Evolve's season pass doesn't cover $130+ worth of available DLC
There's over $130 worth of downloadable content available for Evolve, and season pass owners get none of it.
Evolve is just a little over 24 hours old by now and if you weren’t too busy killing Monsters or completely destroying Hunters, you may have noticed all of the downloadable content that’s already available within the PlayStation Store, Xbox Games Store, and Steam. I’m sure you noticed it even more so if you decided to pick up the Season Pass for Evolve and found none of these pieces of DLC were covered by it. I know I certainly did.
The worst of the three digital storefronts is Xbox's as there are over 40 items available for sale that can be picked up a la carte. If you want to pick up all of these pieces of DLC, many of which are just skins that can be applied to various Hunters and Monsters, you’ll have to spend over $130 in addition to Evolve’s retail price.
The Season Pass for Evolve only includes three exclusive skins as well as access to four new Hunters. On the other hand, new maps are expected to be released completely for free.
If you purchased the Season Pass, I'm sure you can't help but feel a bit cheated when there's additional DLC available that isn't covered by it. I know I wouldn't feel too great if I purchased a Season Pass for a game to find out there are tons of additional DLC which that very pass doesn't cover.
-
Shacknews
replyDaniel Perez posted a new article, Evolve's season pass doesn't cover $130+ worth of available DLC
-
lol, oh my. So is there any word on future paid DLC that will be automatically added to season pass owners?
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
Man I was a huge fan of Turtle Rock before all this DLC garbage happened. L4D was one of my favorite multiplayer games, and to go from that to totally screwing the pooch with this junk.
It's very disappointing.
-
Looks fun but fuck that.
-
How much of the DLC is actual gameplay content vs cosmetic stuff?
-
As far as I can see, it's just about all skins, so this game has suddenly become Gears of War: Judgement.
Of course, that veers into an entirely different problem of why there are $130 worth of skins in a $60 game. Yes, it's easy to ignore them and still get the same experience, but I miss the days when these things used to be unlockable in-game.-
Caved who made Total Annihilation released a new unit a week for like half a year or something.
-
I miss the days when that stuff was free right out of the game. Poopsocking shouldn't be a requirement.
-
Er, right out of the gate.
-
-
It was Call of Duty that did it, specifically Modern Warfare.
-
Because we wouldn't want to blame Valve for making money hand over fist with TF2 hats or Bethesda for Horse Armor.
Nothing DICE did in BF2 was really different than BF1942 expansion packs.
I can remember the game that started pre-order DLC though. I do feel like that happened post MW2.-
*Can't
-
[deleted]
-
-
Ah, so you mean just ingame items tied to DLC. Okay, that makes some sense, but in BF2 to get those ingame items you bought a full expansion pack.
The fact that WoW came out a year before and Xbox Live was pushing microtransactions would be a much bigger influence than expansion packs that gave you persistent items in the vanilla game.
If you simply mean unlocking items by playing more (stat persistence) I don't really think BF2 should get credit for that. Again, WoW came out the year before and MMOs were taking the world by storm already. (Wasn't Planetside doing persistent unlocks in 2003?).
-
-
-
-
-
In my mind, I say who cares if it's $3000 worth of skins. People are going to buy the one or two they like. More dollar value of skins available simply means there are more options. That's not a bad thing.
If you're missing out on actual gameplay content despite buying the season pass that would be an entirely different matter. -
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
Sounds like they already have the F2P model ready.
-
Hahaha, fuck this game.
-
-
[deleted]
-
How is there DLC drama already without the game even being out?
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
Can I ask one question ? So the majority is pissed with a optional $24 season pass and $130+ DLCs that = all the DLCs for a completed released game that you can play now. But you have no problem shelling out $110 or $2500 for a Star Citizen ship that you can just look at and take for a ride in a demo lvl where you just shoot at a AI ship and look at the indie of your ship? Also your cool with being forced to pay for ship insurance in Star Citizen(for those that missed the lifetime issuance) unless your cool with losing your ships which no one in their right mind will?
I hate micro transactions and money grab DLCs and am not saying I support it at all but why the hell is Star Citizen not the most hated PC game of all time for its business model/practice? At least with Evolve nothing is forced like a player insurance which lets be honest is pay to continue lets not sugar coat it.
Am I way off base? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilcRS5eUpwk ? What do you guys think?-
holy crap there is actual ship insurance for star citizen?
-
It is payable with in-game money and said to be very nominal.
-
The word is to buy a $110 ship would take you 60 hours of gameplay just to allow you to buy your ship back by doing third party flight missions.
Dude that sounds mental I put in about 75 hours into D3 and it feels like I spent years playing it.
I don't know man I wish I never watched that video and found out about all this hidden stuff it seems wrong and really sketchy.-
It's an ingamemoney sink, in order to keep the economy from having runaway inflation.
Same with landing fees, fuel costs, ammunition, missiles, NPC hires (if you need/want them), and ingame taxes on sales.
Same with real life, if you dont have insurance on your car, you run a big risk of a wreck and loss.
-
-
Yeah I watched this video on Polygon and heard it and was like WTF???? I checked it out its true:
"What happens if I don’t have insurance?
Your character will have to buy a new ship with any credits he has, or if he doesn’t have enough credits fly missions for a third party (both NPC and player) until he’s earned enough to buy his own ship again."
I just found out like two days ago I had no freaking idea.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/comm-link/transmission/12820-Insurance-FAQ-And-Update
Unless in a rage I got this all wrong that is how I interpreted it sounds INSNAE in a bad way and wrong to me.
So if you smoke a asteroid etc and you have no insurance to be blunt your totally fucked there goes your ship and your $.
Pretty much anyone that buys the game late is going to be hard screwed its not even funny.
Please someone tell me I missed read this all, the dudes on Polygon said all of this stuff and that is why I even knew about it. The weirdest shit they thought the insurance was cool, I was like WTF? really?-
it's more about risk and anticipating moronic players. if you have no risk on your hull and upgrades, people are going to max troll and ram everything all day, because their ship magically is there forever. no, that's not going to work. so there must be some incentive to not be a shitheel. that incentive is that your ship, when totaled, is FUCKED... unless you have insurance on the hull. LTI means the hulls of my ships are insured forever, and of course you can buy temporary or even lifetime insurance in the game, in that economy.
it's even in world of tanks: your shit breaks, and you have to repair it. if you don't have the credits, you cannot repair and then use the tank, it's unusable. so there's no insurance per se, but it illustrates the economic portion of risk and value. WoW gear breaks and needs to be repaired as well, similar discussion point.
anyway, we know time is money. people pay for immediate access to shit in mobile games. not really similar to spaceship insurance - BUT - it underscores that people do not want to grind. they will pay to bypass any downtime. that's the F2P model... and in spaceships, it's about using your new toys without risking downtime.
oddly enough, I'm still worried about all the shitheels that HAVE paid for LTI... with real money. we are gonna cancel each other out. But you know LTI empowered folks are going to be preying on people 24/7. -
Wait, what? It has been stated that insurance is a nominal fee.
I think I read somewhere that it will be like...1-3 hours of gameplay to earn the insurance to protect your ship.
Therefore, there should be no reason why you don't have insurance.
I think it's a good deterrent to having people just endlessly crash their starter ships in suicide runs.
-
-
Will switching to Green Man Gaming save me 15% or more on ship insurance?
-
Clever Ozzie
-
[deleted]
-
-
Evolve is a single-serving multiplayer matchup. Star Citizen will have a persistent universe.
-
[deleted]
-
How do you know that?
-
I am bitching about this DLC and I bought into Star Citizen.
Another point about this, though...is that it feels like the costs of purchasing things in Star Citizen is going toward development.
There's a transparency there that doesn't seem to be available with Evolve. I have no idea what my money would be used for in Evolve (i.e. it probably wouldn't go to the devs). -
People playing Star Citizen http://www.virtualrealityreviewer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2731_large_virtualPA_468x335.jpg
-
-
[deleted]
-
Another thing that blew my mind yesterday(I did a lot of thinking, maybe I should of not have done so...)
* disclosure I choose to make my game I know that was my choice/decision I can only blame my self if I have a beef with my choice(and I don't btw) *
K so far I spent 6 years of my life making my game from the game engine to the game in its current state. I left an awesome job, put off having any relationships and am pretty much burning all of my life's saving in order to make my game full time so it actually gets completed.
So here is the kicker when my game is completed no matter how good it is, how long it is and insanely epic it is I can pretty much only sell it for $20 and under since I am a no name and indie. If I want to sell it for more I will pretty much get shot/slammed and its just not accepted to be > $.
So in short a massive ordeal and under taking and hundreds of thousands lines of code, multiple years of a individuals life, etc, etc is worth only $20 yet its cool to sell a 3D model to a unfinished game for $110 - $2500.
I tell you to think all that work is worth just $20 seems fucked up it is enough to make you say "what the fuck am I doing am I crazy? why would I even bother make a game?"
Please keep in mind guys I have been working on my game for a long time and I am a bit stressed these are just a indie devs thoughts/my thoughts as I go.
Shit like that makes you think that the price of indies games just feels wrong or even games in general. Shit I used cut grass back in the day when I was a small kid to buy my video games for $20 a pop, freaking grass cutting.
Weird hey... its probably a really bad idea to think about it I am making sure I am moving on and blocking it out.
-
-
Well written. I think Star Citizen sold it as being part of a community or society where you are working towards a greater good. Kind of like a cult. Watching their video productions reminds me of the religious channel. I soon expect Chris Roberts to start reading emails/prayers of donators and granting them wishes(in game).
Turtle Rock probably crunched some numbers like in that South Park episode and realized they don't have to target and please the majority of gamers. There is a 1% to 2% that will pay sky high and it's more profitable to just take advantage of them. If they were smarter they would of released it free to play.-
This is probably morwe on 2k Games that Turtle Rock.
Not saying Turtle Rock is 100% blameless, mind you. But 2k is probably really pushing for the Cosmetic Items and Hunters/Monsters put out and sold as DLC because of Turtle Rock's insistence that Maps remain free for all players. But the extent that they are going with all this DLC is super gross and money grubbing for a fully priced retail release.
Being made a F2P or lower box price would probably have made it more palatable, but still would reek of money grubbing.
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
True. I think people are hung up on the expectation of SC. Nostalgia, promises, and the idea that you are helping to develop those promises are powerful incentives. Moreso than seeing a game complete with massive amounts of content that you have to pay for with no option to earn in-game.
-
-
Whoa, not even one cent. Nice deal.
-
-
-
Nope paying $100 for a ship in Star Citizen is equally dumb.
Games that ship with day 1 DLC always rub people the wrong way. If you release it on day 1 and it affects gameplay, it should be in the box. Period. The skins are just cash grabs and I would be surprised if may are purchased.
The ME3 character that had a huge impact on the story was a day 1 DLC and people raged about that too. -
Easy, Star Citizen is still funding for development. You arent buying the ship. You're donating... ala kickstarter. The ship is a "thank you" for doing so. Different amounts get different thank yous, not unlike a telethon.
What they're doing with that money.
Hiring for asset creation, purchasing global servers, hiring modellers, opening new studios (new one in germany in June/July, lots of Crytek hires), etc.
You dont HAVE to buy anything more than the starter package for 30, and you get the full game, Arena Commaner, The Persistent Universe, single player Squadron42 (bigger than any previous WingCommander game). Everything... the entire experience. Including the ability to make credits and buy any ship in the game, for no additional $ out of pocket. If you want to fund the game further, you do so. Any funds raised passed the current total is rolled back into the development. Donations dictate the scope of the game.
This game on the other hand, is complete. It's fully developed, and fully funded by the 2K games (known for NBA Roster Update 2015, etc)
Now they want to charge you 60 bucks for the purchase (whereas the cheapest full game in star citizen is 30).
Then they want to charge you for a season pass for 25...which apparently covers both Jack and Shit
Then they want to charge another 130 for the full game. ON DAY ONE.
Grand total for full game, $215 dollars.-
[deleted]
-
Because in the past, or when released by someone that is not as money-grubbing as this makes 2k and Turtle Rock seem, a lot of the cosmetic stuff that they released for $130 would have been put as an unlockable in the game rather than make you pay for it.
I am all right with offering optional cosmetic stuff for DLC buying purposes, but this is way overboard.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lol, i think they're all free or just skins atm but I haven't looked into it too much.
-
Is it a monster closet?
-
Aren't they all free though?
-
-
-
-
this would be a lot easier to swallow if they'd announce some of the maps that they're claiming to be giving away for free in future.
-
[deleted]
-
-
Isnt that what most of this $130 of dlc is. Cosmetic skins?
-
the thing most people are mad about is the idea of paying for a season pass that doesn't get you stuff that's already out this season.
-
[deleted]
-
I haven't looked into it, but the problem here would be if at the store page for the season pass, it said exactly what you were getting with the season pack or not.
If it said what you were getting then it's people fault for not reading.
But if it didn't say anything and they then release that much dlc out of the season pass then it's a problem, and a questionable practice.
That in the topic of beeing ripped off or not with the season pass.
If that kind and quantity of DLC is a good practice, thats a whole different topic. And i personally dont like it if you already have to pay 60 bucks.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
-
I completely agree with this post. I also agree that Dota 2 is an incredible value compared to this game. Heck, DOOM, Half-life, or other moddable games are great value.
I think we are all tired of being nickeled and dimed compared to the "good old days." However, I would strongly argue that the existence of the season pass or cosmetic DLC should not be the major reason why you reject this game without actually learning more about it, it is really quite good!-
To not nickle-and-dime like the good old days you have to only make games good old days budgets. Modern AAA games are much more expensive to make and game prices have not increased so they have to make up the difference somewhere.
-
-
-
I don't get the outrage over this. It's all cosmetic.
-
[deleted]
-
As somebody who is really enjoying this game, I want to make sure people don't hop onto the Evolve DLC hate train unnecessarily without taking into consideration a couple points.
First, for the base price of the game, you get access to all the maps! This is a very important, because other DLC models (BF4, Titanfall) fracture the community and detract from the experience.
Yes, if you don't buy the Season pass, you will not have access 2 additional monsters and 4 additional hunter characters. Oh yeah, and some cosmetic stuff. Whether this breaks the game or not remains to be seen. As of now, I have played all 3 tiers of medics and 2 of the supports and I don't perceive a huge game breaking advantage of one over the other.
If you are upset about something you felt you were entitled to in the beginning, then I understand where you are coming from. At this point, I know I will have $45 (with discount) worth of fun in the next 2 months guaranteed. It's that good!
$100 is a lot to pay for a game. My main argument is that nobody has any evidence at this point that not having access to the additional monsters or hunters ruins the base game.
As for $130 worth of cosmetics, I think it is only fair to tally up the total cost of DLC for all the various games out there and see how things stack up. I think Evolve has been targeted because of a quite terrible and confusing marketing message from the beginning, which is a shame, because again, I find this game incredibly fun to play and if you want to see what the gameplay is like, I probably will be streaming again tonight!!-
-
[deleted]
-
[deleted]
-
-
The problem is, people* have associated Evolve with L4D - which when released was as cheap as (IIRC) $25 or $30 a copy at launch and was incredible value.
L4D1 and L4D2 were amazing "single player feeling" coop games, Evolve is close to this and really, we just want some more L4D feeling, unique gameplay.
If Evolve was $40 for the whole fucking thing, WORKS BURGER and it was $20 in 7 months for a half decent expansion? BAM they'd sell like mother.fucking.hot.cakes. Just like L4D did.
Instead they've completely and utterly caused a nickel and dime situation with this game where it feels like there's no way to get everything or you're not getting value cause there's something more.
I know we're in the minority nowadays, people like myself (and some of the other Evolve "whiners") but a lot of us are fucking sick of DLC. I just want to buy a GAME and enjoy it. Games have always been a "product" but they've never felt more like a 'product' than they do in the past couple of years.
I want to buy into a world, into characters, into something I can believe in, enjoy, love, have fun with. I do not want to buy a slice of things.
I suspect Evolve sales WILL be hampered by the negative feedback it's gotten the last month. They brought this on themselves. Worse still if they were at least more "evil" about it, they wouldn't have said all this shit before hand, they could've at least tricked us into buying it but the dumb cunts actually said all the bad shit before launch? Fucking osborne'd
* Well me anyhow, I assume others feel similar.
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
-
Good post, sergeon.
-
Well you sold me on the game. Then I went to steam to purchase it and holy fuck is that a cluster of fucks. There 3 options for what to purchase and I don't even know the difference. I have hundreds of hours into the L4D series its my favorite games since Quake. The Crysis 3 engine looks great but damn I can't justify this. It really is terrible. Maybe its just a few skins but I can't tell and this steam page is awful.
Who the fuck wrote the description for these add ons? Even $60 for a PC game is kind of nuts and that appears to get me nothing. This is embarrassing they definitely deserve all the hate.
-
[deleted]
-
It's good in the sense that the community wont be split in 3 months after the first expansion. They really should have tried harder to explain how they were selling it, or better yet.. don't. Just wait a bit after the hype dies and announce the expansion to gather interest like the good old days. I think everyone is get tired of the 60 base game with 100 dollar add ons at launch.
-
-
-
-
As someone who bought Evolve, can someone explain to me what all the DLC fuss is about? I took at look at the in-game store yesterday to see what the fuss was about and it's just a bunch of overpriced skins. If there was a $130 of gameplay related things missing I would be pissed, but if all they are trying to peddle are cosmetic things ala DOTA/TF2 then who cares? Or is there a big gameplay related item that was held back? As far as I can tell I have access to 3 monsters + 12 hunters, so what am I missing?
-
[deleted]
-
Just a healthy dose of calling bullshit on despicable DLC practices.
They've gone back to horse armor for mega bucks but apparently that's okay now because some gamers like the company.
How would gamers feel if Mass Effect 4 shipped with one protagonist armor design, and extra skins were $$$?
When ME2 came out, three additional NPC outfits were 5 bucks. Every character came with two skins yet people were flipping their shit about having to pay for more outfits. Is that considered a bargain now?
Publishers are trying everything they can to get suckers to pay more for games. Naturally suckers are going to defend the practice or they wouldn't be suckers.-
How do you suggest developers and publishers reconcile the fact that games cost substantially more to make now than they did 10 years ago and yet games are still the same price?
-
The market has also opened up substantially.
If the increase in potential customers doesn't justify the additional expense, maybe have a smaller budget. I don't know, common sense stuff.
Digital distribution and frequent sales have led to huge gains on the publisher end. It's not my problem as a customer to figure out financing.
I'm actually for reals angry at the whole idea of $130 of cosmetics in a full-priced premium game. A couple skins for characters are somehow worth twice as much as the whole game? How is that acceptable on any level? It would've been kinda defendable if they had a $15-20 cosmetic DLC pack with all of that included.
Introducing wacky f2p pricing into a premium game that's already laced with +$ offerings is a terrible mix of whaling and trolling. -
[deleted]
-
-
If you don't want it don't buy it. The horse armor made a lot of money, so obviously some people enjoyed it.
The only thing shady here is using season in the name of the pack.
4 classes with 3 subclasses each, 12 maps, 4 or 5 game modes, a replayable dynamic (but short) campaign, multiplayer, bots, lots of progression, etc.
That's what you get for $60.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Ding Ding Ding. I was on the fence before, but now I'm going to sit back like a cheap mofo and wait.
-
-
I'm just sick of dlc in general. Give me a game, and 6-12 months later an expansion pack that adds meaningful content for 29.99 like the old days. Why the hell are devs sitting around wasting time creating textures and models that they are going to release for a few bucks a pop and fucking no one is going to care about?
-
I like DLCs just fine as a substitution for expansions. It gives gamers steady content and give devs steady work after the game ships. But Evolve's 'DLC' is really just zero-day microtransactions in a game that isn't F2P. 'DLC' is becoming an excuse to leave out content intentionally in order to charge the consumer twice, and people should be upset. It's a shitty development for gamers.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
I don't get gobs of DLC stuff in brand new $60+ games. Cosmetic or not, I associate it with budget and F2P stuff. Just feels wrong, and Evolve is not the first big game to do this.
I'm not staying away from the game because of it, just find it gross that a publisher would be pushing this garbage, especially right out of the gate. It's insane to me that it exists and that plenty of people wanted it to happen and then made it happen. But I'm personally staying away from Evolve because I hate the way it feels and plays as a hunter. I do like Turtle Rock, though, so good luck to them despite this shit.-
I feel the same way about Evolve. I've been playing it the past few nights and I'm enjoying its pace and the classes. I've always favored being a Medic and the selection of hunters is pretty diverse.
-
-
OK, so I'm officially over Evolve. I really enjoyed the Alpha and Beta tests. The game is fun. However, I don't like playing games knowing that I am missing content.
I used to always look forward to game expansions. When DLC first came out, it seemed like a good idea to keep the devs going after the game was released, and it could add some extra content to keep the game fresh.
Now, we have $130 of DLC on DAY FUCKING ONE, in addition to a "Season Pass." That means that if you decided to shell out $60 for this game (which is a lot), you can expect to be missing 2/3rds of the content that was available on day one for this game. Thats crazy.-
[deleted]
-
I want the industry to remain strong and grow, and I want devs to have jobs that extend past game release, but what bothers me is the emerging trend that the base game experience is being designed specifically to drive sales of extended DLC content.
I don't like playing games where it's obvious that the game is an environment designed to motivate you to buy more content. I hate F2P, but at least they are honest about the model, and sometimes you can make a one time investment and then experience all of the content. This is the "season pass" model, which is effectively pre-ordering expansion packs.
I like games as products. I can tolerate the "games as services" model as long as they don't shut down the servers. But, I detest "games as vehicles to manipulate people into giving you money." I think it's a perversion of the media, and its creeping into the industry below the radar.
-
-
-
No, I didn't. I do use horse armor mods in Skyrim. So, it's a matter of cost vs content. In fact, Bethesda DLC has become the perfect model, with long additive story content that is completely optional but meshes well with existing content.
I also bought EAs DLC for mass effect, and that was really done wrong. Very important story elements and characters were locked behind pay walls. Some of the other content was just skins, but in ME2, the item and weapon upgrades were completely lackluster without DLC. It was obvious that the base game had been designed in order to add incentive for paid DLC. It's the absolute wrong model.
Blizzard made the same mistake with Diablo 3 with the auction house. They billed it as extra and not required, but they designed the base game in such a way that item drops were inferior and using the auction house became required. Fortunately, Blizzard finally realized their mistake, that they had created a game that was not fun in order to drive revenue into their auction house. Now ,Diablo 3 is finally fun.
-
-
-
