DLC Pricing

I have a slightly different question(s) about the cost of developing DLC?

How much of the development time is spent solely trying to get balance as near to perfect as possible? Could the cost be lowered by beta testing with some of the player base? To make a balance change once it has gone live would a patch need to be downloaded or can it be done server side (online only obviously)?

Is it acceptable to deploy a hunter or monster that is a bit unbalanced if it could be patched a couple of weeks later? Personally I feel the latter tends to lead to angst in the community. Even if a new monster was winning 60% of the time (across millions of games) and clearly had to be balanced, people would complain that the new monster, that they paid for, was getting nerfed. I really think that beta testing with the community would save a lot of money.

Alpha/Beta testing DLC huh?

I wrote Chris and Phil and suggested running kickstarters by us to front new characters and monsters to one eliminate duds and hype good ideas. Also maybe free plays once a month too, to foster fun.

Actually, if it wasn’t for the fact that you had to download the characters, I wouldn’t mind seeing a kind of “test mode” where you could try DLC characters before you buy them. Maybe the Saturday after they come out, people could play 2 matches as each one

1 Like

Snapchat em into the game :smile:

This is nice and all, but nothing new. I’m sure everyone knew it would stand by itself for 60 dollars worth, but there is a bigger problem then that. Link I would love if someone could discuss the negatives and positives of adding a system like this and why it’s not being added at this time.

As a League of Legends player I can honestly say I’ve spent well over $100 on that game and usually on purely cosmetic items. I think in the group of players who make purchases at all, that’s pretty common. Using in-game currency that is just bought with real money is a way to mask how much the consumer is really spending so it doesn’t feel like you’re spending as much and you’re more likely to make impulsive purchases because it doesn’t seem like real money you’re spending. It’s similar to the psychological effect of paying for things with credit cards.

If you’re referring to LoL’s use of IP, that’s a separate issue that would need to be addressed to 2K. I could see someone making a case for it, but we’re not the ones in a position to implement something like that.

It always boggles my mind that people spend so much money on cosmetic items in games like LoL and DotA. I guess I’m just too frugal to be the target audience for a setup like that. Same with Facebook games…how can people spend thousands of dollars on that stuff? Blows my mind.

Actually glad the game has a couple potty mouth characters too. Sick of all the polite BS educated dialogue games have to be PC. Be great to have some personality “Would just STFU an shoot already !!” types too.

Personally, I think that you should be able to buy individual Hunters at lower prices. This way, you can buy only the Hunters you want to play or that pertain to your own interests. I feel like $3.00 per Hunter is fair, and that way you can buy a set of four as a bundle for $15.00.

Discount in bulk is how they typically work. Though really hope they A la carte DLC. Wish it’d be in game too rather then platform driven. I.E go to a “Hunter shack” call up who ya want.

Thanks for the response I don’t think a system exactly like LoL’s model would be perfect but The concept of it obviously. That’s a disappointment that 2K is the one that determines the issue of selling DLC because that can make or break the game in the future.

I don’t think @macman and @SlabOMeat are quite that naive. I think they get a royalty deal after X sales is my assumption and I have a feeling 2k stands outta their way on development or they have the potential to poison pill the whole IP. Why mess with a golden goose?

I think one of the fears when DLC is announced before the release of a game, isn’t necessarily that they’re starting work on it before and leaving content out, but that at launch the title will almost certainly have some unexpected problems and that a significant chunk of the developers might be allocated to already working on the DLC post launch, and then you have a pro-longed period of the game being in a poor state after launch because they have most of their manpower allocated on the DLC.

1 Like

I’m sure they have different teams working on DLC and on bug fixes, balancing, server issues. I don’t think a 3D modeler could help fix the server lag from the first day launch.

No one would do that. If they do what you say, then you would actually pay MORE to buy the bundle. $3 per hunter X 4 Hunters in a set = $12. Might need to check your math

wow you’re right. i’m bad at math. still though, $12 seems fair then.

I’m guessing that DLC will probably top out near 7.99 or 8.99 for smaller stuff…with more mini expansion stuff having an even larger price tag topping out around 15 bucks or a bit more.

Cosmetics for around a dollar up to 3 dollars.

Sound packs and other things priced higher but hitting specific fan bases harder based on who’s doing what.

You know an interesting thought just dawned on me. Did anyone ever think that there was such thing as TOO MUCH DLC?

Well I just realized one of the reasons I haven’t purchased many games is because they just have too much DLC. I’d love to play a lot of the content, but then I start adding up the costs. DLC seems to more for those who follow the franchise and just keep paying more and more and for updates, but if you weren’t part of the original first wave of buyers then you may be put off by DLC at a later date.

For instance, I go onto the Steam and GreenManGaming and look over games.Let’s look at a popular game like Civ 5. As much as I want to play the game I just can’t afford it! I feel like I need to play everything that was made for it, but there is a HUGE list of DLC and when combined it all comes down a staggering $119.35!

Even though I got the starter game dirt cheap, I really am turned off from playing it because I just can’t afford that much DLC. In short – I no longer want to play Civ 5 because there is just too much DLC.

In fact, it makes me hate DLC culture even more. If Evolve ends up looking like this, then they may create a whole new barrier of entry. No matter how many times they drop the price of the Starter Package (original standalone game) the DLC will always keep the game at full price or more. This will make pulling in a newer audience very difficult.

PS: This is also why I don’t play Borderlands 2 and its $154.54 worth of DLC.These kind of games are like collectible Card Games. Buy a Starter Pack then more crap. I absolute hate this design style. If Evolve is chasing that mentality then I’ll bail out and never look back.


I think it depends what you mean by “too much DLC”. If the game releases and it’s clearly missing something at a $60 price point that is curiously made up for with a $15 DLC extension, then to me that is too much. But that’s not really because there is too much DLC, it’s because the original game isn’t worth the money it was charged at.

Let’s say a game costs $60, or £40 (since I’m British, I’m going to work with what I know!), what should this buy you? By comparison a 3D movie ticket costs £12, a DVD/Blu-Ray rental around £2. A Book in paperback costs around £5.

Now the Movie ticket tends to get you around 2 hours of entertainment, so does the Blu-Ray of course but it’s not as immersive an experience (unless you’ve got a kickin’ rad system at home). The Book might give you around 5 or 6 hours depending on your reading pace. A video game though is regularly touted as being at least 20 hours of gameplay, and at a premium AAA price point more like 40-80 (with much of that 80 being not exactly premium content, more just filler for completists). It would seem, cinema aside, we pay around £1 per hour of entertainment, whatever that entertainment is.

Now let’s ask this, before a film is released, do we expect the director to just film extra content for free? No, sometimes it happens but it’s really down to the discretion of the publisher and how much they need to sell their product.

Would we expect an author to write a whole half a book more to be given free to anyone who has purchased the book? No, again, it’d be absurd.

Yet somehow we have got into the mindset, as gamers as a community, that when people release additional content (people that aren’t Valve who can absorb the costs of this additional development and actually have an extremely profitable micro-transaction system in place to support it) we should get that content simply by virtue of having purchased the original game.

Of course I know you probably don’t object to paying for DLC, especially good DLC, but the idea of “too much” is IMO irrelevant.

Do you get as many hours of extra playtime out of it as you paid for it in £’s? If DLC costs £10 and you get an extra 10 hours of different play out of it that you would have, then it’s really fair value. If the total amount of DLC adds up to £200, but you play 200 hours of something different on top of the original game then is that “too much”?

Maybe it comes down to whether you need the DLC to play. Team Fortress 2 handles it much the same way that TRS seem to want to, you let people play with the basic set up against and with people using whatever DLC they have, on the maps everyone has access to. This model is great, as you are really only as committed to getting the DLC as you personally feel you are.

It’d be interesting to see how many people truly are turned off by the notion of DLC before they even purchase the base game. I know that I still bought Settlers of Catan knowing there were 4 or 5 extension packs out there for the board game, because the existence of the extra content for it didn’t alter whether I could play the base version. If it is a phenomenon then the answer isn’t one about DLC strategy and pricing anyway, it’s about communicating to potential new players that the DLC here is truly added extras that aren’t needed to experience dozens of hours of gameplay that is well rounded. :smile:

tl:dr; this isn’t really disagreeing with your view, just wondering why people get into a place where they are unable to assign a value to the product they’re buying in terms of how long and how much they enjoy it, especially in the context of games like this where DLC isn’t a barrier.

1 Like

a “free weekend” model would be awesome. No-one wants to buy a character only to realise that they aren’t their style!