DLC, Again

[Shamus Young]

DLC, Again

Shamus examines some of the arguments against Portal 2's DLC. For science, of course.

Read Full Article

 

[AngryMongoose]

You could call them Microtransactions...
Pretty sure that's already the accepted term.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I only have problems with On-Disc-DLC in terms of solo content or core game features. Like, the exclusive MvC3 characters, Versus mode in RE5, or online passes. But since Online Pass is free to New buyers, I dislike that less.

On Capcom...

http://torontotoptiers.com/marvel-vs-capcom/mvc3-disk-hacked-discovered-incompleted-jill-and-shuma-gorath/

Shuma Gorath was 100% on the disc, and Jill was not, although many of her files already were. I might pay for Jill, but not SG.

Let's look at Blazblue.

http://www.ps3attitude.com/new/2010/08/blazblues-makoto-dlc-worth-8/

It's another fighting game, you may have heard of it.

It added downloadable characters to it's game, too. But they were designed post-release, and like MMO content, are added in a universal patch to allow non-DLC-owners to see/play with content holders.

That's fine with me, really. I've no probably paying for core content post-release DLC. That's what most DLC is, after all.

TL;DR

Hats aren't a core part of gameplay.

 

[Cursed Frogurt]

In the end, it's a bunch of virtual hats. Hats...

There's no guess work on whether or not it's worth the pricetag. We've all regretted paying for and downloading a lackluster level or equipment. It's hard to judge some crappy DLC ME2 mission or character without experiencing it first, but a hat is a cosmetic thing that you can see before you buy it.

Again, people are getting furious over HATS!!

 

[Irridium]

Another thing about the hats. There's no way they caused valuable resources to divert from the main game. The hats are something a competent modder could crank out in a few days on his spare time. A developer who helped built the tools and have been using them since creation and knows everything about them could probably make them in an afternoon.

They're just damn hats.

I don't have an issue with DLC. But what I have an issue with is content thats already on the disk, and then sold as DLC. Like the first Bioshock 2 DLC. Why didn't people flip their shit over that? Oh right, they did, then stopped after a few days for whatever reason. Most probably bought the thing.

As you said, Portal 2 is doing DLC right. Also, the Portal 2 DLC thats actually adding some substantial content(like new rooms and stuff) will be free [http://pc.ign.com/articles/116/1165224p1.html]. So yeah.

 

[b3nn3tt]

Some very good points indeed. I absolutely agree that this is certainly not a poor example of DLC, there are much more worthy contenders for that crown

Similarly, I agree with the idea that it is acceptable to pay for content that is on the disc, in principle. This only holds true if the game doesn't suffer for this content not being available. I.E. the game must work, make sense, and be fun even if this content is not bought.

Your point about the difference between indie devs and big companies was very well made; why should one company be allowed to ask customers to pay for content when a bigger company can't

At the end of the day, if you don't want the content, don't pay for it and just enjoy your game

P.S. I didn't even notice that the numbers were wrong, I reckon you could have got away with that one

 

[TheComfyChair]

I didn't even notice there was a store until i finished the campaigns.

Also hats = more free real DLC for us.

 

[BrunDeign]

I'm fine with the hats.

There's nothing wrong with trying to get some extra money as long as people are willing to pay for it.

And they gave me a beanie for some reason so I feel somewhat obligated to defend them.

 

[Dr_Steve_Brule]

I'm fine with the hats.

There's nothing wrong with trying to get some extra money as long as people are willing to pay for it.

And they gave me a beanie for some reason so I feel somewhat obligated to defend them.

You will get a Benaie in Portal 2 if you already have it in TF2.

As for the article-good points. The pizza toppings analogy is right on the money.

 

[asterismW]

My thoughts when I saw the hats?

"Wow, five bucks for a hat is pretty steep, but I wouldn't mind tipping them that much. I really enjoyed the game."

If it makes you feel any better, consider it a tip jar, where you get a free knick knack for donating.

 

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Bang on, Shamus. This is exactly what DLC should be. Optional content that enhances or extends the game beyond it's clearly completed core. It's way overpriced, I'll give you that, but if people are willing to pay for it then who cares?

 

[DustyDrB]

The trend I'm very much against is retailer exclusive content like with LA Noire, where missions are given to retailers (Gamestop and Wal-Mart in this case) as preorder bonuses. This just ensures that even the most dedicated fan who preorders a collector's edition from either retailer will still be missing content. I see a slippery slope here. I'm not foolish to enough to say that the retailer exclusive content will get to the point where it's even 25% of the game, but I do think it will get more substantial as long as the trend is supported.

I'm not gonna zero-bomb the game for it, though. In all likelihood, that was a publisher and not a developer decision. I'm just not going to buy the game (at least not new). It's not evil for businesses to act in their own interest, but neither is it evil or entitled for consumers to also act in theirs as well.

 

[AlgarWolf]

I most assuredly do not disagree with anything said here. I think that it's a good idea to offer something like hats in game for real world money. As long as it doesn't impact game balance, I see no issues at all.

I prefer this kinda stuff over map DLC any day of the week. Then again the only reason I dislike map DLC is that I'm used to the CS:S model of "everything map related is free." XD

 

[Jaeger_CDN]

I have no problem with cosmetic DLC such as these hats or for that matter, the Oblivion horse armour. These items have little impact to the core game other than to make your character look pretty.

For DLC missions (quick examples like borderlands, FO3, Oblivion), I refuse to buy them unless they actually provide more than just an hour or 2 of content or I'll just wait until the GoTY version comes on sale on Steam and get them then as a full package.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Well, I'm not going to answer you Shamus, just ask yet more questions!

I am playing a game, the DLC/add on/whatever is there, I've had to download it onto my hard drive because the game won't let me play it without the latest version.
So my hard drive contains vast amounts of conent that should be playable, it's there, it's installed. But I am not allowed to touch it due arbitrary imposed constraints.

Does that mean the developer should pay me when it comes to replace my hard disk because of all the crap they've put on it for me?

Since they've already put it on there, is there any moral/ethical reason I shouldn't just hack the game until I can use it?
Hunting down illicit downloads is one thing, but is it reasonable for a dev to forcibly* install content on my machine and then not let me use it? If I buy a DVD and it won't play I either take it back or start look at work arounds until it does, surely this is no different?

What about discs with content already on them that has to be unlocked? Resident Evil 5's minor infamy for the multiplayer 'download' sticks out in my mind. Would it be unethical to just copy the UI/front end for multiplayer from somewhere and patch it in myself rather than paying for it? It's on the disc, I paid for the disc, the law says I own it regardless of what the EULA might tell me.

Downloaded and online content seems like a massive moral/legal grey void to me. More specifically a void with no botom and no guard rail to stop customers falling in.
The ever increasing amounts of paid DLC and heavy DRM is going to hurt us as players (even more than it does now). I don't particularly fancy the idea of resorting to piracy to actually be able to play/back up/modify/enjoy games, but it is increasingly looking like the future.

*whilst not literally forced game updates are still a Hobson's choice, you can either take the update and all that implies, or junk the game you just spent $60 on.

 

[cardinalwiggles]

Also hats = more free real DLC for us.

This is what i feel.
if people feel they desperatly need the hats to buy more power to them,

Like team fortress 2, we've never ever paid for content for 2 years. and now they realease some of the ingame items that can be obtained through the game if u want to play, but you can also buy. the items CAN cost. but the maps and modes are FREE

 

[Phishfood]

I am playing a game, the DLC/add on/whatever is there, I've had to download it onto my hard drive because the game won't let me play it without the latest version.
So my hard drive contains vast amounts of conent that should be playable, it's there, it's installed. But I am not allowed to touch it due arbitrary imposed constraints.

Does that mean the developer should pay me when it comes to replace my hard disk because of all the crap they've put on it for me?

Since they've already put it on there, is there any moral/ethical reason I shouldn't just hack the game until I can use it?
Hunting down illicit downloads is one thing, but is it reasonable for a dev to forcibly* install content on my machine and then not let me use it? If I buy a DVD and it won't play I either take it back or start look at work arounds until it does, surely this is no different?

But, technically you haven't bought the hat it comes seperately. I bought some keys from the tf2 store, I felt like a chump afterwards since I got 4 duplicate weapons for my money. Sooo....no virtual hats for me.

Yes there is a moral reason why you shouldn't hack the game to have the hats. You haven't paid for them. The licence on the hats is "pay this price, get to wear a cool hat". Should I swap the barcodes on the collectors edition of a DVD with the regular so that I get the collector edition for the regular price? that would be wrong surely.

While I'm not happy about paying for some DLC I'd rather have the OPTION of paying for extra hats than the "option" of paying for a map pack, looking at YOU CoD/BF2142/...!

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[ionveau]

I dont hate this DLC i hate the kids that buy it to feel special or people that buy it in order to rub into your face that they are better then you in every way,

If i honestly cared for this junk i would just hex edit the game to load all the cosmetic items i wanted, its not that hard, i did it for WoW and the celestial steed etc.

The problem is the people that buy this junk are there to show it off and make you feel inferior compared to them, On the other hand good job milk those morons dry

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Mostly I agree with Shamus, but (there's always a but)

If other players want to pay for this DLC and the company is willing to sell it, why do you feel the need to demand that the transaction not take place?

Because you can use the same justification to promote Zynga's InsomniaVille's line of games, where the most profitable use of gaming resources is pay for enhancers/DLC. That puts us on the slippery slope of certain companies, that see nothing wrong with putting out a game with a deliberate peer pressure to purchase DLC.

From that point, the top ten games are DLC based (as they get more sales); which means the stockists are more willing to push DLC based games; which means the majority of gamers (who are often not as savvy as those who read reviews/columns) will suffer.

And given the railing so many people have made about Microsoft charging for ALL of their DLC, to support it whole-heartedly is to lend credence to this course of action.

For example: Civilization 5 - Not only are certain factions locked away (and certain factions from the original being unplayable), but certain gameplay types are locked away, and the base game isn't stable. Equally, if Civ 5 wants to bring out new factions later, what's the point of them allowing modding in the future, that could easily replace profitable DLC.

Numerous Team Fortress 2 servers have donation based games that allow "cheating" by reducing re-spawn times, allowing non-gained hats & altering the base rules. If this type of play is promoted, then we're looking at a possible destruction of modding (which is where the PC leads the consoles by a LONG way).

Look at a game like Everquest or WoW. You don't HAVE to buy Cataclysm, Planes of Power or Destiny of Velious; but you're at a severe disadvantage playing without it.

That's the DLC that will be profitable in the future - and will start to lead the way games are developed.

Yes, it can bring great ideas like the Tsunami Charity Hats - but there's a dangerous downside. Imagine Champions Online where certain costume items cost real money. And it's already happened with DCUO. If you didn't buy the game from a certain place, you will NEVER play as Batman.

If Valve brought in hats to L4D tomorrow, I'd bet there would be people willing to buy a Stout Shako for Bill (or even a broom ), so why shouldn't they?...

Mainly because it can shatter immersion, hinder modders and create a DLC "arms race". Why should Valve not add hats to every game they ever make? Why shouldn't they have a team directly dedicated to hat production?

Slippery slope is all I'm saying. For certain games it's a great idea, but if you're pressing that people REALLY need those hats, and they're not kept in check, why should Valve bother to create games that don't allow for hats?

Edit: Look at how many crates are sitting in most TF2 players drop box just asking kindly for you to spend a little money buying that key that could get you a special hat? That's a very subtle form of peer-pressure.