Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Controversial suggestion: Does the price of DLC need to increase?
PLEASE READ BEFORE COMMENTING!
I think it’s necessary, and the right time for our community, the devs, and whomever they are answerable to, to come together to openly discuss what THEY want to get out of DBD, so that WE can get what WE want out of DBD.
The current roadmap and scheduling is seemingly far too ambitious as evidenced by the latest chapter and the very confusing patch notes, but my guess is that the devs don’t have much say in the scheduling that needs to be adhered to due to financial targets they’re likely under a lot of pressure to meet or exceed. I feel bad for the devs at the moment. I’m sure some of them feel a little embarrassed.
I don’t want to see a DBD from this point onward where unfinished chapters becomes a normal trend. I want to see a DBD where the devs are able to deliver their creative vision the way they intend, something they’re proud of, gives us players a great experience, and keeps their publishers and other financial stake holders happy.
I’d be totally ok with less frequency of chapter releases if it meant achieving the above mentioned points. But it would probably mean EVERYONE coming together, and a little more transparency in BHVR’s goals and needs in order for them to open to discussion on what’s necessary to give the devs what is needed to produce the product they INTEND to produce.
So... we need to be open minded in simply considering (at this stage), does the price of DLC need to increase?
Do they need to abolish the option that characters can be purchased with shards? Or, perhaps shards just discount the amount of Auric Cells are needed to purchase a character?
It’s food for thought.
Comments
-
paid actor confirmed
60 -
Typical...
No I don’t work for BHVR
1 -
No they shouldn’t. While I’m in the same boat as you not wanting unfinished chapters to be the norm. Giving them more money won’t solve the problem of (what is seemingly) them being too lazy for any kind of quality control. In fact raising the price might hurt the game
51 -
If you make the game free you open it up to botters, but the game is getting heavy on the DLC side so they should give more killers/survivors for free at the base game for current price imo. The older ones, y'know?
7 -
No, there is no way they have not made a surplus of money. Ever since they added full on cosmetics and skins they should have gotten waaaaay more money than previously before. Look back at a few weeks ago, they MUST have paid Ninja a LOT of money to show up on stream to support the game. If we give them more money, then they will think they can get away with terrible choices and ignore core issues with the game.
37 -
To increase the player base substantially? In the hope more DLC is sold?
1 -
That’s a fair point. They can clearly afford endorsements.
2 -
I wouldn't mind a price increase if each chapter brought more content than the usual. I would totally pay an extra $5 or even $10 if BHVR started a 4 month release schedule, but each new chapter has 4 new perks per survivor/killer and potentially more than one survivor/killer. They could even fit more mid-chapter patches in that address major gameplay issues in between chapters with a 4 month release schedule.
3 -
logged in tonight bought the new killer with shards and i don't get why you can't buy the new survivor. why is one paid the other isnt. just strange to me
1 -
This properly needs to a different post entirely. It doesn’t add to this conversation.
1 -
This. I think we've long since reached a point where BHVR can afford to have multiple non-licensed chapters bundled for free with the base game on all platforms.
6 -
I don't think financial pressures are the reason for the four Chapters per year cycle; I think that's more something to keep people interested in the game - especially considering that Killer Reworks are often during the Mid-Chapters between those Chapter releases.
I could be totally wrong, but I think the devs get more money from the store and Rift than their DLC. The DLC exists to ensure player retention, which theoretically encourages more people to buy cosmetics and the Rift.
If they shifted away from their current format and merely just improved the quality of what released, I personally don't think it would help them. Yes, a lot of people hate bugs, but they don't love having no bugs - they love new content to keep the game from getting stale.
To that end, I think they would benefit more from releasing original paragraphs occasionally instead of original chapters. They focus primarily on the next new licensed chapter and making sure it has a lot of content available (Map, Survivor, Killer) and that the content included works, with the paragraph being a much smaller affair more to keep people interested in between bigger releases.
Ideally it would be just a Survivor - seeing as they're just a cosmetic with new VA and 3 perks, but just a Killer, or maybe a Survivor + Map or a Killer + Map would also work. Nothing huge or demanding - just something to keep people engaged in the game.
-
Obviously, this is all assuming BHVR is under some duress at the moment and that they don't derive most of their income from chapters.
If everything is fine with them and this chapter was just a fluke, they have no reason to change anything besides being more careful next time.
And if they are under duress and do get the bulk of their revenue from chapters, they would indeed probably benefit more from just making newer characters acquirable only through chapter purchases or Auric Cells.
2 -
No? You want to reward incompetence with more money? How does that work?
It doesn't matter how much money you throw at them, the devs are simply incapable of giving quality work. A better option would be to actually increase the team size. Or at the very least, give more time between DLC dumps.
But again, we see the devs prefer to pump effort into cosmetics than actual creation/balancing.
18 -
not trying to argue but i think it goes hand and hand. why is one paid one isnt. It's part of the dlc yet only half is monetary while the other is labor. If money is an issue to make a higher quality product or just to up the standards then maybe they should look into removing shards for character purchases
. I'm perfectly fine paying a few extra bucks per dlc if it means higher quality killers and survivor perks. or just paying for each individual kller or survivor. But i would also like to see more maps even if a dlc does not include a new character. DLC's need to have value survivors are really just skins so for the most part i don't care about purchashing a survivor when i know eventually i can get the perk in the weekly. Killers im always willing to buy. But maps to me is where i believe needs more investment and if i higher dlc price is what it takes then i'm game.
2 -
Absolutely not, just owning the game and the cast at this point costs hundreds of dollars. It's a MASSIVE wall of entry to new players that sees many turn away day one. This is also a paid game that uses a free-to-play game's method of moneymaking through the skeezy auric cells and the "give us more money at once or we'll charge you even more for them" type of 'discount.' Add on to that that a vast amount of the cosmetic store is devolving into "sets" meaning "it's $15 for a skin or nothing" and the battle pass which gives basically nothing to free players.
The entire game is an onslaught of "GIVE US MONEY" already as it is. If anything should happen around DLC, it should be converting older original chapters itno free base-game content.
5 -
Ok, yeah, this perspective makes sense. Never thought of it as about retention rather than profit.
0 -
the only way increasing price coould be justified is if we had a guarentee that there were more major bug patches than new killers
currently its Killer, Mid-chapter patch, Killer, Mid-chapter patch, Killer, Mid-chapter patch, Killer, Mid-chapter patch
4 killers a year 4 patches right after (im a lil tired rn and my brain is saying its 3 a year but its just an example so whatever)
what it should be:
Killer, Mid-chapter patch (specific to new killer), Major patch for bugs/exploits/glitches (replacing killer slot), Killer, mid chapter patch (killer specific again), and another Major patch
by splitting the killers up into 2 a year they would have more time to iron out details, and make a less buggy mess. and instead of being forced to release the killer 2 to 3 weeks after ptb they could hold a ptb a month in advance and iron pieces out like that.
I would be willing to pay more ONLY if at least one (preferably 2) killer slots were removed and guarented to major game fixes and balancing (and reworks as that has to go somewhere)
honestly im annoyed with how many killers there are and how many are coming out. it feels a hell of a lot like quantity over quality and im losing enthusiasm to play. its been a decent 4 years but i think its coming to an end if something doesn't change and soon.
4 -
I really don't think throwing more money at bhvr will solve the problem nor do I believe that the consumer needs to pay more to make sure the producer gets their stuff together. You're telling me that in 2 months they couldn't make a single new killer and perks work? I refuse to pay corporate bhvr to give the bhvr devs more time to make a working product.
1 -
They already make TONS of money on cosmetics. If they never brought out a DLC again and just froze the game they would still get way too much for their work.
2 -
One of the worst posts/ideas ive ever seen on these forums, and thats saying alot.
Congratulations
3 -
I was putting forward some questions.
I didn’t say that this is what in fact should be done.
Why do so many forum members have difficulty with basic comprehension?!
0 -
I think you misinterpret the reason why DLCs come out regularly (every 3 months). It is not merely for the financial income of the DLC itself, it's for the income they get for everything that come with that, that can be summarised in player engagement.
After 3 months a game like DbD becomes stale, especially for older players, but with the introduction of new characters this can be avoided for mainly two reasons: curiosity and grinding.
The latter is especially true - the reason why Bloodwebs are so grindy is because players need to engage with the game in order to level up, meaning more users actively playing and, ultimately, a live game.
Everything I said in turn ends up in more financial income through cosmetics (which, I suspect, is actually their main source of money - in fact cosmetics have increased in price, e.g. legendary outfits), premium passes and publicity through twitchers and mouth to mouth.
By increasing the cost of a DLC and delaying new content for an additional let's say 2-3 months, I think the outcome would be disastrous for them: a player can come back to the game after a few weeks of hiatus (that is, after they were burnt out from the lack of diversity) to check new content, but if the wait becomes so long, it will be increasingly more difficult to have them come back.
What I said before implicitly answers also the proposal to "abolish shards as a currency for new DLCs". Maybe they'll get an higher immediate inflow of money, but in the long run I think this will just be detrimental - players can choose to not buy a new skin that is locked behind auric cells and still play the full game, but locking all the killers behind a paywall will certainly decrease the player base.
4 -
Reasonable points
0 -
If DLC prices end up needing to increase, then we better be getting this guy ‘cause he’s the only one I know I’m definitely paying extra for, thus far👇🏽
0 -
You are absolutely insane. They release garbage despite growing as a company... and you think throwing MORE money at them will teach them to change their ways? Do you have stockholm syndrome???
11 -
More money wont solve anything.
11 -
I was asking reasonable questions, not suggesting that I think this is exactly what should be done.
1 -
How do I delete someone else's post
8 -
Oddly enough there are ways to do it.
The post is fine as it is though.
1 -
It was not reasonable. Not at all. That's my whole point.
4 -
They already added $15 cosmetics as well as the rift to increase their income. They don't need even more money thrown at them, they need better resource management for the income they are already generating. Not listening to feedback from ptbs and pushing out broken products does not garner good faith that giving them more money would result in a better product. Their promises mean nothing when they've given so many empty ones over the years, like the promise of optimizing console 2 years ago.
2 -
If they increase the quallity, i dont have any problem with paying more. Games are too cheap in general. And they got much cheaper since the last few years because of money inflation.
0 -
As a serious response: They have a LOT of ways to generate income, in fact more than most games on the market right now. Increasing DLC price isn't a good way to go as they already have many ways to get money:
- DLC's
- Battle pass
- Actual game price
- Cosmetics
So to make it clear, the devs do like what they do and they get money for it. They aren't not putting effort in because they're not being paid.
My guess is that they have to meet deadlines whether something is finished or not. IDK why, delaying chapters and possibly pulling an operation health chapter seems incredibly beneficial.
4 -
They're a multi million dollar company. They're doing just fine. So no, they don't need to increase dlc prices.
6 -
Inflation causes things to be more expensive, not cheaper.
1 -
It's hard to feel bad for them if they aren't getting enough money from the Chapters, cosmetics and rift passes. As the quality in general has gotten worse when they previously only had Chapters and a few cosmetic packs to sell in the early days. So i'm not sure money is the issue.
2 -
I think their point is that AAA games have cost 60 EUR/USD for several years now (a few decades, if I'm not mistaken), despite the fact that 60 EUR/USD today is much less than it was a decade ago.
EDIT: It's a bad argument, IMO, because gaming companies also report record profits basically every year, even when you take inflation into account.
2 -
In my view the issue isn't the money BHVR makes it's the amount of time they have to make it and the results that occur from the PTB. In fact I'd suggest that the PTB should occur much earlier than it does maybe even immediately after a chapter release or mid chapter release so we can immediately start testing what's planned for next update just to give BHVR more time to adjust based on feedback.
1 -
I don't think less frequent more expensive DLC would solve the problem. It's a lot easier for most people to justify dropping $10 on a DLC than it is $20, so even if they halved the frequency but doubled the price it would ultimately mean less money. BHVR committed to avoiding the "Pay to win" strategy that we see in other free to play multiplayer games, so selling perks, items, BP, etc is pretty much out.
I think the only way they could reasonably reduce the chapter frequency to focus on bug fixes and polish would be to move back to P2P in order to reduce the server overhead cost, but that throws out the hit validation and reintroduces a lot more lag switching and generally crappy game play caused by latency
of course they could always reach out to the community for assistance. I work in IT as a system administrator/developer and would be happy to volunteer my time under an NDA to help make this game better
0 -
But games never got more expensive.
The price never changes but because money in general got less worth, they got cheaper because you got ,,more".
0 -
Until we get better quality DLC, I think they should honestly lower it. Think about it. 20 bucks for the base game and I think almost over 100 to buy EVERY DLC. Then take into account the time to grind for the perks and the ingame shop with the rift. DBD's monetization is horrible for it's quality.
1 -
And yet, gaming companies report record profits year after year, even if you take inflation into account.
The industry is fine, don't let them convince you otherwise. If anything, AAA games could be cheaper, to account for the ridiculous increase in profit over the decades.
2 -
I actually agree with nearly everything you've said, and give you a lot of credit for looking at current game health and how to try and create a solution.
That being said, I don't think dishing out more money for dlc is the answer. I DO think that there needs to be some sort of roundtable where player feedback is acknowledged real time so the community feels heard. And the devs can be transparent about what their goals are and how the community can support them and the game.
At the moment there's too much vagueness and questions unanswered on the devs side, and too much anger and pointing fingers on the community side. I think it's going to take BOTH sides engaged in open dialogue for things to get better.
Maybe something like an ambassador program, where community members can discuss game concerns with several devs every few weeks? I know the Fog Whisperers are technically supposed to fill this role, but that hasn't really borne fruit 🤷♀️
1 -
They have a cosmetic shop, a battle pass, paid DLC. How much money do you think they still need?
2 -
dont get me wrong, some games are way too expensive BUT there are indeed games which are waaay too cheap for the quality you get. Lets take Dont Starve for example. Even if they add a new DLC like Hamlet, which actually is almost a whole new game, only costs like 7€ while other companies like EA charge you 20€ for a damn skin.
Many games and DLCs are overpriced, but that doesnt change the fact that games in general got cheaper over the last years.
That being said, i would pay more IF the quallity we get, would be much better. The last Chapter which was released yesterday for example is was too overpriced for the mess we got, but if they would actually give us good, balanced quallity updates i wouldnt have any problem with paying more.
0 -
What are you talking about? I bought both with shards.
0 -
Bro, the problem is their 3 month schedule and their lack of manpower to keep up with it. I can't imagine how overworked these devs are, like most are in the industry.
You already pay for
The game
DLCs
Individual characters
The rift if you choose
Cosmetics
The entire game is monetized and you want to give them more money? I don't think that's going to help.
1 -
Their money comes mostly from cosmetics.
So I mean I doubt DLC prices are going to increase anytime soon, it helps their market more if people get the DLC cheaply and then dump more money than the cost of the DLC on cosmetics for them.
0 -
Many have said it. DLCs are for the playercount no for money.
When you look at F2P-games you see that they get enough money with skins. A DLC is more like a special event to keep player interested then a good income.
And the most income with skins are whales (player who spend way too much). I dont think thats different in DbD.
So the only reason for DLCs is to generate hype and keep the playerbase steady. You need new players, because some old players leave. Without new players a game slowly dies.
Im personally more excited for the key and mori change and perk reworks then for a new chapter.
0 -
BE is against OT/Crunch (McLean has talked about it in his streams), which is good to avoid overworking their employees. Problem is they apparently are also against pushing back release dates and will just put out unfinished products.
0
