The Division Locks Monthly Events Behind Season Pass

CD Projekt are literally the best.

This isn't a multiplayer only game...

Didn't EA do this with a game recently? oh yeah..... Battlefront....

I have to keep reminding myself that the season pass won't go away when the game releases. I can wait and see what these "monthly events and content" are before deciding on purchasing or outrage.

It's another little bit of info that makes me hesitant to buy into The DIvision. I say that as someone who is seriously looking foward to the game (plus tempted to get the collectors edition). I know most of my friends will buy the season pass to play together, it's pretty much the forgone conclusion from playing the Battlefield series in their current form (game with season pass). I have even bought people the season pass for them just to have them able to play withh the rest of us. I dislike it in the terms of being a very risky cash sink for an unspecified content update. I felt a little annoyed with it in BF3, as the game had a lot of issues and the extra cost felt like a bigger burn when I couldn't enjoy any of it. However I am also interested because I also know how slow updates and new content can be with no such option. In some cases a game doesn't get updated for years with new content because it's a risk for any developer or publisher. At least if they are planning it ahead it'll be done and we get more content, so I have to be a little happy about it at least.

I do however feel that this system is not actually as benifitial to us gamers. It serves more as a sales and buisness move than a credible game play experiance and player base move. Which is sad, because a community can grow very large with the right kind of support and make a good game immesureably successful. Something that the larger companies seem unable to figure out atm, they need to justify things on such an immediate level and can't focus on the long term play. I think this actually causes them to lose out on the real means to make money. If a company has a game sell for a longer period of time there's always a larger player base from it. ArmA 2 for example sold a lot of copies way after release due to a community mod called Day Z. Many other games can have this kind of resurgance in the right kind of way. When a content video or review captures peoples interest they may buy the game, many people get into MMO's this way and older games as well. This kind of long sales strategy is supported by Steam, showing how they can really shift games that are often outside the traditional sales window and make substantial money over just their initial sales.

I guess until the buisness as a whole becomes more clear on all sales figures and growth within a games life span this is just a wishful thought on my part.

People always seem to forget Nintendo and Splatoon.
When Splatoon first came out there were only 5 stages and 4 types of weapons, I want to say about 30ish weapons total I think. With free DLC, they added 11 new stages, 41 weapons, with the Inkbrush, Splattling gun, and Slosher types added, Ranked battle with different ranked types added and a crap ton of new gear added. All of that for free after the game came out.

I don't mind season passes and DLC when it's for single-player content, like BioWare's DLC. Always great. Games haven't gone up in price for about 10 years. If the price is optionally raised to add content that's most of the time something players asked for? Good idea. But some publishers just take advantage of season passes to rip players off.

This really screws me because I play most things through GameFly, and there is no way I'm paying $40 for a game I'm going to rent and play for 2-3 weeks at most.

This is how I see things, I would happily pay $100+ for a game like Dragon Age: Inqusition or the Witcher 3 if all the "DLC" was in the game in the first place. But not all players are interested in that so I am completely fine with a $60 base game plus multiple DLC's for a total of $40 or so. However in $10 or $20 bursts. If I am going to pay $40 or more for additional content it should be a 'true' expansion like Dragon Age: Awakening or Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare, not for simply a large amalgamation of separate content.

In summary, if you are going to sell a piece of additional content that can function on its own, it shouldn't be then placed in a pack with other additional content and therefore bring up the price. For the simple reason that maybe I don't want that one thing but I want the other and I don't want to pay for both.

In the case of monthly events and content drops for season pass holders, that would be similar to what Battlefield did starting with premium. Which correct me if im wrong was essentially the first season pass style thing, Premium got you 2xp weekends, free drop crates and a free knife and skin per month as well as getting DLC first, if thats what the division is implying than it is not much of a separation.