DLC, Again

[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?"

 

[geokes]

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.

 

[MrGFunk]

So the game costs £40. One hat costs £5 [citation needed].

I extrapolate this to mean Portal 2 is worth 8 novelty hats.

That's just sad.

Bring on the free content to boost the value.

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

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.

 

[mikespoff]

As always, Shamus, your column is a lonely voice of sanity in the wilderness of teh interwebs.

 

[SemiHumanTarget]

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?

 

[Kyprioth]

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.

 

[FoolKiller]

I still hate any content that is already on the disc but I have to pay for. That, to me, is inappropriate.

 

[justnotcricket]

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.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

Again: aren't the hats free if you have them in TF2?