We have temporarily disabled Baermar Uraz's Ugly Sweater Cosmetic (all queues) due to issues affecting gameplay.

Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on this and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list

Mid-Chapter Speculation

R52G
R52G Member Posts: 257

Alright so I know the chapter just came out but I saw something the other day (nothing official but it was from a Fog Whisperer) that got me thinking about the mid-chapter stuff. He pointed out that last time we had two licensed content files like that was with Freddy and Bubba and with one as a mid-chapter patch it got me thinking: Could we get another solo licensed character in the mid-chapter? And if so, who?

https://youtu.be/9aYeyChkgHo (Link to the aforementioned video)

Comments

  • R52G
    R52G Member Posts: 257

    Oo those are intriguing. But I do agree killer wise, I think the only Iconic killers they have that aren’t in the game are Jason (Licensing), Chucky (Devs don’t like his height apparently), and Jeepers Creepers (Creator was a Pedophile and I don’t think the Devs would feel comfortable using that in their game). The only licensed killer I can see them bringing in the future would maybe be Pinhead from Hellraiser with Kirsty Cotton as the survivor or Candyman with a survivor from the new movie or one of the older ones (which that movie isn’t coming out until September). My honest guess would most likely be Sidney if it’s licensed, just because it’s something everyone has wanted for years and a lot of people have still complained about how we never got her.

  • DWolfAlpha
    DWolfAlpha Member Posts: 927

    Memory of Allessa.

  • MasterGrit
    MasterGrit Member Posts: 331

    Candyman ?

  • Dr_Loomis
    Dr_Loomis Member Posts: 3,703

    Naturally the YouTubers have come out squealing that it could a paragraph for the Scream franchise.

    I'll eat my hat if that happens.

  • Aven_Fallen
    Aven_Fallen Member Posts: 16,405

    People should stop making rules out of things which happened in the past. Same case like the Rift - only because 1 out of X Killers got a Rework before their Tome, Threads pop up if Killer Y will get a Rework as well when they are featured in the Tome.

    Same with that - only because there was a Paragraph at some point does not mean that there will be another. IF there will be a paragraph, I just hope it is not a Survivor-only Paragraph. Because this would come with an OP Perk to boost the sales.

  • R52G
    R52G Member Posts: 257

    He only mentioned it happened in the past. And it was once, no one ever said it was a rule. But paragraph wise it would be cool to see a survivor paragraph but with a new map.

  • Mooks
    Mooks Member Posts: 14,853

    i guess after the MoM incident, they would try to not replicate an OP Perk with a licensed character..

    I guess there is nothing to speculate on other than there might be another license because of the files. Sidney would be very cool but unlikely, most killers would make more sense in an actual chapter, but then we do have Bubba and GhostFace so who knows? A Walking Dead survivor is also still possible, either from the games or series (Carol plz).

  • Aven_Fallen
    Aven_Fallen Member Posts: 16,405

    True to an extend, but marketing-wise there has to be a reason for "everyone" to buy a Survivor-only DLC. Basically a few Checkboxes:

    Completionist - does this person want to have all Characters?

    Fan of the License/Actor - would that person buy the DLC because it contains a character from a movie/TV-show they liked?

    Perks - does the Character bring good Perks?


    Those are basically the checkboxes for a Survivor. A Killer is different, because they bring unique gameplay. But for a Survivor, if Box 1 or 2 are not checked, you need Box 3 to be checked. So that you can maximize the people who are interested in buying a DLC.

    Of course it can be entirely possible that a Survivor-only Paragraph comes with good Perks and not OP Perks. I am alway happy to be proven wrong on that one.