Stolen Pixels: A Hat for Every Head
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
I agree, at first I thought this was about TF 2 hats but I was wrong. Also I want a space sphere!!
I find this whole thing amusing. Mostly because 'Worth' isn't objective. Something is only 'worth' what people are willing to pay for it. For them, the hats are worthless so they wont pay for them. For others, they might pay $20 to have Chell's rack sprayed onto their robot chassis. Who knows.
Similar to how I don't believe the console version of Portal 2 is worth 90-110 dollars in Australia. So I'll wait until they reduce the price, or it goes on Ebay for something that I do believe its worth. Though I do wonder how many people are annoyed because the 'DLC' hats are something that can't be filthy pirated at this time.
Similar to how I don't believe the console version of Portal 2 is worth 90-110 dollars in Australia. So I'll wait until they reduce the price, or it goes on Ebay for something that I do believe its worth. Though I do wonder how many people are annoyed because the 'DLC' hats are something that can't be filthy pirated at this time.
While I'm tempted to say "Stout Shako for 2 Refined", I'll hold my tongue.
Valve are walking a very precarious tightrope at the moment between WoW-style drones and DCUO's discoverable styles. Anyone whose ever played Champions Online, The Sims or City of Heroes/Villains knows how important style can be to immersion, especially self-immersion - but paying for it?
It was more viable as, as Shamus says, long-term gaming. (Tell me any WoW player that wouldn't chuck a month's subscription on a TF2 hat for their avatar) Making this a standard policy though? That's dangerous; as it will actually damage immersion.
Valve are walking a very precarious tightrope at the moment between WoW-style drones and DCUO's discoverable styles. Anyone whose ever played Champions Online, The Sims or City of Heroes/Villains knows how important style can be to immersion, especially self-immersion - but paying for it?
It was more viable as, as Shamus says, long-term gaming. (Tell me any WoW player that wouldn't chuck a month's subscription on a TF2 hat for their avatar) Making this a standard policy though? That's dangerous; as it will actually damage immersion.
SpaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaace.
[sub]I have no idea why people got so caught up in the whole day 1 dlc thing. It's like being angry that you can buy ashirt sticker (shirts are expensive) from a recently released game[/sub].
[sub]I have no idea why people got so caught up in the whole day 1 dlc thing. It's like being angry that you can buy a
I always found people who used that argument funny. They're also usually (in America) the ones that talk about how great the free market is and how welfare is wrong and something else cause I just stop listening.
http://www.spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaccee.com/
I want one of those cores :3
If you have certain hats in TF2 you get those in Portal 2 aswell, and you get hat for completing main story, no idea if you get one for beating coop aswell though.
I want one of those cores :3
If you have certain hats in TF2 you get those in Portal 2 aswell, and you get hat for completing main story, no idea if you get one for beating coop aswell though.
If it was this insignificant and this close to release, it could have been put into the game as unlocks for doing stuff.
"For Portal 2 to work the way Team Fortress does, there would need to be a steady supply of new maps coming out."
This is why I strongly suspect that Valve is going to do something like either release new free co-op content for Portal 2 or release a level editor for the community to do so. These kinds of stores are basically the way Valve funds their constant giving away of extra content (like all the TF2 updates).
This is why I strongly suspect that Valve is going to do something like either release new free co-op content for Portal 2 or release a level editor for the community to do so. These kinds of stores are basically the way Valve funds their constant giving away of extra content (like all the TF2 updates).
Shamus, I think you are being deliberatly obtuse on the issue.
The issue is that DLC has been getting out of control, with companies releasing things like alternate character skins and costumes as additional paid-for DLC. Things that should already be in the game, especially if the content is availible on day #1. The only reason why these additions are NOT part of the game, is because the company figures it can make more money by selling them as a DLC.
Ask yourself if DLC didn't exist, would Valve, Capcom, or other companies doing things like this have tried to ship out and sell this content as a seperate disk based add on? No, they wouldn't have. It would have just been in the game, as alternative costumes usually were.
The point is that people who are upset over this don't like being gouged, and the game industry looking for literally every angle they can to make a buck off of people. Increasingly, anything that can be held back from a game and sold seperatly will be.
You might not have an issue with this, scream about entitled-feeling morons, and everything else, but that doesn't change that a lot of people don't like it, and want their games to be self-contained, with only meaningful add ons and expansions being released for additonal payment.
While I can't speak for you, I'll also point out that a lot of the defenses of what Valve is doing is because it's Valve. You'll notice not many people have come running to Capcom's defense over what is pretty much the same exact issue, with them selling recolors and alternate costumes for characters in games like "Street Fighter".
It's fine to respecfully disagree with people, but to mock, misrepresent, and call them idiots? I'm sorry I can't really get behind that. What's more, think about how this is going to make you look if you at some point decide "okay, well DLC is going to far here" and people can point a finger at your passionate defense of Valve and ask "well, what makes it less ridiculous for Valve to do, as opposed to this other company?".
Now, I know people will probably get on my case yet again for saying this, but really I don't think Valve was effectively "Metabombed" for this, since trolls aren't that powerful on their own. While some people might be unpleasant in the way they express their dislike of trivial DLC, simply it's very existance being annoying to them, I don't think that is a reason to totally dismiss their position.
To be honest, I think DLC and microtransactions are out of control, I have for a very long time. I have no idea on how one would go about articulating a law to regulate it, but even as someone who doesn't want the goverment involved in business any more than absolutly nessicary, I really think digital transactions need to have more standards applied to them, especially when connected to other products. 10-15 years ago when digital downloads were just a whisper on the wind, people would have thought what we are seeing now is the height of ridiculous, paranoid technophobia, after all the gaming industry would "never be that greedy". Leave the door open too long, and I can almost guarantee eventually we'll see people angling to not only put games online and supported by microtransactions, but have people pay by the minute or hour like the days of things like Q-Link. It will be worked in gradually if it goes there (or I should say returns there) but guaranteed, unless someone slams on the brakes things are just going to get worse. What seems insane today, is oftentimes the sad reality of tomorrow when it comes to money making schemes. Heck, people will say "pay by the hour" is dead, but at the same time they thought the same thing about interactive movies, and look at Heavy Rain, their return is heralded as some kind of new and revolutionary thing.
The issue is that DLC has been getting out of control, with companies releasing things like alternate character skins and costumes as additional paid-for DLC. Things that should already be in the game, especially if the content is availible on day #1. The only reason why these additions are NOT part of the game, is because the company figures it can make more money by selling them as a DLC.
Ask yourself if DLC didn't exist, would Valve, Capcom, or other companies doing things like this have tried to ship out and sell this content as a seperate disk based add on? No, they wouldn't have. It would have just been in the game, as alternative costumes usually were.
The point is that people who are upset over this don't like being gouged, and the game industry looking for literally every angle they can to make a buck off of people. Increasingly, anything that can be held back from a game and sold seperatly will be.
You might not have an issue with this, scream about entitled-feeling morons, and everything else, but that doesn't change that a lot of people don't like it, and want their games to be self-contained, with only meaningful add ons and expansions being released for additonal payment.
While I can't speak for you, I'll also point out that a lot of the defenses of what Valve is doing is because it's Valve. You'll notice not many people have come running to Capcom's defense over what is pretty much the same exact issue, with them selling recolors and alternate costumes for characters in games like "Street Fighter".
It's fine to respecfully disagree with people, but to mock, misrepresent, and call them idiots? I'm sorry I can't really get behind that. What's more, think about how this is going to make you look if you at some point decide "okay, well DLC is going to far here" and people can point a finger at your passionate defense of Valve and ask "well, what makes it less ridiculous for Valve to do, as opposed to this other company?".
Now, I know people will probably get on my case yet again for saying this, but really I don't think Valve was effectively "Metabombed" for this, since trolls aren't that powerful on their own. While some people might be unpleasant in the way they express their dislike of trivial DLC, simply it's very existance being annoying to them, I don't think that is a reason to totally dismiss their position.
To be honest, I think DLC and microtransactions are out of control, I have for a very long time. I have no idea on how one would go about articulating a law to regulate it, but even as someone who doesn't want the goverment involved in business any more than absolutly nessicary, I really think digital transactions need to have more standards applied to them, especially when connected to other products. 10-15 years ago when digital downloads were just a whisper on the wind, people would have thought what we are seeing now is the height of ridiculous, paranoid technophobia, after all the gaming industry would "never be that greedy". Leave the door open too long, and I can almost guarantee eventually we'll see people angling to not only put games online and supported by microtransactions, but have people pay by the minute or hour like the days of things like Q-Link. It will be worked in gradually if it goes there (or I should say returns there) but guaranteed, unless someone slams on the brakes things are just going to get worse. What seems insane today, is oftentimes the sad reality of tomorrow when it comes to money making schemes. Heck, people will say "pay by the hour" is dead, but at the same time they thought the same thing about interactive movies, and look at Heavy Rain, their return is heralded as some kind of new and revolutionary thing.
I think hats are stupid and pointless full stop. I don't want them for free, i don't want them existing - period. It's stupid, trivial "DLC" that makes Valve to be a lot more money-grubbing than it used to be when it was still an indie studio. I know, i know. No-one's forcing me to get any hats, or any DLC, or anything from Mann. Co or the portal merchandise. But as Therumancer said, it's the very existence of such trivial content that people are willing to pay for that gets my blood boiling. Part of me can't help but wonder if people have more money than sense, or don't realise what they're getting (or not) in these micro transactions. Some items from Mann Co cost as high as... what was it? $20? Something like that? It's almost as disgusting as that Smurfberry fiasco, $100 or so for a bucket of the stupid things.
The problem with complaining about DLC is that a lot of people seem to act like it's not optional. The only thing compelling them to purchase it is their own sense of entitlement, yet it's somehow the fault of the people who made more stuff for them to enjoy. One idiot over at Kotaku said something about Valve "raping [our] wallets".
http://kotaku.com/#!5793543/the-people-are-panning-portal-2?comment=38496992:38496992
http://kotaku.com/#!5793543/the-people-are-panning-portal-2?comment=38496992:38496992
Particularly hilarious is the bit where he says it's extraneous, but somehow not an "extra".
@Therumancer I agree that DLC culture is starting to get out of control. But the argument that because it was "available" on the first day somehow makes it wrong for it to be PDLC is ridiculous. It wasn't intended to be part of the core game, it is not a barrier to anyones enjoyment of the core experience, it is in fact entirely extraneous.
I look at things like this as either a donation to an organization with a reward provided (i.e. NPR) or a voluntary stupidity tax on the need to have the shiniest and biggest E-peen. Either way there is no major or even minor impact on anyones ability to enjoy the core game and if it wasn't there you would never notice it missing. At that to me is the big point.
It's not some jackass NPC pimping DLC in an immersion breaking way, which pisses me off. It's not restricting what you can use or play in game unless you pay more, that's bullshit. It's not giving cheaty items to people for buying it in a limited amount of time, that 's also bullshit. And It most certainly isn't selling game balance for IRL money, that's... I have no words. This is about the ability to play digital dress up in a game where if you are sitting still long enough to actually notice the e-bling you are doing it wrong. So yeah, I have to honestly say I can't understand why people are upset.
I look at things like this as either a donation to an organization with a reward provided (i.e. NPR) or a voluntary stupidity tax on the need to have the shiniest and biggest E-peen. Either way there is no major or even minor impact on anyones ability to enjoy the core game and if it wasn't there you would never notice it missing. At that to me is the big point.
It's not some jackass NPC pimping DLC in an immersion breaking way, which pisses me off. It's not restricting what you can use or play in game unless you pay more, that's bullshit. It's not giving cheaty items to people for buying it in a limited amount of time, that 's also bullshit. And It most certainly isn't selling game balance for IRL money, that's... I have no words. This is about the ability to play digital dress up in a game where if you are sitting still long enough to actually notice the e-bling you are doing it wrong. So yeah, I have to honestly say I can't understand why people are upset.
