I don't have any idea why you would defend this. Recently developers feel like it's OK to sell you a game with non essential parts missing so you feel like you don't have the full game until you buy these items. This kind of thing can be acceptable for games that are not full priced or have been constantly upgraded with free content (TF2) but when it's a full priced retail game when you buy it you should get the whole game. Oh and EVERYTHING (well maybe except commentaries) in a game is game content. Portal 2 is a move in the wrong direction, games like Crysis, GTA, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Super Meat Boy are the RIGHT direction. Portal 2 may not be the worst in money grabbing behavior, but it does not make it the best.
DLC, Again
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I can't really argue with the Portal 2 DLC, particularly as the hats only really work as a sort of status symbol - so making the hats free to everyone would make them mostly worthless and thus no one would particularly care about them. Valve has definitely got it right with the non-gameplay-impacting content offered as extra to make them a quick buck whilst giving away more major DLC for free. There is a huge problem with what a lot of companies are doing but Valve is not one of those companies.
Personally, I think you dodged the most pressing question because it puts a serious hole in your logic that you don't want to face. That is: Don't you think making content that used to be achieved through actual gameplay and skill available to the highest bidder both unethical and a step in the wrong direction in gameplay terms?
It might be a step forward in DLC for the industry, day one DLC is a step backward for Valve. Valve needs to remember that one of the reasons its games are so popular (and rarely pirated) is due to all the good will they're generated through the years by selling us games with a reliable and stable DRM scheme rather than ripping us off and/or forcing us to jump through hoops like EA does. Day 1 DLC is a good business decision in the short term, but are they even considering their PR, which was pristine to this point? I don't want to have to start buying my games piece by piece, and with this decision Valve decided that this was the direction it's going in.
In my opinion, Valve should put these flavor items in the game for free, when they've been created before the release date; as these flavor items would have made the game better. As insignificant as gestures and hats are, they're part of the game: the game I paid $50 for.
"3. It's wrong to sell virtual items. These items exist only to get more money from players.
As opposed to the rest of the game? The hats in Portal 2 aren't any more or less real than the portal gun itself, and both were made for the purposes of making money."
Well, if that is the case, surely it would be appropriate for Valve to charge for the Portal Gun itself, on top of the $50 game. Maybe next time they will; they already sell weapons in TF2.
There's a difference between selling you something, and trying to deflower your customer's wallets. This smells like the latter.
In my opinion, Valve should put these flavor items in the game for free, when they've been created before the release date; as these flavor items would have made the game better. As insignificant as gestures and hats are, they're part of the game: the game I paid $50 for.
"3. It's wrong to sell virtual items. These items exist only to get more money from players.
As opposed to the rest of the game? The hats in Portal 2 aren't any more or less real than the portal gun itself, and both were made for the purposes of making money."
Well, if that is the case, surely it would be appropriate for Valve to charge for the Portal Gun itself, on top of the $50 game. Maybe next time they will; they already sell weapons in TF2.
There's a difference between selling you something, and trying to deflower your customer's wallets. This smells like the latter.
I still hate any content that is already on the disc but I have to pay for. That, to me, is inappropriate.
I don't mind DLC, but Kotick's idea can go to hell.
At the end of the day, provided that games don't start going down Kotick's line of thinking, the DLC is just an extra that you can have if you want. So long as the original game is solid I don't mind, and it's one's own choice to buy or not anyway.
At the end of the day, provided that games don't start going down Kotick's line of thinking, the DLC is just an extra that you can have if you want. So long as the original game is solid I don't mind, and it's one's own choice to buy or not anyway.
Wow that comment about Kotick pissed me off. Charging for cutscenes? WTF??? That's not being innovative, that's just being a dick and seeing if you can get away with it.
I've really only had two problems with paid DLC:
1. Companies charge too much. If a game costs $60 brand new, and a hat costs $5, then the hat is like 8% of the value of the ENTIRE game. I understand it's a "because you we can" thing, and honestly I am fine with that concept. Lower the price to something like, say, a $1 and you might get five people to buy it, or 10, or 100 for every one person that would have bought it at $5. Likely you would make at least the same amount of money and have more people enjoy the product and overall happier customers. I'm not talking about those grumpy crybabies that don't want DLC at all, you really are never going to please them. If you stopped offering DLC, they'd just find something else to ***** about.
2. Paying for content that should have been part of the original game. If content you download changes the main storyline, it should be part of the original game. You obviously intended it to be there, but you took it out to grab a quick buck. Charging for cutscenes? They have a special room in hell set aside for those people.
I've really only had two problems with paid DLC:
1. Companies charge too much. If a game costs $60 brand new, and a hat costs $5, then the hat is like 8% of the value of the ENTIRE game. I understand it's a "because you we can" thing, and honestly I am fine with that concept. Lower the price to something like, say, a $1 and you might get five people to buy it, or 10, or 100 for every one person that would have bought it at $5. Likely you would make at least the same amount of money and have more people enjoy the product and overall happier customers. I'm not talking about those grumpy crybabies that don't want DLC at all, you really are never going to please them. If you stopped offering DLC, they'd just find something else to ***** about.
2. Paying for content that should have been part of the original game. If content you download changes the main storyline, it should be part of the original game. You obviously intended it to be there, but you took it out to grab a quick buck. Charging for cutscenes? They have a special room in hell set aside for those people.
when i pay for DLC, i have the idea that i'm paying for the extra works that is done for that DLC. when i know that the DLC already exist on the disk i don't want to pay for it,because they are asking money for something they created in the production for the game, for which i paid 60 euros(netherlands). so yeah, i find it greedy in that situation.
now on the first day dlc. it really depends how they use it. with dragon age II i got a code for both the DLC, so i got it free. it was a reward for buying a real copy of the game. if you buy it second handed, then i think its reasonable that you have to pay for it. but if they don't give codes with games and you have to buy the DLC on the first day then its just wrong.
and yeah, some companys are really bad at giving good prices on their DLC. to pay six euro for one character? hell no.
now on the first day dlc. it really depends how they use it. with dragon age II i got a code for both the DLC, so i got it free. it was a reward for buying a real copy of the game. if you buy it second handed, then i think its reasonable that you have to pay for it. but if they don't give codes with games and you have to buy the DLC on the first day then its just wrong.
and yeah, some companys are really bad at giving good prices on their DLC. to pay six euro for one character? hell no.
So, I read the thing about Kotick wanting to sell in-game cutscenes seperately and everyone in the comments seemed to rage at him doing that. However Shamus raises a good point here, there's nothing really wrong with offering to sell an extra little thing if people want to buy it.
Personally I'm not against either of these things.
DISCLAIMER: I'm a Valve fanboy and I'd like to point out Kotick is an idiot.
Personally I'm not against either of these things.
DISCLAIMER: I'm a Valve fanboy and I'd like to point out Kotick is an idiot.
A bit sniddy but ultimately I have to agree with many of the points.
If you don't like the DLC don't buy it. If enough of you don't buy it the company gets the message. If the quality of the game slips word of mouth will hurt their sales.
The only thing I have against day DLC is when they cut it out or just don't give you access to it on the disk. Now I am not talking about small stuff but like large sections of the game. Understandably there are some games which are exceptions based on their design but take Bioshock 2 for example. All the original DLC was already on the disk. That is just bs especially when the game was clearly missing segments of it because they diverted assets (arguably more to multiplayer which didn't makes sense since a different company worked on it but still it is noticeable and game ruining)and because of that the single player suffered.
The thing of the matter is you will never know the single player suffered until ether your friend wasted his money on the game or you do which is sad if you are like me and like to get games day one.
Anyway it is call market forces people. Supply and demand. If there is a demand the company has a right to fill the supply. Now someone tell that to the politicians. (Bammm political reference.
)
If you don't like the DLC don't buy it. If enough of you don't buy it the company gets the message. If the quality of the game slips word of mouth will hurt their sales.
The only thing I have against day DLC is when they cut it out or just don't give you access to it on the disk. Now I am not talking about small stuff but like large sections of the game. Understandably there are some games which are exceptions based on their design but take Bioshock 2 for example. All the original DLC was already on the disk. That is just bs especially when the game was clearly missing segments of it because they diverted assets (arguably more to multiplayer which didn't makes sense since a different company worked on it but still it is noticeable and game ruining)and because of that the single player suffered.
The thing of the matter is you will never know the single player suffered until ether your friend wasted his money on the game or you do which is sad if you are like me and like to get games day one.
Anyway it is call market forces people. Supply and demand. If there is a demand the company has a right to fill the supply. Now someone tell that to the politicians. (Bammm political reference.
)
In response to the gamers running the industry...AndyFromMonday said:
I think you are right to a point. We do control the industry, but not because of whining on message boards. Our dollars do the talking. Why does Activision churn out COD year after year? Because our dollars have voted this as the case. Why is DLC becoming more and more prevalent? Because we, the gamers, have been shelling over our green backs.
Point of the matter is, your're voting every time you purchase a game or a DLC. You're voting that this kind of thing is what you want.
I have an issue with people thinking that DLC is inherently evil. Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that Fighting games are becoming bad at this. Truth is, this doesn't bother me. Take the following situation...
Would you rather a publisher release DLC for a game for new fighters, arenas and perhaps game modes every so often for a few bucks or have them sell you a new copy of the game the next year for $60?
Personally, I would rather have the option to download specific characters or maps and spend a fraction of what it would cost to get these few additional characters in a brand new game.
Really, publishers should move more towards this model - specifically fighting and sports franchises. How many people complain about Madden coming out every year with essentially no changes outside of a roster update? Wouldn't you rather fork over half the price for DLC with those roster updates while EA works on an entire new engine that will come out in a few years?
aww hats! I might buy em, though I don't have the game yet..
Seriously, this is just for fun. The best example of dodgy dlc is still Assassin's creed 2. They literally skipped 2 chapters in the end you could pay for later.
Ah well, it's a beloved game from a beloved company so it's bound to get a lot of hate. (you know it makes sense)
Seriously, this is just for fun. The best example of dodgy dlc is still Assassin's creed 2. They literally skipped 2 chapters in the end you could pay for later.
Ah well, it's a beloved game from a beloved company so it's bound to get a lot of hate. (you know it makes sense)
I feel that DLC like this (really, it's microtransactions to me) is perfectly fine. Nothing was held back from the game, it's no way incomplete without it, and it's purely cosmetic so your robot can look different in multiplayer if you'd like. Would people be making this huge a fuss if there weren't any at all? Would people be going "OMG, I can't believe there's no way for me to change the appearance of my avatar in multiplayer"? I highly doubt it, so why are people going "OMG, they're charging for completely useless, comsetic changes that don't affect gameplay at all"?
I'll give you another one, Mortal Kombat. People are bitching that they can't get all the bonus classic costumes. I actually read a post where someone said that people were having to buy multiple copies of the game to get all the pre-order bonuses.
The problem is that it was obvious and clearly stated the costumes were bonuses for pre-ordering from a certain store. There were also codes exclusive to the DVD movie and the collector's edition. These costumes (and fatalities) are simply cosmetic changes to characters already on the disc and don't affect the game in any way, shape, or form. They're simply there to either give you a nice little bonus from buying from your favorite store or to make you shop somewhere else if you wanted the costume for your favorite character.
In fact, I'd be surprised if the costumes weren't at the very least offered as cheap DLC later at some point. Or even possibly as unlockable in-game content that no one's discovered yet (or at least not as of when I last cared to check, haven't in a week or so). If people are buying multiple copies of the game (or buying the movie if they wouldn't have anyway) just to get pre-order bonuses, that's an indication that those people have bigger issues, especially since Tobias has come out and said that people shouldn't waste their money (speaking of buying multiple copies or buying the codes on ebay for up to $40).
Now if they were offering new characters as DLC already, then yes, I'd have a problem with that, but it's another case of purely cosmetic changes that don't affect the gameplay at all. And in Portal's case, aren't a lot of the items in the shop available either through having them in TF2 or unlocking them in game via achievements? Pretty sure I read that on some forum or another.
My next case is Star Trek Online. It has a cash store with microtransactions (much closer to the WoW reference, but hear me out please). for those of you that haven't played, every 10 levels (11, 21, 31, etc) you gain a new rank and access to a new tier of ships and equipment. You get one free new ship when you make rank and can purchase any others for in-game currency.
Then there's the microtransaction ships. These can be purchased in the cash store and are different from the other ships. Like the rest of the ships, they have their own stats and layouts and are unique. So yes, while these ships do change the balance of the game, they can also be obtained in-game via an alternate currency. True, buying them in the store is easier (plus it unlocks it for all characters on your account), but they are also available in-game for those who either have more time to spend getting the marks or who just don't want to spend real money for them. In my case, since I have limited playtime to enjoy, I'd rather spend it flying the ships I want to mess around with than grinding to get them. Plus now my marks can go towards some of the other ships I looked at but didn't think were worth the money to buy.
They also have micrtransaction costumes (for both your avatar and your ship). When I got my new ship and went to customize it, I didn't really like the look of any of the parts available to me and looked at one skin that was available in the cash store. I ended up liking the way it looked best and spent the money to get it (less than $2). That doesn't affect gameplay at all as my stats don't change, just the look of my ship and it was completely optional. And before anyone says they held back the ship skins to charge for it, iirc the ship skins weren't available at launch (though some avatar costumes were). And even if they were, you still had 3 skins to choose from already, if they wanted to make a little money off a purely cosmetic transaction, more power to them; no one is forcing you to buy the skins you know.
Sorry to rant for so long, didn't realize I had this much to write; but between the P2 and MK rants (and sometimes outright hatred) I've been seeing, I just had to finally say something.
I'll give you another one, Mortal Kombat. People are bitching that they can't get all the bonus classic costumes. I actually read a post where someone said that people were having to buy multiple copies of the game to get all the pre-order bonuses.
The problem is that it was obvious and clearly stated the costumes were bonuses for pre-ordering from a certain store. There were also codes exclusive to the DVD movie and the collector's edition. These costumes (and fatalities) are simply cosmetic changes to characters already on the disc and don't affect the game in any way, shape, or form. They're simply there to either give you a nice little bonus from buying from your favorite store or to make you shop somewhere else if you wanted the costume for your favorite character.
In fact, I'd be surprised if the costumes weren't at the very least offered as cheap DLC later at some point. Or even possibly as unlockable in-game content that no one's discovered yet (or at least not as of when I last cared to check, haven't in a week or so). If people are buying multiple copies of the game (or buying the movie if they wouldn't have anyway) just to get pre-order bonuses, that's an indication that those people have bigger issues, especially since Tobias has come out and said that people shouldn't waste their money (speaking of buying multiple copies or buying the codes on ebay for up to $40).
Now if they were offering new characters as DLC already, then yes, I'd have a problem with that, but it's another case of purely cosmetic changes that don't affect the gameplay at all. And in Portal's case, aren't a lot of the items in the shop available either through having them in TF2 or unlocking them in game via achievements? Pretty sure I read that on some forum or another.
My next case is Star Trek Online. It has a cash store with microtransactions (much closer to the WoW reference, but hear me out please). for those of you that haven't played, every 10 levels (11, 21, 31, etc) you gain a new rank and access to a new tier of ships and equipment. You get one free new ship when you make rank and can purchase any others for in-game currency.
Then there's the microtransaction ships. These can be purchased in the cash store and are different from the other ships. Like the rest of the ships, they have their own stats and layouts and are unique. So yes, while these ships do change the balance of the game, they can also be obtained in-game via an alternate currency. True, buying them in the store is easier (plus it unlocks it for all characters on your account), but they are also available in-game for those who either have more time to spend getting the marks or who just don't want to spend real money for them. In my case, since I have limited playtime to enjoy, I'd rather spend it flying the ships I want to mess around with than grinding to get them. Plus now my marks can go towards some of the other ships I looked at but didn't think were worth the money to buy.
They also have micrtransaction costumes (for both your avatar and your ship). When I got my new ship and went to customize it, I didn't really like the look of any of the parts available to me and looked at one skin that was available in the cash store. I ended up liking the way it looked best and spent the money to get it (less than $2). That doesn't affect gameplay at all as my stats don't change, just the look of my ship and it was completely optional. And before anyone says they held back the ship skins to charge for it, iirc the ship skins weren't available at launch (though some avatar costumes were). And even if they were, you still had 3 skins to choose from already, if they wanted to make a little money off a purely cosmetic transaction, more power to them; no one is forcing you to buy the skins you know.
Sorry to rant for so long, didn't realize I had this much to write; but between the P2 and MK rants (and sometimes outright hatred) I've been seeing, I just had to finally say something.
No not that beanie. The grey and pink one. It might not be called a beanie, that's just what I call it.Dr_Steve_Brule said:You will get a Benaie in Portal 2 if you already have it in TF2.BrunDeign said: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.
As for the article-good points. The pizza toppings analogy is right on the money.
For your first point the answer is simple. If people were satisfied, they wouldnt even bother review bombing the game. I haven't seen this reaction since Dragon Age 2 was released.Pr1mus said:
If you had a rudimentary ability to read, you'd realise that, just a bit later, I said that they may bomb the score, but a logical man would look PAST the score, check the "review" and decide for themselves if they agree or not. Who am I to say the article's logic is wrong? Someone who is smart enough to realise that, even though the writer has been against DLC tactics like these in the past, when it is from the beloved Valve, suddenly "everyone must follow their example".
Take off your Valve-loving goggles and pay attention kid.
I don't think your post was rude at all, Therumancer - I've yet to see a single post of yours that is. Don't put yourself down. Like you, I'm not against DLC so long as it's of a certain quality and isn't overpriced.Therumancer said:
I remember the old expansion packs, one would pay a pretty penny to get them and yet, there was a certain guarantee of value from them - like Starcraft: Brood War or Fallout's Point Lookout. or even Dragon Age's Awakening.
Like you said, the main problem is the trivial stuff. DLC has fallen foul of Sturgeon's Law - for every gem there is out there, there's 5 tonnes of manure to dig through to get to it.
But other big two problems with DLC are...
1.) In-game locked content. If one paid for a game and the disc to play it on - they've already paid for the locked content. Which leads to problem 2...
2.) Stripping stuff out of the game and selling it as an extra. Much like Zaeed's Revenge did for Mass Effect 2 to discourage second hand sales. (I'm of the opinion that second hand sales are none of the devs or publisher's business - but is between the gamer and their retailer.)
Personally, I think developers and publishers should relax their stance on modding. In fact, they could really embrace it, STILL turn a profit and make everyone happy in one deft stroke. Remember the WADs disk that came with Doom 1 + 2? (Hundreds of extra levels, custom sounds and music and probably didn't cost Id Software much to produce - namely because the fans and the modders did all the donkey work.)
If a fan mod for Mass Effect 2 came out - surely it'd be in Bioware's best interests to let the modders do their thing. Maybe run a competition and the winner gets their mods voice acted or something.
Alas, with short sighted people with dollar signs in their eyeballs like Bobby Kotick running things - my post will be nothing more than a romanticised pipe-dream.