DLC, Again

[teh_spartan]

in answer to your question I DON'T... YOU DO!

also how can you call it dlc! but the hats and gestures will become unlock able in the future just like in tf2 just watch.

 

[Raesvelg]

The term used in some MMOs is "Account Entitlements", which is probably a fairly accurate way to phrase it.

As for why people get upset over it trivial things like hats... Reasons may vary.

On the one hand, if the hats are also the reward for some particular in-game achievement, then some players will feel that their achievement is lessened by the fact that people can simply buy that particular item. Some of these people will ragequit games if the difficulty curve is ever lessened by a later patch.

On the other hand, some people are just jerks with a massive sense of entitlement, and they feel that they should get everything for free. Some of these people will pirate the game and then get upset when they get banned for doing so.

And on the gripping hand, some people don't feel like the items are worth it, but aren't really that confident in their opinions, or in their sense of self-worth. They get the sneaking suspicion that people who have the items are looking down on them in some fashion. Some of these people will decry the existence of such DLC items, and then buy them on the sly later.

 

[MartialArc]

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.

So by that logic, I should be able to use the full functionality of Visual Studio 2010 because I downloaded it off their website for free. Or since I bought windows 7 home premium I should be able to install ultimate because its on the disc. Yes its there, but that doesn't mean you paid for it. It is cheaper for Microsoft to press one disc and sell it. Realistically what they are doing is developing ultimate then selling pared down editions for less. If you don't need the garbage that comes with ultimate, then you win. If we go by your model, Microsoft only develops one edition of windows and we all have to pay 700 bucks for it, instead of buying one that suits us. Or they press 4 different discs, probably wasting some resources for really no good reason at all.

All the data in the world is essentially available to me over the internet, and I pay an internet bill, so therefore I have rights to that data. That is about as logical as saying just because it is on a disc you bought you have a right to it. The actual software is what you are buying, the disc is just a vessel.

 

[Cenequus]

Experienced Points: DLC, Again

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

Read Full Article

Well beside name calling which wasn't out of line from a fanboys way this still isn't different. Nothing wrong with defending Valve but on the same way there shouldn't be nothing wrong calling out on them for the prices they use for the so called DLC.

Sure DLC is a loose term used nowadays and a fashion item is a fashion item no matter if it's a SP or MP game. So my question remains:Why would the same people bash on something like Horse armor(what was it 2 dollars?)for beeing the evil in the games today(sure Bethesda was pretty big publisher/developer even when Oblivion came out but they did bring great stuff after)and in the same time have an "of course they need that money to make more games" attitude towards Valve for putting out game content for 100 dollars on day 1. Not saying both are right or both are wrong(the only thing right you said that in the end it's the customers choice to buy them anyway)but that's the point,they're in the same boat,there is no difference except in the eye of the beholder(fanboy).

 

[venn2011]

What's the point in arguing about this? Those who refuse to agree will... refuse to agree till the end anyway. Anyhow, I agree with Shamus for word for word. The hats are purely optional anyway. I let my wallet speak for my opinion, just like how voting is for election & politics.

Besides, people will most likely quiet down and shout "We love you Valve!!1 LOLOLOL!!1!11" once the free DLC comes out in summer....

 

[Marudas]

Video Games are one of those things that are hard to put a value on, in some cases for me. Usually I go by how much actual enjoyment I got out of a game, and for what length of time. I guess what I'm trying to segue into is, at the end of the day, did you get the amount of enjoyment out of a product as you could by spending that 60 dollars elsewhere?

People who call DLC greedy are in an entitled stance from the get-go. How much is enough to justify your 60 dollars? If a game has lived up to the 60 dollars you spend, is it okay to start charging for additional content? Should you get Half Life 2 because you bought Half Life 1?

Video games are sometimes a trick thing to quantify. Games that cost the same price can be worth massively different amounts of enjoyment to a player. I spent 10 bucks on Magicka, and have played it for longer than several of my $60 games. Obviously game developers can't start quantifying their product's value and charging you accordingly, so its up to you as players to make informed decisions. If you feel a game has cut out content to try to get more money out of it, vote with your dollar. If you feel strongly that a game is wronging you, don't buy it. If you do, you're validating the developer. Its up to the consumers to read reviews and determine if a product is worth their money.

 

[darkbshadow]

Maybe People will quite down about the stupid Hat DLC that Valve is selling Since well we are getting the free DLC in the summer that i personally probably would have thrown down 15 bucks to get. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109682-Valve-Announces-Free-DLC-for-Portal-2

Personally i don't get the point of the hats. In-fact i actually want to take off the stupid Roll-cage that came with my pre-order. I mean if you want to personalize your bot i guess go ahead and buy it but to me it just seems kinda pointless.

 

[Delusibeta]

Sure DLC is a loose term used nowadays and a fashion item is a fashion item no matter if it's a SP or MP game. So my question remains:Why would the same people bash on something like Horse armor(what was it 2 dollars?)for beeing the evil in the games today(sure Bethesda was pretty big publisher/developer even when Oblivion came out but they did bring great stuff after)and in the same time have an "of course they need that money to make more games" attitude towards Valve for putting out game content for 100 dollars on day 1. Not saying both are right or both are wrong(the only thing right you said that in the end it's the customers choice to buy them anyway)but that's the point,they're in the same boat,there is no difference except in the eye of the beholder(fanboy).

Fallacy. Little known fact: the Horse Armour actually did something. It made any horses that were equipped with it a bit more durable. Portal 2 items are entirely useless and entirely cosmetic. Team Fortress 2 would be a more valid comparison, and there's at least three ways of getting all of the weapons without paying a cent.

 

[Cenequus]

Sure DLC is a loose term used nowadays and a fashion item is a fashion item no matter if it's a SP or MP game. So my question remains:Why would the same people bash on something like Horse armor(what was it 2 dollars?)for beeing the evil in the games today(sure Bethesda was pretty big publisher/developer even when Oblivion came out but they did bring great stuff after)and in the same time have an "of course they need that money to make more games" attitude towards Valve for putting out game content for 100 dollars on day 1. Not saying both are right or both are wrong(the only thing right you said that in the end it's the customers choice to buy them anyway)but that's the point,they're in the same boat,there is no difference except in the eye of the beholder(fanboy).

Fallacy. Little known fact: the Horse Armour actually did something. It made any horses that were equipped with it a bit more durable. Portal 2 items are entirely useless and entirely cosmetic. Team Fortress 2 would be a more valid comparison, and there's at least three ways of getting all of the weapons without paying a cent.

You totally missed the point. DLC or whatever you want to call it(be it fashion/quest packs/items)are the same. Something you choose to pay if you think who made the game deserves the extra money for the effort. Just as Shamus thinks valve deserves 100+ dollars for a game like Portal because they made games like HL,TF etc same goes for any developer. It's your choice to buy it or not,while even commentating on how people spend their money is just plain retarded.

 

[beema]

A bit OT, but I feel that they even had hats to buy in this game was weird.
I mean, everyone I know who has Portal 2 played through the co-op once and never touched it again. What's the point of buying costume stuff for a character you are only ever going to play once or twice, in a game that never changes, and only one person at a time ever sees you.
It's bizarre.
I guess there must be retards out there buying this stuff though, or they wouldn't do it.
I'd be interested to see how well the Portal 2 "dlc" is selling though. I can't imagine it's doing anywhere near as well as TF2.

 

[The Deadpool]

Now you're telling me, "but you've got the seats, you've got the wheels and you got the stereo as per brochure, who cares what's in the back seat".

Except NOTHING of what you said is what happened.

What happened was, you went to buy a car and no one told you that, after you bought it, you also qualified for some extra decals you can put on your car for a small charge.

Point is, Valve never enticed you with the new appearance. You didn't buy the game expecting new hats and mustaches and what have you. The face that you DON'T have them out of the box did not dissuade you from buying the game in any way, shape or form. The fact you might get them in the future (free or otherwise) was not used to sell you the game in any way, shape or form.

So, in the end, you have NO REASON to feel cheated when they sell you new hats. Because you didn't think there WERE hats at all, and you bought the game anyways (i.e. you agree the game is worth whatever you paid for it).

 

[Athinira]

No, it's more like saying, Hey, we're making a sequel to ammovie you really like, but many of the eventd of the film will revolve around the events of a short film that we made that you can only see if you go out and buy the special edition DVD.

Wrong. Special Edition DVD requires you to purchase the entire movie again for a larger sum (after you've likely already purchased the original DVD once, which makes the buying of the original seem mood). DLC just requires you to buy the DLC itself, not the entire game again.

Your analogy is flawed.

Also this isn't the first time something like this will have happened. Again, it's often quite common that to fill out pieces of a storyline you, as the consumer, will have to buy additional short-story content created after the original. This doesn't even necessarily have to be the same medium as the original content (if the original content is a movie/game for example, then the filler-content can often be a book or comic).

There is nothing new under the sun really. And again: Complaining that content costs money is more or less idiotic unless we are talking Day 1 DLC.

 

[Moffman]

Totally agree with you Shamus! It's not like the company's twisting your arm to buy these, it's a little extra for those people that want hats! I would never buy these, my main focus is on gameplay but I'm not going to ***** and moan because they are selling some hats to make them a little more money and to give some gamers a little more fun because they now wear a silly hat in game.
About the greed thing... We all have to be greedy (to keep up a quality of life we are happy with), we live in a capitalist society where money talks and to run a AAA games company can not be cheap. Besides, this extra money is very likely to go back into making more games and if a company like Valve is making more games, I am not complaining

 

[tehroc]

Completely free DLC coming out this summer...just thought you guys should know.

Most likely PC only. Microsoft isn't gonna allow a free download of a decent sized patch.

 

[heyheysg]

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.

Supposed you pre loaded Portal 2, the data is on your hard disk. But you can't play it because the release date is isn't out yet and you haven't paid for it. So what now?

Just think about it as pre loaded material. If you don't want it go to the folder that contains the Hats and delete them.

 

[Gralian]

Why does it bother me that these transactions are taking place at all? Because it shows people will pay for anything, no matter how small and pointless it is. Which means more of it will be made and there will be a lesser focus on providing a quality experience. Why bother making a multi million dollar title, when you can just cut corners and make up the profit and deficit with stupid pointless items that take five minutes to make and cost five dollars?

 

[pneuma08]

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

But then buying a candy bar for $1 or a pack of peanuts for $0.50 are not a microtransactions while spending $5-15 on virtual stuffs is?

 

[The Deadpool]

The very concept of "pizza" has changed. It used to be that you may have paid for extra toppings, but today your same $10 pizza comes with no cheese, no tomatoes, no spices, and only 1/4 the bread which is spongy and low quality. Even when you do get lucky enough to find a parlor with a fairly complete basic definition of pizza, their toppings aren't $5 to outfit your pizza with high-quality pepperoni, but rather $5 per pepperoni slice! Would anyone put up with this? Sure, you could be told "Oh, well just get one green pepper and one pepperoni then if you don't want to pay, it doesn't affect the rest of the pizza", but you're be eating a bland pizza remembering the time when you paid a fair price for flavor. If every parlor does this and everyone keeps buying pizza, thinking its normal eventually you're paying $15 for stale, tasteless bread which is being championed as "pizza".

And if that were true, you might have an argument. But that's NOT what's happening HERE.

Portal 2 is a full game, and a fine game at that. It's not missing anything. The DLC isn't actual game content, it's cosmetic differences. It's a DAMN good pizza. They're just charging extra to make it LOOK different.

 

[smartengine]

I don't mind them selling the hats... if someone wants to wear a silly hat on their awesome robot and are willing to play of it, well go for it!

Also, I didn't even notice you used the number 4 twice but skipped the number 6 (or 7 was it?).

 

[NickCooley]

Ahh the self entitled fuckwit, one of the many banes of gamers as a whole. Like the mad uncle you keep in the cellar. I never thought I'd actually be embarrassed for this simple luxury of playing computer games but when it associates you with the kind of knuckle dragging, mouth breathers that ***** and whine about hats, HATS! of all bloody things, I can't help feel a slight twinge of shame.

And if it isn't the score bombers its the damnable "Whatever Next" brigade. You know the type, the ones that latch on to something small then blast it out of proportion. There are some of them in this very thread. "What? Selling cosmetic items that have no impact on the actually game? What's next having to purchase every single feature separately?"