🛈 Announcement
Greetings! The Division forums are now archived and accessible in read-only mode, please go to the new platform to discuss the game
  1. #21
    Originally Posted by nuclearbroccoli Go to original post
    Sorry, but that IS expensive for what we got. I don't know about elsewhere, but in Canada, the game cost me $80 when it first came out.
    Given that the dlc cost about half of the original game, then I think it's quite reasonable to expect at LEAST a 50% expansion to the original game, given that much of the new content in the game is based on original content and didn't need to be developed from scratch. That means 50% more story, dialogue, map, weapons, gear, and missions.
    Do you feel that the season pass is going to meet that 50%+ threshold? I don't believe it will.
    Do you believe that the season pass plus a year 2 season pass would at least double the game size and content? I'd like to be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

    Consequently, imo, the season pass is simply too expensive for what it provides in return. As such, I believe that the problem of finding other players to fill the game mode is just going to become a bigger problem as time goes on, and more players realize that further investment just doesn't justify the cost...
    It isn't expensive at all I bet you could easily get 30 hours of gameplay minimum from all the dlc thats a dollar an hour, quit being a cheap skate.
    Share this post

  2. #22
    LepantoESP's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    2,894
    Originally Posted by nuclearbroccoli Go to original post
    Sorry, but that IS expensive for what we got. I don't know about elsewhere, but in Canada, the game cost me $80 when it first came out.
    Given that the dlc cost about half of the original game, then I think it's quite reasonable to expect at LEAST a 50% expansion to the original game, given that much of the new content in the game is based on original content and didn't need to be developed from scratch. That means 50% more story, dialogue, map, weapons, gear, and missions.
    Do you feel that the season pass is going to meet that 50%+ threshold? I don't believe it will.
    Do you believe that the season pass plus a year 2 season pass would at least double the game size and content? I'd like to be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

    Consequently, imo, the season pass is simply too expensive for what it provides in return. As such, I believe that the problem of finding other players to fill the game mode is just going to become a bigger problem as time goes on, and more players realize that further investment just doesn't justify the cost...
    Then don't buy it! Seriously! In this day and age complaining about the price of a game/expansion is bonkers. Of course it's about VALUE not about price. Am I going to get enough value about XXXX$? No? Then pass. That's how a real purchasing decision is made for small outlays.
    Share this post

  3. #23
    Originally Posted by Nopvedz4you Go to original post
    It isn't expensive at all I bet you could easily get 30 hours of gameplay minimum from all the dlc thats a dollar an hour, quit being a cheap skate.
    You're looking at it differently. I'm looking at the dlc price compared to the value that I would get if I bought a new game. If $80 worth of dlc doesn't give me at least a full games worth of content, then I consider it to expensive.
    Share this post

  4. #24
    Originally Posted by nuclearbroccoli Go to original post
    Sorry, but that IS expensive for what we got. I don't know about elsewhere, but in Canada, the game cost me $80 when it first came out.
    Given that the dlc cost about half of the original game, then I think it's quite reasonable to expect at LEAST a 50% expansion to the original game, given that much of the new content in the game is based on original content and didn't need to be developed from scratch. That means 50% more story, dialogue, map, weapons, gear, and missions.
    Do you feel that the season pass is going to meet that 50%+ threshold? I don't believe it will.
    Do you believe that the season pass plus a year 2 season pass would at least double the game size and content? I'd like to be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

    Consequently, imo, the season pass is simply too expensive for what it provides in return. As such, I believe that the problem of finding other players to fill the game mode is just going to become a bigger problem as time goes on, and more players realize that further investment just doesn't justify the cost...
    purchasing games or expansions is not just about the size of the updates...it's about the hours you play them.
    most of us put enough hours into underground alone to justify the $30 or $40 that we spent on the expansion. If you didn't, perhaps re-evaluate how you make those purchases.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  5. #25
    Originally Posted by nuclearbroccoli Go to original post
    You're looking at it differently. I'm looking at the dlc price compared to the value that I would get if I bought a new game. If $80 worth of dlc doesn't give me at least a full games worth of content, then I consider it to expensive.
    But dlcs have never been like 50% of a game so I don't know why you would think like this. Plus I know I've bought alot of games where I'll play them for a week and then put them down, at least dlc has the core gameplay of a game you already enjoy, if you see what I mean. Another way of looking at it is with the 30 dollars you could go to the cinema for a couple of hours or you could buy the season pass and have months of fun. Season passes are no brainers for me if it's a game I really enjoy as having a variety of options is always a good thing.
    Share this post

  6. #26
    Originally Posted by Nopvedz4you Go to original post
    But dlcs have never been like 50% of a game so I don't know why you would think like this. Plus I know I've bought alot of games where I'll play them for a week and then put them down, at least dlc has the core gameplay of a game you already enjoy, if you see what I mean. Another way of looking at it is with the 30 dollars you could go to the cinema for a couple of hours or you could buy the season pass and have months of fun. Season passes are no brainers for me if it's a game I really enjoy as having a variety of options is always a good thing.
    Or I could just spend $80 on a new game and get hundreds of hours of play out of it...
    Share this post

  7. #27
    Originally Posted by nuclearbroccoli Go to original post
    Or I could just spend $80 on a new game and get hundreds of hours of play out of it...
    Or you could only play it for a few hours n hate it. Each to their own but I personally don't care for money spent on gaming as it's my main hobby and if I buy a dud game or season pass so be it, I waste my money on alot worse so no big deal.
    Share this post

  8. #28
    I've played it twice and hated it twice.

    That said I applaud the art team, the map design team, the visuals team, environment team, the audio team but sadly the gameplay design team let it all go to waste. As it stands in it's current form I'll never play it again, such a wasted opportunity to help the main game flourish.
    Share this post

  9. #29
    I actually quite enjoy Survival. I haven't played TD since finishing the Underground trophies several months ago. I came back to check out Survival and despite my disliking of the fact that the map is the same every time (survival games are about exploration and tension, not speed running!) I'm having fun. Though I admit it is wearing a bit thin and the game will go back on the shelf once I've finished the "Extract 100 items" trophy.
    Share this post

  10. #30
    Veldaz's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    614
    Originally Posted by googlebright Go to original post
    I actually quite enjoy Survival. I haven't played TD since finishing the Underground trophies several months ago. I came back to check out Survival and despite my disliking of the fact that the map is the same every time (survival games are about exploration and tension, not speed running!) I'm having fun. Though I admit it is wearing a bit thin and the game will go back on the shelf once I've finished the "Extract 100 items" trophy.
    Yea, I noticed this too. Survival would be much more interesting with random map modes. Perhaps randomly placing the areas on the map somehow would work. Would need to change the "connecting areas" but it would mean more random location based maps.

    But since it's mainly just "Loot here, loot there" without objectives I think it's probably more hassle then it's worth to do that. Xcom 2 does something quite similar but it focuses on every objective being in random-ish locations. Closest the Division gets to doing that is in Underground. And even then only barely.
    Share this post