DLC, Again

AndyFromMonday

New member
Feb 5, 2009
3,921
0
0
Yes, my copy of World of Warcraft DOES contain the celestial steed mount but it's not an integral part to the game. World of Warcraft is also an MMORPG, which is different from say a single player game. Look at Mass Effect 2. The DLC that links the gap between ME2 and ME3 is absolutely needed if you want to make any sense of what the fuck is going on. Fighting games also engage in this bullshit. You pay 60 dollars expecting a full game only to have to pay more for extra fighters. Nowadays the cost of a full experience isn't 60 dollars, already a steep price, it's somewhere between 80 to 90 bucks. This means bad news to most gamers who are on a budget, which is most gamers.

I can't argue about the Portal 2 DLC. It's not in any way pivotal to the gameplay or story. They're goddamn hats. The moment Valve start charging for actual content is the moment I'll become angry. For e.g., TF2 items. They pretty much change the way a class is played and yet they allow people to buy them. If they were only cosmetic items I wouldn't care but it's a step to far. You technically get an advantage by buying them.

In regards to day 1 DLC, it's disgusting. Most of the files for the content is already in the game and yet they make you pay for it. You pay 60 dollars, an already steep price and you end up having to pay even more to experience the whole game, something which you thought you'd get when buying said game. Instead, you end up with a part of the game.

Also, I actually CAN dictate what a company should do with its resources and time. I'M the buyer. They're trying to appeal to ME, not anyone else. Treating user suggestions like shit and continuing to screw gamers over isn't a very good tactic, but apparently putting a "friendly face" and creating drama assures that you'll sell bland, boring and unoriginal games in the millions(I'm looking at you Activision). Correction, I can't dictate what a company should do with its time. WE, as gamers CAN. If we unite we can make publishers and developers dance to our music but unfortunately no one is willing to do so. The gaming community is strong but in the slightest bit united. If we actually do unite our forces and forget our differences we could, without a shadow of a doubt, run the entire industry.

Valve was always seen as a respectable company that would never stoop low. Gamers consider this a betrayal due to many previous "less respected" companies using these sort of cheap tactics. EA, Activision, 2K, etc. DLC is seen as evil because these companies saw it as an easy way to make money instead of as a way to complete their game. Valve has never done this until now and gamers always thought they never would associate themselves with the evil, barbaric tactic that DLC is considered to be.

It's not that I'm against DLC, it's that in against the way it's implemented. It screws over gamers. The thing is, we CAN change this. In fact, we could change the entire face of the gaming industry and make them do our bidding if we had a common goal but unfortunately we don't. There are to many crowds subscribing to different ideas for the gaming community to ever actually make a difference. Petitions do jack shit and so do "protests". Remember how well those so called "protests" went for Left 4 Dead 2? Yeah... The only possible way to unite the community, actually the only possible way to unite people of different view points is to give them a common enemy.

Rant over.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
I've been trying to back out of this conversation because it's getting circular, and I keep getting new responses saying the same things that I already answered, but I figured I'd make a few comments on the subject again. How much effort I'll spend responding, knowing that nothing is going to be resolved via an internet arguement that has already been going on for a while now, remains to be seen. It depends on if any responses get my attention for reasons other than being rude.

The problem I see it is that a lot of this content is trivial. Years ago, before digital distribution became viable, things like alternate costumes, color swaps, and hats would have been part of the games themselves. Nobody would have say packaged up the DLC we're seeing for "Portal 2" and mailed it out to brick and mortar stores to be sold as an add on.

I don't think that we're actually seeing a situation where the game industry has whole other teams of people involved in making things like hats, that wind up being ready for release at the same time as the games either.

It's generally speaking a mentality where the game developers come up with an entire product, and then due to the way technology has evolved, decide what trivial features can be stripped away from the main product and sold seperatly.

I'm one of those people who is at the forefront of complaining about DLC, but you'll notice I don't criticize actual expansion packs. Something like a "Point Lookout" for "Fallout 3" is a worthy addition to a game, that has involved a fair amount of development and new content, and is worth paying a few bucks as an add on. Something like an alternate skin on the other hand is not.

Trivial DLC is mostly intended to prey on people who want complete products as much as anything. Oh sure you don't NEED to have all the alternate costumes unlocked on your disc, or to download the horse armor, or whatever else, but by their existance you know that if you don't get them something is lacking from your overall experience.

What's more, as time goes on, catering to this kind of behavior, just makes things worse. The fact that we as consumers let companies like Valve get away with things like the whole "DLC Hats" garbage, is what opens the door for people like Bobby Kotick to seriously suggest things like charging for cut scenes.

I'm not against DLC in a general sense, I'm against people being greedy dorks and dragging down the industry as a whole. In the end my basic attitude is that people should exercise some willpower, and simply not support companies and products backed by this kind of marketing. I can't FORCE anyone to not buy games, but I can take a stance myself, and talk about it hoping other people will follow suit. Organizing boycotts are impractical, but you can always hope that over time you can plant the seeds for trends to reverse.

To be honest, just because something is intergrated into the industry right now does not mean that it has to remain that way... though admittedly, the longer you let something like this go on, the more integral it becomes to the business model, and the harder it becomes to see the trend reverse.

Some might have noticed that I haven't always been quite as hardcore in expressing myself, against trivial DLC as I have been recently, and that's because it's moved from an occasional thing, to being presnet everywhere, and become a problem rather than an annoyance.

What's more, I confess to some concern that if companies can get away with selling a few hats for $5 or whatever, that there is going to be increasingly less effort to produce more substnatial game packs at an affordable level. Why make "Point Lookout" if you can say create a couple of T-shirts for the in game Avatar and probably make just as much money?
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
The way I see it, Valve can sell all the Portal 2 hats they want it if means we keep getting DLC that's actually playable content for free.

To everyone who doesn't like the hats: Just don't buy them. If enough people are on your side and also don't buy them, then they see that nobody wants to buy hats and they try something else. Or, people buy it anyway, and they make more hats because more hats means more money, which in turns means more games. That's capitalism for you.

EDIT: Wow, lots of people pulling really lame "slippery slope" arguments in here. Maybe you all should just be more careful with your propulsion gel. Then things wouldn't be so slippery. Also, water washes that stuff away no problem. ;)
 

ionveau

New member
Nov 22, 2009
493
0
0
mjc0961 said:
The way I see it, Valve can sell all the Portal 2 hats they want it if means we keep getting DLC that's actually playable content for free.

To everyone who doesn't like the hats: Just don't buy them. If enough people are on your side and also don't buy them, then they see that nobody wants to buy hats and they try something else. Or, people buy it anyway, and they make more hats because more hats means more money, which in turns means more games. That's capitalism for you.
More hats means more games with more hats and less fun addons, you get what you plant.
 

XaVierDK

New member
Jan 16, 2008
86
0
0
On the "selling cutscenes for cash" thing... If they want to sell the cutscenes as a SEPARATE item to the rest of the game (perhaps as they did with the SCII collector's edition where they are on the bundled DVD), then by all means... But if they take them out of the game and charge you for watching them while playing through the game... Well, no money from me then... Then they'd be missing an extremely large portion of the point of telling a story...

Best regards :)
 

Mr. Omega

ANTI-LIFE JUSTIFIES MY HATE!
Jul 1, 2010
3,902
0
0
I don't mind the hats in Portal 2. What I DO mind is the crates in TF2. That is probably one of the worst ways to do micro-transactions, especially when it started. Some people could ignore the store, but crates at the start were far more common that anything else. So even those who wanted to ignore the store were constantly getting items that could only be used by getting something that is only in the store (or are extremely rare). They fixed it so that crates aren't as common, but that still doesn't solve the issue that those who want to ignore the store still have a bunch of useless items in their inventory, and time that could have given them a drop or weapon or something now was used to get a crate. Thankfully, it seems Valve learned their lesson with that one, because at least there's nothing like that in Portal 2.

Ok, rant over.
 

RJ Dalton

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,285
0
0
Dorkmaster Flek said:
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?
Because the price is exploitative. There's nothing legally wrong with it if people are willing to pay for it, but just because you can gouge people for something, that doesn't mean you should.
Now, I'm sketchy on the ethics of asking people to pay real money for virtual items, but I'm not going to come right out and say it's completely unethical and there's no room for argument. The issue is definitely worth discussion that should ultimately be left up to the company to make the final decision after considering the points and where it wants to stand. Me, I really wouldn't go for it myself, but I'm not going to berate other people too heavily for it, provided the price is reasonable and the quality of the DLC is equal to that price. On that issue, I definitely think Valve needs to re-evaluate their policy.
Still, there are much worse offenders out there that I'll get on the case of before I'll send any major criticisms to Valve.
 

Worr Monger

New member
Jan 21, 2008
868
0
0
Even if it's something more substantial than hats... Like an extra character that actually adds to the gameplay (Even though I like you Dragon Age 2... I'm looking at you)... Day 1 DLC is still BS.

You're telling me that they didn't have that crap planned before the game's release? That it was an extra effort that should cost an extra $5 even though it was completed within the same development cycle as the rest of the game? I don't buy it Mr. Young.

Yeah some people will pay for it... and yeah it won't go away. But it's still BS
 

geizr

New member
Oct 9, 2008
850
0
0
Shamus, all I can say about the people complaining is that the internet is full of folks who live deep in the bowels of their own colons.

If you don't like it, don't buy it; if you do like it, buy it and enjoy it, but whatever you do, don't prevent others from making their own choice of how they wish to spend their money and enjoy their time.

Mr. Omega said:
I don't mind the hats in Portal 2. What I DO mind is the crates in TF2. That is probably one of the worst ways to do micro-transactions, especially when it started. Some people could ignore the store, but crates at the start were far more common that anything else. So even those who wanted to ignore the store were constantly getting items that could only be used by getting something that is only in the store (or are extremely rare). They fixed it so that crates aren't as common, but that still doesn't solve the issue that those who want to ignore the store still have a bunch of useless items in their inventory, and time that could have given them a drop or weapon or something now was used to get a crate. Thankfully, it seems Valve learned their lesson with that one, because at least there's nothing like that in Portal 2.

Ok, rant over.
I agree about the crates in TF2. Either make the keys free or the crates rare drops that can be instantly opened.

For the longest time, I was having some strange problem that I couldn't even access the store because the in-game community didn't work for me in any game, even though I had it enabled. Yet, I had a bunch of these crates that I couldn't even open because I couldn't get to the store for a key. Out of curiosity, I looked up the price of a key on the internet; my jaw hit the floor in utter disbelief(after which, my opinion regarding crates was "fuck that shit!"). I ended up just trading all my crates to another player for a brass beast and something else, which I forget. Funny thing is, a couple days after I stopped caring about the store because I no longer had the crates, I was suddenly magically able to access the store after a Steam update o_O. Sometimes, reality has a very interesting sense of humor.

Luckily, the gloves from the Hibernating set was on sale for $2.49, so I bought that to go with the brass beast.
 

InevitableFate

New member
May 10, 2009
80
0
0
Amazingly, it seems some commenters here didn't actually read the article. I can't be bothered to write rebuttals since there's already one sat on the other end of the link up there.

But I will briefly mention; the TF2 weapons might be purchased, but every single weapon (that's not an exact clone of another one) can be obtained through either completing achievements, crafting, or just random drops. You don't have to pay for them to get them.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
Trolls will at the end of the day be sure to do one thing = Troll.

Some dont even do it on purpose, some people are just genuinely hate filled. While others just like different things sooooo what ever. You dont like Portal, explain why (in a polite manner) in the reveiwer section with everyone else and if at all possible dont make up random BS.

I have no problems with a gaming company charging extra for extras. If it was key stuff they charged for, I would not buy the game because im poor and cant afford crap games aswell.

As a side note if a game claimed to have "free hats" it would definatly catch my eye... I hope that doesnt speak to much about my taste in games.
 

RejjeN

New member
Aug 12, 2009
369
0
0
10. Uh, you used number four twice in this list?

True, but I skipped number six, so it evens out.
Hah, gave me a good laugh!

On topic, I completely agree with you that microtransactions in the form of hats aren't "teh devilz" as some people seem to believe. Had Valve cut out the Aperture Science Innovators part and put it out as "mid-game DLC" it would make a worlds difference. Can't really comprehend how so many people can bash such a phenomenal game (also don't understand the people who are disappointed by the game having around 8 hours of singleplayer, did they actually expect a 20 hour campaign or something? I'm sure Valve could have cranked it up to 15 if they so wanted it, but I can bet you that if they had stayed to the present release date it would have ended up being a mediocre game with some touches of brilliance at best.)
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
RejjeN said:
10. Uh, you used number four twice in this list?

True, but I skipped number six, so it evens out.
Hah, gave me a good laugh!

On topic, I completely agree with you that microtransactions in the form of hats aren't "teh devilz" as some people seem to believe. Had Valve cut out the Aperture Science Innovators part and put it out as "mid-game DLC" it would make a worlds difference. Can't really comprehend how so many people can bash such a phenomenal game (also don't understand the people who are disappointed by the game having around 8 hours of singleplayer, did they actually expect a 20 hour campaign or something? I'm sure Valve could have cranked it up to 15 if they so wanted it, but I can bet you that if they had stayed to the present release date it would have ended up being a mediocre game with some touches of brilliance at best.)
Im not a hardcore fan of Valve even though I did really enjoy TF2, L4D and Portal and all the comics, online stuff... WHATEVER. However this does seem a constant complaint. I like short and sweet but im not made of money Valve, I need a game that lasts until my next pay day.
 

maskedklaus

New member
Nov 21, 2007
72
0
0
I could almost cry I am so happy! It's good to know that there are intelligent people making intelligent arguments concerning this issue. Thanks Shamus, for speaking up for the people who are NOT raving, self-entitled lunatics!
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
joethekoeller said:
My biggest issue with DLC is still the same I have with digital distribution: my crappy internet connection. Though I guess even if I had a better one I'd still prefer paying cash and actually owning a physical copy of something.

Sigh. I live in the past.
I'm with you man. Word for damn word.

My internet sucks, so downloading things is rarely an option. I hate credit cards and paying over the internet. Where I have to rely on a bunch of servers and systems and hope they don't fail. Compared to just going to the store, paying cold hard cash, and getting my game. A game I'll have no matter what.

Plus, nothing can beat that new game smell.
 

Mantonio

New member
Apr 15, 2009
585
0
0
ionveau said:
joethekoeller said:
My biggest issue with DLC is still the same I have with digital distribution: my crappy internet connection. Though I guess even if I had a better one I'd still prefer paying cash and actually owning a physical copy of something.

Sigh. I live in the past.
If the content is already on the disk just google up a way to unlock it, its legal seeing as you already own it.
Not how it works. You don't actually own the game per se. You own a license to play it.

You don't automatically have the license to use the hats though.
 

Theron Julius

New member
Nov 30, 2009
731
0
0
Valve is by no means the worst case of day 1 DLC out there. Why not whine at those guys making L.A. Noire? There's a whole mission that's only available if you pre-order from Gamestop. How the hell has that gotten by, while Portal 2's little hats are getting blasted? It's just nonsensical!