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

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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

evolve wraith screenshot

It'll set you back an additional $100 to get all of the launch-day Evolve content.

Editor's Note: We initially incorrectly reported that it would cost players $136 to purchase all of Evolve's DLC. While it is correct that there is $136 worth of content available to purchase on the game's marketplace, this includes several larger bundles that contain multiple skins. With the bundles removed, the amount of content available on the store totals $75.

At this point, Evolve's DLC policy is a pretty well-known point of contention in the gaming world. But just how much DLC is there available for the game, which just launched this week? At launch, Evolve currently has $100 worth of additional content for purchase - more than twice the value of the "full" retail game.

Breaking it down further, there are 44 pieces of $2-$7 Evolve add-on content listed on the game's Xbox Marketplace product page, totaling $75. To be fair, these are all cosmetic enhancements for hunters, monsters and weapons, such the Kraken Wendigo Skin ($3), the Assault Ragnarok Skin Pack ($5), and the Goliath Bog Skin ($3).

On top of this, there is the $25 season pass which will eventually unlock four new Hunters. There's also technically the "PC Monster Race" special edition which costs an additional $40 over the game's base $60 price tag, and includes the content from the season pass a fifth monster, two new hunters and four additional skins.

So, if you go out and buy the base game ($60), with the PC Monster Race edition ($40), or just the season pass ($25), and then go out and buy all the DLC on the store ($75), you're looking at $160-$175 for a game that has just been released. And that's not even taking into account the poor Australians, who will likely pay double that.

Turtle Rock certainly wasn't kidding when it said the game will have lots of DLC.

Source: GameSpot

Permalink

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.

I'm not going to buy Evolve because its not my kind of game, but the overblown rage mobs that form around every game launch, trailer, and announcement not made by one of the cult leaders like Valve or CDprojekt worries me more than anything any game company has ever done. So forgive me if I don't hop on the "OPTIONAL COSMETIC DLC IS RUINING GAMES BECAUSE I SAID SO, now hate what you are told to hate like a good little sheep" bandwagon.

Also you really oughta start tagging these wither either (news) or (opinion) so I know ahead of time if I'm going to get information or not.

As someone pointed out in the other thread, simply adding up all the dlc is incredibly disingenuous since there's bundles that include all the separate dlcs in them. Buying all the dlc in the shop would require you to be an idiot and to buy multiple things twice.

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). 'Gamer entitlement' gets thrown around pretty often with no real basis, but it's hard to think of any other factor as to why we believe we should continue paying a maximum of $60 for a AAA game when so many things around us have increased in price, including the development costs of these titles. The only way to have the $60 price point remain a viable business option would be to increase the base cost of the game (and I'm sure that would go over well...), or to add random cosmetic options that add a second revenue stream. Personally, I'd rather the latter, as that's content I'm more than welcome to ignore.

All of that said, it's also worth noting that not every game is worth $60. Some should cost more at their launch, others less. As an example, I would personally still buy the next Elder Scrolls game (single-player, not the MMO) for $100 at launch. I spend enough time with those games that I would still get more than my money's worth out of them. Dragon Age: Inquisition is another that would have been worth that price point. I've put over 100 hours into it already and that was a single playthrough. That's less than $1 per -hour- of value I've obtained out of those games. Now, something like Destiny, which I enjoy but don't spend all that much time on, I would value around $40. I'm sure plenty of people would believe that game has $100 value though. And shorter games that are single-player focused, let's say around 6 hours of content, should consider capping at a $40 price point. Unless price variability becomes an actual market force, though, every game will stay $60 regardless of amount of content.

this makes EA look like a lamb with their premium content for the BF franchise. more reason not ot buy this game. this is just absurd.

image

I'm on the same page as Jim. This is gonna be the game that fell out of the bullshit tree and hit every branch on the way down.

Day 1 DLC means ALL of it should have been included in the standard game. Day 1 DLC is just as bad as on disk DLC, the same way to milk more money out of people. They could atleast make it look like it wasn't finished with the main game and hold the DLC back and sell 1 every 2 weeks, still bullshit but less insulting bullshit.

@MazokuRanma, the $60 price point is because pricing any higher and they start to lose too many sales making the release weekend profit less than pricing at $60. They make plenty of profit at the $60 price point without DLC through large volumes of sales. Sell 10 items for $20 or 30 items for $10 what makes more money? If the game makes a profit in the first week of sales then every sale after is nothing but profit minus packaging and distribution. make it a digital distribution and it's even more profit until they decide to stop selling it. No they do not need to increase the price, doing that only puts more money in the shareholders pockets.

MazokuRanma:
A $60 Nintendo game in 1985 would cost over $130 today (and some of them retailed above $60 back then).

No, it wouldn't. For one example, Super Mario Bros 2 would cost $5 today.

MazokuRanma:
Snip

With the first paragraph you may have a point. Prices have not been adjusted for inflation, but the audience has increased massively, possibly off-setting the cost of inflation

The second paragraph doesn't really make sense when you apply it to most other things you buy. I bought a soccer ball for $30 and kicked it around for over 100 hours, but I don't think the price should be raised. Or with movie tickets, 2-3 hours for 20-30 dollars?
Maybe those examples were a bit silly. What I'm trying to say is, I could get 100 hours out of cup-and-ball if I wanted to, but f they raised the price to $60 that'd be ridiculous.

Not sure what scares me more, that they have the balls to release enough DLC at launch to triple the cost of the game, or the thought that people will pay it :s

The Preened Mr. Fust:
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.

Its not "extra characters that are jsut a reskin" its JUST a reskin.

Its the same as valve leting you purchase Flags and hats in Portal2.

Guess I'll join the minority here in asking "What seems to be the problem, my friends?"

Sure, just like anyone else I'm a bit grumpy about DLC hunters and monsters, but at least the maps will be free. As for the 136 USD worth of DLC - the article itself said it JUST COSMETICS. Don't want blowing money on cosmetics? Don't blow money on cosmetics! It's that simple, fellas. This is no story-centric Day 1 DLC like From Ashes or even gameplay enhancing, just needles fluff. A good source of additional revenue for the devs from people who want to support them and have some bling for it. Sure, Nintendo might give you visual fluff for free, but you don't need it, so why not capitalize on the needlessness of fluff? It's not hurting anyone or their wallets. Unless you have a compulsive need to buy EVERYTHING, but in that case you should not be on Steam. You should be at a therapy session.

Now the season pass and PCMR version are a bit questionable, but to the same extent as any other season pass or premium edition, nothing to get bend out of shape over or call them the newest span of DLC Satan.

Full price for a multi-player game where many people have said you see pretty much everything in a couple of games. Season pass for some extra shit and a crap ton of DLC sitting there straight after release, overpriced too. As well as their abominable pre-purchase bonuses. It's a fucking disgusting trend that I will not be apart of!

JUST COSMETICS as some people feel is a good point in this, could of been part of the original package (because remember, it's a full fucking priced multi-player game), and we really have no idea what could have been included. You can't say you do, you just have their word. Just like EA!

Then there are people saying Valve does the same thing, even though TF2 is fucking free to download and Portal 2 is also single-player. Just amazing. No wonder gaming has gone down the shitter.

Why is it that when I first bought Red Alert 2, it was not only cheaper with a single-player and multi-player mode, but after a month they started throwing up extra maps and missions as free DLC? They dedicated part of their site to new official and fan made maps. RA2 isn't the only classic game that did this too!

"PC Monster Race"

image

I really don't like the idea that they are going to have monsters as DLC. I can see them trying to charge around $10 for each new monster and odds are there will be a lot more.

MazokuRanma:
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).

Not unpopular, but simply biased. The PC I bought in 1999 had a 1GB hard drive and cost $2,000. Shall we talk pricing, memory, and computing power of a raspberry pi in comparison?

I pay $10 for a movie theater ticket whether I am seeing an action movie with a $200 million dollar budget or an indie film made on a $200,000 budget.

Hell,Skyrim has sumstantially more hours of play than Assassin's Creed, yet they are the same price.

Twelve characters, three monsters and four game variations does not seem comparable to ... Well anything else out right now.

Yep, that's one game I'm avoiding.
Unless I get it for free.

I think all this bullshit DLC is going to cost them rather than make them any money. Many people (like myself) are going to be turned-off from buying the game if most of its content is behind pay walls. The game doesn't really appeal to me anyway.

The $136 in cosmetics really isn't so bad. If a game has $1000 in cosmetic items but keeps all the important fragmenting content free for everyone then there's not really an issue aside from people being whiny, and the devs still make a lot of money from the people with lots of disposable income around. Keeping 6 new hunters and a monster, in other words massive parts of the gameplay, away from people who won't pay is where problems happen. Once they start charging for maps (thereby actually excluding people from playing with others) you boycott the game imo.

.

Okay... I'm stunned. Just leave it at "That's a shit-ton of dollars... :O ".

Steven Bogos:
So Just How Much DLC Does Evolve Have at Launch? $136 Worth

evolve wraith screenshot

It'll set you back more than double the cost of the base game to get the complete Evolve experience.

At this point, Evolve's DLC policy is a pretty well-known point of contention in the gaming world. But just how much DLC is there available for the game, which just launched this week? At launch, Evolve currently has $136 worth of additional content for purchase - more than twice the value of the "full" retail game.

Breaking it down further, there are 44 pieces of $2-$7 Evolve add-on content listed on the game's Xbox Marketplace product page. To be fair, these are all cosmetic enhancements for hunters, monsters and weapons, such the Kraken Wendigo Skin ($3), the Assault Ragnarok Skin Pack ($5), and the Goliath Bog Skin ($3).

On top of this, there is the $25 season pass which will eventually unlock four new Hunters. There's also technically the "PC Monster Race" special edition which costs an additional $40 over the game's base $60 price tag, and includes the content from the season pass a fifth monster, two new hunters and four additional skins.

So, if you go out and buy the base game ($60), with the PC Monster Race edition ($40), or just the season pass ($25), and then go out and buy all the DLC on the store ($136), you're looking at $221-$236 for a game that has just been released. And that's not even taking into account the poor Australians, who will likely pay double that.

Turtle Rock certainly wasn't kidding when it said the game will have lots of DLC.

Source: GameSpot

Permalink

This is incredibly misleading reporting. You should be absolutely ashamed. You've counted the packs and the individual items from those packs which are available alone. To get all the content you wouldn't spend nearly what you claim. Do your research next time.

Edit: After reading all these comments, the only responsible thing would be to post a retraction, not an update.

martyrdrebel27:

This is incredibly misleading reporting. You should be absolutely ashamed. You've counted the packs and the individual items from those packs which are available alone. To get all the content you wouldn't spend nearly what you claim. Do your research next time.

After looking through the store, it seems you are correct. The actual cost of the DLC when all of the packs are removed is $75. I have updated the article to reflect this. I apologize for not properly checking my facts, and will endeavor to make sure it does not happen again

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.

MazokuRanma:
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). 'Gamer entitlement' gets thrown around pretty often with no real basis, but it's hard to think of any other factor as to why we believe we should continue paying a maximum of $60 for a AAA game when so many things around us have increased in price, including the development costs of these titles. The only way to have the $60 price point remain a viable business option would be to increase the base cost of the game (and I'm sure that would go over well...), or to add random cosmetic options that add a second revenue stream. Personally, I'd rather the latter, as that's content I'm more than welcome to ignore.

All of that said, it's also worth noting that not every game is worth $60. Some should cost more at their launch, others less. As an example, I would personally still buy the next Elder Scrolls game (single-player, not the MMO) for $100 at launch. I spend enough time with those games that I would still get more than my money's worth out of them. Dragon Age: Inquisition is another that would have been worth that price point. I've put over 100 hours into it already and that was a single playthrough. That's less than $1 per -hour- of value I've obtained out of those games. Now, something like Destiny, which I enjoy but don't spend all that much time on, I would value around $40. I'm sure plenty of people would believe that game has $100 value though. And shorter games that are single-player focused, let's say around 6 hours of content, should consider capping at a $40 price point. Unless price variability becomes an actual market force, though, every game will stay $60 regardless of amount of content.

Game prices stay stable partly because they are largely an unlimited resource (like all creative works), and there is relatively little direct cost involved with each copy.

The pricing is completely artificial, and unlike most goods bears little relation to manufacturing costs, because, well, in some sense there isn't any. (well, disks, manuals and such aren't free, but you can change to a different, cheaper distribution media without technically changing the game in any way)

The pressures that dictate the price of most regular goods simply hold no meaning for anything in which the term 'intellectual property' can be used. Prices drift towards whatever leads to the peak number of sales, because there are no real other factors to consider.

Development costs are always very tricky to consider with any product, because they are one-off costs.

It may cost 1 billion to develop a new model of car, but each car still costs thousands in materials and labour to make.
The development cost remains the same whether one car is made, or 10 million.

Logically, anything for which the development cost is pretty much the only cost, leads to each individual copy having value inversely proportional to the total number of copies in existence.
(which leads to the obvious situation that without copyright protection the value of such works is basically $0, because it's only the laws propping it up. If anyone could legally make a copy, you could buy a copy from anyone that already has one, but that would make the number of potential sources of such copies grow exponentially, and soon the value would drop off hugely)

Of course, in the real world, you can't price things that way, so they have to hope they sell enough copies at a high enough price to make back the dev costs, rather than actually pricing things proportionally as the logic behind what it's worth in reality would suggest.

Lots of things have prices related to manufacturing costs. That's partly why computers and electronics are actually cheaper now (even in absolute terms, let alone after taking into account inflation), than they were 30 years ago.

But games don't really follow any outside factors of any kind other than those that directly impact development cost.

And you can't arbitrarily raise the price of games and actually expect to make more money out of it, because the numbers just don't work out.

2 sales at $60 is better than one sale at $110... Especially if the manufacturing cost per item is minimal (which for games, it usually is.)

Getting mugged at gunpoint would be a better investment of my money than this game. At least criminals are upfront about taking your money.

edit; Just checked Steam, approx. 5,400 reviews with 1,900 panning it (earning it a Mixed rating). It's overall score is 78/100.

I wonder how the devs will address this.

But they don't want us to think of this as shady business.... they said so themselves.

I don't have a problem with DLC as such (it's a nice way of extending the play-time of a game that you've played to death for the last six months/a year/two years) but day-one DLC is a fucking joke. Any content ready and available at time of launch should be included in the full title. I can even understand releasing a title early to compete with the release schedule of a rival title and then finishing the incomplete content over the coming months as DLC, but holding back ready-to-go content just to squeeze bucks out of players on release day is ropey as hell.

erttheking:
image

I'm on the same page as Jim. This is gonna be the game that fell out of the bullshit tree and hit every branch on the way down.

You pretty much hit my views on the head, these guys can go f$%k themselves!
Maybe once the $20 GOTY with all DLC comes out I may get it, not many games are worth even $100 let alone $160 (probably more for us Aussies).

Grouchy Imp:
I don't have a problem with DLC as such (it's a nice way of extending the play-time of a game that you've played to death for the last six months/a year/two years) but day-one DLC is a fucking joke. Any content ready and available at time of launch should be included in the full title. I can even understand releasing a title early to compete with the release schedule of a rival title and then finishing the incomplete content over the coming months as DLC, but holding back ready-to-go content just to squeeze bucks out of players on release day is ropey as hell.

It's what Microsoft did with Windows 7. You want this super crippled version of Windows 7, subtitled "Home Basic"? It's the cheapest one! You want the full version of Windows 7, subtitled "Ultimate"? It's an outrageously expensive piece of software! They cut their product up into pieces, and then charge you for every feature separately, in order to extort as much money from you as possible.

People hated all the different versions (and the fact that you needed a spreadsheet to tell what each one would and wouldn't let you do) so much, that Microsoft relented and dramatically toned it down for Windows 8. I guess it'll take a game using this business model to bomb before publishers realize this may not be a good idea; I hope Evolve will be that game.

I've never understood people's problem with timely DLC.

Why is okay to wait 2 years for DLC when most of us will want the extra content at the height of our gaming interest soon after the launch window?

People do realize that DLC is planned LONG before game launch regardless, right?
It's not like they released Skyrim, waited for reviews and then started discussing if DLC would be a good idea. If this is something that is inevitably going to exist anyways then as a consumer I'd want it available ASAP. Day 1 DLC is a GOOD thing.

The real question with Evolve should be this...does the base game experience feel like a complete game?

If the answer is yes then there's absolutely nothing wrong with how much DLC was added and the cost of it all. That's always been how we've evaluated DLC for even the best of games...it shouldn't change now.

If the answer is no then people deserve to be upset and shouldn't support the practice through buying the game.

Chill.

It's just skins.

Yeah, skins used to be included on disk, back in PS1 and 2 era. Either as cheat codes or unlockables.

But Skin DLC is literally the least evil of all DLC.
It's not asking for a sub. It's not withholding characters, story missions, or Maps (Which only end up dividing groups up anyway.)
It's not even full of Microtransactions like the last 2 Bioware games.

Also, as for people getting pissed off about the inclusion of more monsters later...
FFS people. Make up your minds here.
Your upset about DLC being Day 1, because it could have been on the disk. Saying that it's better to produce more content in later weeks and sell it then. But woe-befall anybody who actually does!

Oh, and correcting a few... inaccuracies.
There are not 4 hunters at launch. There are 12.
You start with access to the first 8. Then have to unlock the last one for each class through doing well in the 5th-8th. Which isn't hard.

Edit-

Also, I remember far, FAR worse practices last gen.
Dragon Age: Origins. God I love that game...
Bioware sent a random dud into my party's very campsite. Standing conspicuously by the hedges, certainly very visibly. Upon talking to this campsite gate-crasher, we learn about a new adventure. One of Wardens of old, their failed mission, and a mysterious castle. Well count me in. Let's go!
Oh wait. I can't. I need to go give them more IRL money first...

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.

DLC generally does not appeal to me at all. Other than the stuff I got with the goty version of Oblivion and the Skyrim DLC (minus the buggy as fuck/unremarkable Hearthfire) I don't think I've spent much on DLC in my life.

I think I got Heavenly Sword costumes got Little Big Planet, and a few other things here and there over the years.

I liked the Bethesda stuff I got. I never had the option of the xbox Oblivion DLCs and I never bother using horses in the games so the horse armor went unnoticed/unpurchased.

Evolve, does not interest me. It has always come across like its just the tacked on multiplayer on some generic fps minus the actual single player campaign.

I've seen maybe 5 different streamers play around with it over the months, and it is incredibly boring looking. I do give it credit for being somewhat different than current competing games in the genre.

But when games like Turok: Rage Wars exist, ancient by today's standards, that offer way more content on the cartridge with way more exciting gameplay/characters/weapons/levels etc. I kind of shake my head. I always had fun playing as the raptor and taking out my friends that had all the cool weapons and vice versa. And we didn't waste 10 minutes wandering around trying to find each other before inevitably heading to the damn power thingy in the end anyway.

We spawned, we grabbed powerups, killed each other in exciting and varied ways, repeat. Sure the dome in Evolve is useful, and being able to throw rocks and breath fire etc. is cool and all as a monster but its nothing compared to tagging someone with a chest burster or a flare to the face in a ~15 year old game.

I could probably spend a great deal of time listing any number of things in just about any game from the last 25 years more interesting than Evolve but that is just my opinion.

Ultimately they want people to drop $60 on a game with only a handful of maps/characters/abilities/weapons and then pay about 120% more money on cosmetic stuff? I guess its ok, Koei/Capcom games are primarily DLC these days as opposed to games in the first place.

That is just the industry now. I always think it good to show your opinion on such matters by not buying crap you don't see a need for, but lament the fact that not buying something means absolutely nothing.

People will still buy it, in droves, regardless. So its up to the people with stronger opinions than I to raise a real stink over it, making themselves look like total asshats in the process, but being entertaining enough to get the mob behind them to shame/ridicule/boycott/and avoid the people and products that are turning our industry into AAA garbage.

Personally I give DLC practices like this a pass, because raising a stink only creates publicity and the games will fail on their own if warranted. 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.

Colin Bagley:
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.

 Pages 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