate consideration since it's a seoerate purchase.

Halyah:

Vault101:
I wish this game was more "borderlands" than "left 4 dead" I like to have a clear endgame

Isn't this a multiplayer only game though? It's the impression I've been getting at least so I'm not sure what sort of endgame it could really have.

well left 4 dead was pretty much multiplayer except if you wanted you could play with bots (though that was missing the point)

Borderlands 2 you could go either way, I found it just as enjoyable to play with somone or alone (only downside is it will burn you out faster)

Yaknow what this reminds me of? Not Left 4 Dead. No it reminds me of a mod from Warcraft 3. Called Parasite. It is kind of a shame that they are gonna nickle and dime you for all of the content since it was looking kind of interesting since Interest died out in Parasite when SC2 popped up.

Vault101:

Halyah:

Vault101:
I wish this game was more "borderlands" than "left 4 dead" I like to have a clear endgame

Isn't this a multiplayer only game though? It's the impression I've been getting at least so I'm not sure what sort of endgame it could really have.

well left 4 dead was pretty much multiplayer except if you wanted you could play with bots (though that was missing the point)

Borderlands 2 you could go either way, I found it just as enjoyable to play with somone or alone (only downside is it will burn you out faster)

But L4D was coop and at least had a campaign you could play through. Evolve just seems like its something ala the last AvP's multiplayer rather than something with meat to its bones.

So, basically everybody interested in Evolve should just put off buying it until we get the inevitable "GotY" version with all of the content for cheaper than the release price?

I don't know how annoyed I should be with this. How much will the game and the DLC be? And how early will this DLC come out? And then, how long will this timed DLC stay on the Xbone?

Rozalia1:

Strazdas:
What we used to call expansions are now sequels

I can take issue with a lot you say, but I'm just going to home in on this.
You seem to wearing some glasses that obscure your vision. The industry didn't suddenly start making shoddy quick sequels, that has pretty much always been a thing, as has bad ports, and many other ills that are apparently new.

Hyper Ultra Street fighter Championship tournament HD dual-shock thunder special edition remix if you get what that is referring to should clue you in that such practices have always been a thing, they merely can deliver them in a more efficient manner is all.

It didnt suddenly start making shoddy sequels. some games got away with it. then more did, now it became industry standard. the industry didnt change overnight, it took years to do so. i never said it did though.

There were always problems in gaming industry. this is to be expected, the industry is one of the newest ones around. however this does not mean we should allow industry get away with actions that are clearly meant to extract as much money as possible for as little work as possible.

And yes, fighter and sport scene were pioneers of this update-sold-as-sequel strategy.

Gundam GP01:

Yeah, I'm gonna need a source for that.

second paragraph of this news item?

Riff Moonraker:

Not to be a stickler, but there must be some other items missing from the picture, as I totaled those items up to be $271.28, not $1200 plus.... Still bad, still ridiculous, dont get me wrong... I am just supposing there was some other things offscreen that were added to that as well?

The image does not show all of the DLC (that would be a large image not fit for this forum). The game is called Trains Simulator 2013 and had over 170 DLC and growing.
appernetly they renamed it trains simulator 2014 and added even more DLCs now. also i seem to remember a 2012 version too. something is fishy with that game. actually i can find youtube videos of 2013 version but not the game itself. anyway, its the game i saw most DLCs with.

Riff Moonraker:
All you have to do is preorder the game, and you get it free.

"all" i had to do is preorder the previuos aliens game too.... see how well that turned out to be....

Well a DLC policy like this makes me not buy it anywhere near launch and since this is a multiplayer game I will therefore never buy it.

Plus all their DLC is xbox one timed exclusive? Man Microsoft must be shelling out pretty pennies.

Battenberg:
People are getting all riled up by this right off the bat and swearing off buying the game altogether. What if the core game is excellent and well worth 40, are you really not going to bother because there's also a load of optional DLC to buy?

I'm not a massive fan of this trend but at least you get a choice over what's worth your cash as opposed to, for example, a monthly subscription. It makes a lot more sense to judge the game itself by its own merits and keep the dlc as a separate consideration since it's a seoerate purchase.

To me it doesn't matter in the slightest how good the game is at release with a policy like this. Its a multiplayer only game which will by its very nature make me less likely to play it after DLC comes out unless I buy said DLC.

seditary:
To me it doesn't matter in the slightest how good the game is at release with a policy like this. Its a multiplayer only game which will by its very nature make me less likely to play it after DLC comes out unless I buy said DLC.

How do you feel about the Payday approach to DLC: essentially, everybody gets to play on the maps, but if you didn't buy the DLC then you can only join games in that match, you can't start your own. The gun packs are optional, and can be safely ignored without impact on gameplay.

Having weapon and character DLC, while stupid to some, doesn't inherently destroy a game. It certainly reduces options for other players, but people can still play the starter set themselves while teammates use new characters or even fight against a new monster. Having paid DLC for new maps is a complete recipe for disaster. It's proven time and time again that it just fractures communities too much.

Strazdas:

Rozalia1:

Strazdas:
What we used to call expansions are now sequels

I can take issue with a lot you say, but I'm just going to home in on this.
You seem to wearing some glasses that obscure your vision. The industry didn't suddenly start making shoddy quick sequels, that has pretty much always been a thing, as has bad ports, and many other ills that are apparently new.

Hyper Ultra Street fighter Championship tournament HD dual-shock thunder special edition remix if you get what that is referring to should clue you in that such practices have always been a thing, they merely can deliver them in a more efficient manner is all.

It didnt suddenly start making shoddy sequels. some games got away with it. then more did, now it became industry standard. the industry didnt change overnight, it took years to do so. i never said it did though.

There were always problems in gaming industry. this is to be expected, the industry is one of the newest ones around. however this does not mean we should allow industry get away with actions that are clearly meant to extract as much money as possible for as little work as possible.

And yes, fighter and sport scene were pioneers of this update-sold-as-sequel strategy.

Gundam GP01:

Yeah, I'm gonna need a source for that.

second paragraph of this news item?

Riff Moonraker:

Not to be a stickler, but there must be some other items missing from the picture, as I totaled those items up to be $271.28, not $1200 plus.... Still bad, still ridiculous, dont get me wrong... I am just supposing there was some other things offscreen that were added to that as well?

The image does not show all of the DLC (that would be a large image not fit for this forum). The game is called Trains Simulator 2013 and had over 170 DLC and growing.
appernetly they renamed it trains simulator 2014 and added even more DLCs now. also i seem to remember a 2012 version too. something is fishy with that game. actually i can find youtube videos of 2013 version but not the game itself. anyway, its the game i saw most DLCs with.

Riff Moonraker:
All you have to do is preorder the game, and you get it free.

"all" i had to do is preorder the previuos aliens game too.... see how well that turned out to be....

Yeah, Colonial Marines did do a number on peoples faith in an Aliens game, but I have got to say that this one really looks like "the one"... Hell, for a chance to wander around on the Nostromo is worth it to me, even if the game DID suck!

How about just using steam workshop and let the game live forever? Eh? EH?! Fucking vultures.

Riff Moonraker:

Yeah, Colonial Marines did do a number on peoples faith in an Aliens game, but I have got to say that this one really looks like "the one"... Hell, for a chance to wander around on the Nostromo is worth it to me, even if the game DID suck!

The last one also looked like "The one" too.

preordering is a big nono for any game. buy the product when its released, sure, but dont pay money for a cat in a bag.

Time to play Devil's Advocate here.

Pricing aside, a lot of people here think "DLC? Fuck this game!"

I think Evolve seems like an ideal game to add lots of DLC into.

The entire game revolves around a handful of key things. Most importantly are The Monsters, and the Hunters. Followed by the levels, and the creatures.

If Turtle Rock continually adds more of these elements, then the game could remain active for a very long time, without the need to ever release a sequel. Who knows what their long term plans for the game are. But they did mention they plan to keep it afloat for a long time. Whether or not this means they'll ever release a sequel for it is anyone's guess. But a game like this, which is centered around very specific key elements, could benefit a lot from additional content. More monsters, more characters, more levels, more wildlife. The idea of this sounds good to me.

I think if Turtle Rock wants to avoid the brunt of controversy here, they should follow a DLC plan similar to Payday 2. In which only one person needs to own the DLC, and other players may join in with that person to share in the fun. That would be fair for both sides, I think.

Steven Bogos:
It's also worth noting that all Evolve DLC will have timed exclusivity on the Xbox One.

Except that. Fuck everything about that.

Aaaaand, there goes my sale. At this rate I'll never buy anything AAA "new" again. Just lag behind the releases by 2 or 3 years. There's already so much stuff available that it is impossible to keep up with all the new titles that come out.

*duplicate

Strazdas:
It didnt suddenly start making shoddy sequels. some games got away with it. then more did, now it became industry standard. the industry didnt change overnight, it took years to do so. i never said it did though.

There were always problems in gaming industry. this is to be expected, the industry is one of the newest ones around. however this does not mean we should allow industry get away with actions that are clearly meant to extract as much money as possible for as little work as possible.

And yes, fighter and sport scene were pioneers of this update-sold-as-sequel strategy.

You should know that quick shoddy sequels aren't exclusive to gaming, they are in everything. The first game not being made to accommodate a sequel, and it having to be pumped out quick means they tend to suffer in both story and gameplay.
However not all series suffer from this, Gust pushes out yearly Atelier games and their quality is in no way lesser, and in fact Totori (2010) is worlds better than Rorona (2009) is.
Not that its a bad thing regardless, its like if they started pumping out yearly Yakuzas...would the quality decline...likely but you know its still a Yakuza game so I'd really not care.

The public cannot act as a cohesive unit in dealing with such things, they will as they always have let companies do such things.

You know how long they've done that, and its not just been them. Resident Evil for example had things like Dual Shock editions, and "X editions" (think that'd count), and I doubt it stops there.
Its been a thing forever and you're taking a stand like they are just know turning the wheel.

Efrit_:
See, this is the dlc we should oppose, not what creative assembly is doing with alien: isolation. These people here are unashamed and willing to cut away their game, right infront of gamers, to make more money.

These guys are talking about making DLC AFTER release. Alien Isolation`s DLC was made BEFORE release. There is nothing wrong with supporting a game after release with new content.

So let me get this straight. "...made these modular pieces--the way the whole game fits together means we can make new maps, new environment types, new wildlife, new monsters and hunters, and all of that stuff just plugs into the game."

How could you not add anything you wanted in to the game before? That's bullshit and you know it, Chris. That's not how "game development" works. You can code in and build any content into the game when you want. What you mean to say is, "we know a lot of gamers don't understand how game engines work and how coding works, so we're going to lie about how 'hard' it was to give people the 'dlc modules they wanted' (whatever that fucking means) and how development actually works so that we can build it up to be this amazing service for the player."

Cut the bullshit, Chris. You just want to chop up your game into a DLC festival and make the player pay more than the fair share for next to nothing. "It's a business" and "it has to make sense" isn't an excuse. You don't need more than say $50 for your game per sale. You just WANT more than that from people. Stop pretending like your doing anybody a service or providing something that gamers want.

Terraria adds new maps, new environment types, new wildlife, new monsters and hunters, and all that "stuff" for free. And they didn't even have the funding you have, Chris. And, get this, the original price was $20.

Demonchaser27:
So let me get this straight. "...made these modular pieces--the way the whole game fits together means we can make new maps, new environment types, new wildlife, new monsters and hunters, and all of that stuff just plugs into the game."

How could you not add anything you wanted in to the game before? That's bullshit and you know it, Chris. That's not how "game development" works. You can code in and build any content into the game when you want. What you mean to say is, "we know a lot of gamers don't understand how game engines work and how coding works, so we're going to lie about how 'hard' it was to give people the 'dlc modules they wanted' (whatever that fucking means) and how development actually works so that we can build it up to be this amazing service for the player."

Cut the bullshit, Chris. You just want to chop up your game into a DLC festival and make the player pay more than the fair share for next to nothing. "It's a business" and "it has to make sense" isn't an excuse. You don't need more than say $50 for your game per sale. You just WANT more than that from people. Stop pretending like your doing anybody a service or providing something that gamers want.

Terraria adds new maps, new environment types, new wildlife, new monsters and hunters, and all that "stuff" for free. And they didn't even have the funding you have, Chris. And, get this, the original price was $20.

What in the world are you on about they did not say the pieces are already made just that the game is set up to add them, it taking more work to make more stuff is kinda exactly how game development works. Terria while a great game has what 2 maybe three major updates over the course of years, not excalty a well supported game and also how is it an example of content magically appearing when it takes said time for the content to show up.

zerragonoss:

Demonchaser27:
So let me get this straight. "...made these modular pieces--the way the whole game fits together means we can make new maps, new environment types, new wildlife, new monsters and hunters, and all of that stuff just plugs into the game."

How could you not add anything you wanted in to the game before? That's bullshit and you know it, Chris. That's not how "game development" works. You can code in and build any content into the game when you want. What you mean to say is, "we know a lot of gamers don't understand how game engines work and how coding works, so we're going to lie about how 'hard' it was to give people the 'dlc modules they wanted' (whatever that fucking means) and how development actually works so that we can build it up to be this amazing service for the player."

Cut the bullshit, Chris. You just want to chop up your game into a DLC festival and make the player pay more than the fair share for next to nothing. "It's a business" and "it has to make sense" isn't an excuse. You don't need more than say $50 for your game per sale. You just WANT more than that from people. Stop pretending like your doing anybody a service or providing something that gamers want.

Terraria adds new maps, new environment types, new wildlife, new monsters and hunters, and all that "stuff" for free. And they didn't even have the funding you have, Chris. And, get this, the original price was $20.

What in the world are you on about they did not say the pieces are already made just that the game is set up to add them, it taking more work to make more stuff is kinda exactly how game development works. Terria while a great game has what 2 maybe three major updates over the course of years, not excalty a well supported game and also how is it an example of content magically appearing when it takes said time for the content to show up.

I'm on about the fact that he's "pretending" like it was any harder to add new content to Left 4 Dead then it is in Evolve. It's not. When you build a game you add content to it. That's just it. The ease and simplicity is all on the code and engine your using. And even then its not magically easier to add content to their game then it is to anyone else's. It's based on their knowledge of the engine or coding language their using. What Chris said makes very little sense. And I'm sorry but experience with this industry has taught me that people talking the way Chris does about DLC have no intentions of releasing anything related to a "finished product". Particularly because they have already decided they will have DLC, meaning they already plan to have content made and severed off as a seperate purchase. A lot of studios do it and it doesn't make it any more justified.

Not to mention Chris here is wording this as though its some wonderful thing for the community, which clearly, if EA and Ubisoft stories of late have anything to say about that, it isn't. This is no different than what EA has being doing with a lot of their games lately.

And my reference to Terraria is simply because its a perfect example of how you can release a great game, while making profit with a limited budget and still manage to give the players more. Mainly I said this because he said, "this is a business and it has to make sense" as though it couldn't be done any better. As though no other examples of it being done better existed. And Terraria's content IS support irrelevant of whether it took time to come out or not, as it came as patches for free. DLC is not support because they are demanding money from the user. Your not supporting the game, your supporting your wallet.

archiebawled:

seditary:
To me it doesn't matter in the slightest how good the game is at release with a policy like this. Its a multiplayer only game which will by its very nature make me less likely to play it after DLC comes out unless I buy said DLC.

How do you feel about the Payday approach to DLC: essentially, everybody gets to play on the maps, but if you didn't buy the DLC then you can only join games in that match, you can't start your own. The gun packs are optional, and can be safely ignored without impact on gameplay.

That seems pretty reasonable, its basically free for the majority of players, you just pay for control instead of access.

Efrit_:
See, this is the dlc we should oppose, not what creative assembly is doing with alien: isolation. These people here are unashamed and willing to cut away their game, right infront of gamers, to make more money.

Both are despicable. Alien: Isolation is despicable because whatever part of the game is available at launch should be in base game. Day-1 DLC is bullshit. This is even more bullshit. I'll never buy Evolve. Fuck them. Right in the eyesocket.
CAPTCHA: pound cake

I've been spoilt by the likes of Warframe into getting new content for the game for FREE. A price tag on a multiplayer only title just pushed me away and this news is te poverbial final nail in the coffin.

Looked nice and intesting for what it was, but no.

Demonchaser27:
snip

When they say they couldn't make new special infected for left 4 dead they don't mean to imply that they literally can't. What they mean is that in left 4 dead every map had been designed with all of the special infected in mind, hence why left 4 dead 2 maps are very different from left 4 dead 1 maps and why left 4 dead 1 map had many edits done to them before being released for left 4 dead 2. If they were to make a new special infected for left 4 dead then they would have to either A. make the special infected in a way that it doesn't force them to edit any of their maps which would limit their options as all of the current special infect fill in every role needed. B. make it but also edit every map for left 4 dead. Then it would either have to be a free update (for a lot more work than it would take to make a couple of maps) or they would be forced to split up their non dlc players with their dlc players or only allow the players with the dlc to spawn as the new special infected, which could play a vital role in the new map design, then what happens if 1 team doesn't have anyone with that dlc would they just have to work without said special infected. I am not saying it's not possible to make a new special infected for left 4 dead it just a lot of work as every piece in left 4 dead was designed with every other piece in mind.

Now let's look at evolve, 4 changeable playable characters (as long as you have 1 of every role) apparently there will be 17 of these at launch so 5x4x4x4 combination of playable characters. Now they can just release a new playable character and as long as it fits its role (medic, supporter, assault or tracker) it can easily slot into the game. What's that like, it's like a moba you can just release a new character of any role and as long as their balanced don't have to worry about editing everything else. Same goes for the monster (which their will apparently be 5 of at launch) just make sure it's balanced and it can act as a replacement. That's what they mean with modular pieces, the only piece modular in left 4 dead was the map and that's why they only released maps for left 4 dead.

Riff Moonraker:

Strazdas:

game has been specifically built to accommodate DLC.

so moneygrubbing by design.

ut we really didn't have a structure there to make new characters or zombie types, so we were pretty limited on what we could do, DLC-wise

translation: expect "2 new zombie skins for 5 dollars" DLCs

make new maps, new environment types, new wildlife, new monsters and hunters, and all of that stuff just plugs into the game."

Yes, we call them updates.

Then again, Rock turtle is rock turtle.

This is how trans simulator DLC looked during steam sale and what you can expect from statements like this

(Thats enough out of you fairly large picture...you)

Trishbot:
So many companies once had a policy of "free DLC" because they felt it was important to the fans to serve them first rather than corporate money lords.

No free DLC policy, but rather they used to name it differently.
What we used to call expansions are now sequels
What we used to call DLC are now expansions
What we used to call free patches are now sold as DLC
what we used to call bugfixes are now called patches.

Gundam GP01:

I dont think they're going to be that bad. Remember, this is the guys that made the Left 4 Dead games. All of the DLC for those were free and was automatically added via updates.

and they have said they do not like that and wanted to do things differently now.

Not to be a stickler, but there must be some other items missing from the picture, as I totaled those items up to be $271.28, not $1200 plus.... Still bad, still ridiculous, dont get me wrong... I am just supposing there was some other things offscreen that were added to that as well?

Train simulator has more DLC then any other game ever made. If he screenshotted all the DLC, he'd get a warning or ban for clogging up 20x the post he did with a giant stonking picture.

nuba km:

Demonchaser27:
snip

When they say they couldn't make new special infected for left 4 dead they don't mean to imply that they literally can't. What they mean is that in left 4 dead every map had been designed with all of the special infected in mind, hence why left 4 dead 2 maps are very different from left 4 dead 1 maps and why left 4 dead 1 map had many edits done to them before being released for left 4 dead 2. If they were to make a new special infected for left 4 dead then they would have to either A. make the special infected in a way that it doesn't force them to edit any of their maps which would limit their options as all of the current special infect fill in every role needed. B. make it but also edit every map for left 4 dead. Then it would either have to be a free update (for a lot more work than it would take to make a couple of maps) or they would be forced to split up their non dlc players with their dlc players or only allow the players with the dlc to spawn as the new special infected, which could play a vital role in the new map design, then what happens if 1 team doesn't have anyone with that dlc would they just have to work without said special infected. I am not saying it's not possible to make a new special infected for left 4 dead it just a lot of work as every piece in left 4 dead was designed with every other piece in mind.

Now let's look at evolve, 4 changeable playable characters (as long as you have 1 of every role) apparently there will be 17 of these at launch so 5x4x4x4 combination of playable characters. Now they can just release a new playable character and as long as it fits its role (medic, supporter, assault or tracker) it can easily slot into the game. What's that like, it's like a moba you can just release a new character of any role and as long as their balanced don't have to worry about editing everything else. Same goes for the monster (which their will apparently be 5 of at launch) just make sure it's balanced and it can act as a replacement. That's what they mean with modular pieces, the only piece modular in left 4 dead was the map and that's why they only released maps for left 4 dead.

Well after having done some research, I can't seem to find any example of what your referencing here about Left 4 Dead. As far as playable characters went when I played, there were no classes. Everyone did what everyone else could do. So technically there would have been nothing wrong with adding a new character into that. As far as special infected I'm assuming your referencing Left 4 Dead 2, since I didn't play that one much. Because in the first game the special infected were set up so that they essentially just slapped them anywhere they felt like. The smokers were cool as long as they're was ANYWHERE with a long distance, sometimes though they didn't even hide them far away. The Boomer was placed in multiple environments, indicating that it didn't matter much what the environment looked like or played like. And on top of that The Hunter also was slapped anywhere they felt like. The only exception was the Tank. But that was just a limit because he had to fit through doors. (I.E. they didn't put him in small corridors with human sized doors much because he couldn't properly fit through them). Which is a very small hindrance, honestly.

Unless there is something that I'm missing, I don't see how if you made a "truly" new infected who uses drastically different abilities to the others, as opposed to a reconfiguration of existing infected, you wouldn't have to always make a new room to fit it. Unless these "modules" refer to a room layout? In which as long as I fit into that layout then my new infected can work, however this isn't getting rid of limitations, this is just planning for them. Which to me means one of two things:

1. They've already planned to make the "new" DLC infected and are essentially selling you something that was already made/planned during development of the original game you buy.

OR

2. They are still restricting themselves to particular map setups (modules), they just now made *more* map modules giving them slightly more freedom than they had with less map setups in Left 4 Dead, due to these new modules. But under this, it means that anything they release would have to be almost identical or partially related to enemies that are already in the game unless they *hold back* designs for later purchase which just doesn't really justify buying to me.

Either way though, I'll likely not play this game. Mainly because I just don't see it going down a good road. They are going to, as you said, have fixed classes (which is fine on its own) but will essentially release "new" playable characters that have to fit into these roles, which makes them almost the same as another character that was already available. At best they can combine a couple of classes abilities together, but that is still, as someone said earlier them just reconfiguring content I have already bought figuratively speaking (i.e. a "new" Medic that has the Assault guys rush move, that just uses an animation similar to the Tracker's shove back attack). Then they are doing essentially the same thing with maps and enemies. I would rather buy something completely new rather than a reconfiguration of something I already have. Modders can do that. This would be like if Mojang didn't allow Minecraft to spawn new map types, but just used the random generator to spawn a new map and then sell it as though they built it, when they didn't. And even if they did manually reconfigure the map themselves they would just be copying and pasting existing assets in a different configuration all around the map space, which means I'm paying for that which I already have in the game laid out differently.

DO NOT WANT!

Demonchaser27:
snip

left 4 dead had to be made so you can use each special infected anywhere, that's why it was carefully designed, how do you make a room that allows,(versus mode) a playable character that dies in basically one hit, a playable character who pounces and pins a player to the ground and a playable character that drags people long distances. That's just for left 4 dead 1, and then you also have to make sure that no point of the map is easily abused by one of these characters and keep a nice flux in safety and danger for the other team. Also no point can be safe enough from these characters that the players feel safe. Having played hundreds of hours on versus mode I can tell you that any point of map can be used by a special infected but it is way more effective on many occasions to wait for them to reach 1 or 2 rooms down the map. Also left 4 dead 2 maps are a lot more open space then left 4 dead 1 maps, not by accident but purposely so to keep both the spitter and charger balanced but their roles to split up the enemy team is still necessary. Both the spitter and charger are needed for this role simply because the change in environment often means that at each point one of the two is significantly better at doing said job. The left 4 dead 1 maps in left 4 dead 2 have many small edits made in them to keep the charger from destroying the survivors in corridors. Also any character added to the game would just be a skin not a new playable character, any character they could add with different effect let's say slower but more health would not be an interesting change to gameplay.

1. They've already planned to make the "new" DLC infected and are essentially selling you something that was already made/planned during development of the original game you buy.

OR

2. They are still restricting themselves to particular map setups (modules), they just now made *more* map modules giving them slightly more freedom than they had with less map setups in Left 4 Dead, due to these new modules. But under this, it means that anything they release would have to be almost identical or partially related to enemies that are already in the game unless they *hold back* designs for later purchase which just doesn't really justify buying to me.

1. Or they make the game then once it is being shipped turn their heads to a white board and go 'so now that the game is complete let's see what we additional content we can make' e.g. mechromancer in borderlands 2 which while thought of while the game was in development wasn't being developed until the game had shipped and contained new mechanics (deathtrap and all the moves that came with it and anarchy are 2 examples)

2. I think you are misunderstanding modular in this context, they don't mean diablo style modular maps where they make a whole bunch of small parts which can be slammed together semi randomly to make something playable. modular means interchangeable i.e. they can make a new monster without worrying how it interacts with any of their other monster mechanics as their will only be 1 monster at a time. Same goes for any of the classes. You seem to have this idea that they can just reasonably include every idea they have into the main game and sell it for $60. I mean 17 playable characters and 5 monsters is a lot considering that so far every announced character is extremely different but does their role.

(each class has more abilities then I am mentioning)

Medic: keeps team alive
medic 1 uses a healing gun to do this, medic 2 can't heal but can raise players back form the dead, each medic has a different set of weapons (one has a sniper which creates weak point on the monster) they also have other unique abilities (one can generate a a.o.e. cloak field). as you see both fit the role but do it in very different ways which changes how you play them or play with them or how you play against them.

Assault: damage
assault 1 has 2 medium damage long range high accuracy weapons that means as long as he has a line of sight of the monster he can do reasonable damage (don't know his abilities). Assault 2, has dual flamethrowers and gas grenades, this allows him to flush out the monster from hiding places and control its movement using the threat of high damage.

Support: supports
Support 1 has a gun that provides a high resistance shield as long as you're aiming at a player. Support 2 can detach his head and use it as a uav (which is useful as your ui doesn't show where allies are so using this you can either help track the monster or locate lost teammates).

Tracker: find the creature
tracker 1 has a harpoon gun which slows down the creature allowing your team to catch up with it and he also has a cage deployer which creates a spherical force field (about 200m radius) trapping the monster and forcing it to fight your team (lasts about 30 sec). tracker 2 has a pet which can help fight but also continually tracks the creature meaning your team always knows roughly were it is forcing the monster to keep moving.

As you can see having set roles doesn't force characters to play the same, just think about any time you had a large group of people complete the same task, it gets done in different ways.

Welp, Evolve just went onto the list of games I won't touch at launch.
Just too many warning signs.

archiebawled:

I don't think that designing a game with DLC in mind means they're going to milk it - it could just mean that they designed the game in a modular manner so that it was easy for them to include DLC. Most software projects aspire to be modular as it allows flexibility and usually means that the design is clean.

While technically true, that's an extremely optimistic take of the situation when you consider the larger scale trends in DLC practices across the rest of the industry.

The fact that Ashton specifically claims

Ashton:
"At the end of the day, it's a business and it has to make sense, but we believe that we've built a game that does support that really well--more so than any game ever before."

is cold comfort for those of us who have seen that before. I cannot think of a developer who has gone the "it's a business" route who also hasn't used that as justification for milking their customers.

It might not even be intentional on their part either; what sounds like a statement of confidence for their product to them, could sound arrogant to the paying customer. Especially if they're already familiar with the price gouging practices common to the rest of the business.

I'm going to wait and see, but after this announcement, my gut tells me that Evolve isn't likely to be worth my money or time.

I think in this post free dlc world we just need to come to terms with evaluating the worth of a game based on what is there rather than what we think should be there. If the game turns out to be huge amounts of fun you'll probably be glad they have an infrastructure in place to sell more of it and the financial incentive will actually cause them to make more. Just trying to look on the bright side.

Strazdas:
[

Gundam GP01:

Yeah, I'm gonna need a source for that.

second paragraph of this news item?

Sorry for the late reply.

I dont really see how the second paragraph explains what kind of DLC they'll make and what price point it will have.

Seems to me they're saying that they were disappointed with L4D's lack of flexibility towards certain kinds of content, like characters and zombie types.

Well then, the price for the base game better reflect this. Any more than $30, is too much in my opinion.

Also

Wasnt there a big controversy vover l4d and lfd2? Something about the devs promising crap tons of characters and maps....that was taken back and repurposed as lfd2? Yeah, take that into consideration. (I only heard about it years after the fact, but I believe so)

Also, there is trendsetting to consider- u support these dlc practices because "omg its worth it ahmygawd so cool!". And it is, I could see it working. But other companies start doing it (bdcause inevitable capitalism) we get used to the new business model, then the dlc practices get worse, Rinse and repeat untill we pay $10 for eyeliner packs or something

And I dont want it to get worse.

Rozalia1:

You should know that quick shoddy sequels aren't exclusive to gaming, they are in everything. The first game not being made to accommodate a sequel, and it having to be pumped out quick means they tend to suffer in both story and gameplay.
However not all series suffer from this, Gust pushes out yearly Atelier games and their quality is in no way lesser, and in fact Totori (2010) is worlds better than Rorona (2009) is.
Not that its a bad thing regardless, its like if they started pumping out yearly Yakuzas...would the quality decline...likely but you know its still a Yakuza game so I'd really not care.

The public cannot act as a cohesive unit in dealing with such things, they will as they always have let companies do such things.

You know how long they've done that, and its not just been them. Resident Evil for example had things like Dual Shock editions, and "X editions" (think that'd count), and I doubt it stops there.
Its been a thing forever and you're taking a stand like they are just know turning the wheel.

Yes, other industries suffer from this too and i agree that costumers are the ones letting it happen. Im not taking a stand like it just happened. i was always taking this stand against bad practices. You however seem to try real hard to excuse them.

Strazdas:

Yes, other industries suffer from this too and i agree that costumers are the ones letting it happen. Im not taking a stand like it just happened. i was always taking this stand against bad practices. You however seem to try real hard to excuse them.

It isn't a "bad practice" which is what you fail to see. Not listening to your customers unhappy with certain things would be bad practice yes...however you're a tiny minority not even worth thinking about. Catering to you and losing money, now that would be a bad practice.

Hey I'm a Ziggler guy so I know how it is to be part of such a group, however you have to take a more neutral standpoint and see things how they really are.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here