The Last of Us (PS Exclusive DLC)
You should try to get some Last of Us characters in the game if possible. Preferably Joel Miller. Everyone says Ellie but I would just much prefer Joel. But that's why you have legendary skins. And that's it. Just a 1 character chapter/paragraph for PlayStation. Kinda like how Bill was.
Comments
-
Except that Bill is on all platforms, and BHVR already said they wanted to stay away from exclusive characters. Bill is literally the only one, why would they do it again years later?
12 -
Except Bill when he was exclusive the game was only on steam and then they worked it out for him to be on all platforms. Something tells me, based on that information, they won't ever be doing "platform exclusive" dlc again.
6 -
Because they wouldn't pass up the opportunity to get Last of Us?
0 -
Yeah of course. Just like Bill. So the other people wouldn't be losing out on anything really.
1 -
Depends. If they have the chance to get something as big as that they probably will even if it is exclusive. I don't think people will care about that anyways. Last of Us is a PlayStation thing so many won't have a connection outside of the PlayStation people.
0 -
The only problem with that statement is it implies that if you have a PlayStation you're playing dbd on it. I know Switch, XBox, and Steam players who have a PlayStation and would love a Last of Us chapter, but they don't play on Playstation and would be really mad if the devs got a license that was exclusive.
Plus, I don't think they'd work with a license holder that wanted their content exclusive to a platform. They would work something out.
Edit: Actually, another reason I know your wrong about people not caring just because they haven't played it, I can tell from personal experience. I have absolutely no connection to Left 4 Dead, Silent Hill, Hellraiser, and Evil Dead, however I was still really excited to see those licenses in the game and couldn't wait to play the characters. (Although Hellraiser I wish I knew what they were gonna do with the license prior to buying it)
4 -
BHVR should not be looking to acquire licenses that can't be enjoyed by the entirety of DBD's playerbase. It's a waste of development time when it takes all the effort and licensing cost of a normal paragraph or chapter but can only be distributed to a fraction of the players, and it wouldn't be a popular decision besides.
2 -
They are not going to spend months developing a DLC that only a portion of the playerbase can access (ie. buy) and then deal with the resulting PR nightmare.
Literally never going to happen and there are a million more appropriate licenses to look into anyway.
4 -
Obviously you're still gonna be excited. I'm talking about being excited for that specific license. People that don't have a connection are excited because everyone else is telling them how great it is and already have the excitement from it just being a new chapter. But they aren't excited for the same reasons.
0 -
That'd why it's a survivor only. Doesn't take much time to make it good unless they just decide to make it take that long. I don't get how it's not a popular decision either. Last of Us is an incredibly big franchise. Still bigger than DBD.
0 -
Unless it doesn't take months which I doubt a survivor only DLC does so they probably would if given the opportunity.
0 -
Why would you want platform exclusive stuff?
The last game I can remember trying it was Marvel's Avengers, and that caused a huge backlash.
2 -
There's no way they'd make an exclusive DLC.
1 -
If we got any platform exclusive killer, it better be Sweet Tooth.
0 -
Hey, lets make characters that only few % of total playerbase accross all platforms can play! Amazing. #sarcasm
1 -
Seems unlikely. Would rather they go with Until Dawn, and not as a PS exclusive DLC, but for all platforms.
0 -
Avengers has a full on character and jt's stupid. But you forget the characters actually mean something in that game and not like DBD where survivors are all just skins so it wouldn't matter.
0 -
They already did.
0 -
Well I wasn't talking about any killer. I was being more realistic. Killers won't happen. Survivors can.
0 -
This was before console ports existed and so the licensing prevented it. Once they could renew the license they added in the console ports and wouldn't you know it, Bill was added.
Similarly, the same thing happened with ANOES and the Switch/Mobile versions of DBD. The existing licensing preventing it from being added, and when the license was/will be (I don't remember if it's there already) renewed it was/will be changed to allow access to all.
They don't want to do exclusive DLC anymore. Saying "they've done it before" doesn't work when they've then made it available to all as soon as the license allowed them to.
1 -
Yeah, and as soon as they could, they added it to those platforms.
Look at it this way, BHVR would never willingly lose out on money by restricting DLC if they weren't forced to
0 -
Yeah but do you think they would depending on what it is? Yes, most likely. Maybe not a killer but a survivor only paragraph? I wouldn't be surprised.
0 -
Well both would be exclusive. Plus Last of Us is just a way bigger thing. They should get both though. But most likely would be exclusive which isn't that big of a deal. If they wanted for every platform then it'll probably costs money that they don't think would be necessary to spend since it's all just survivors.
0
