DLC, Again
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
... Isn't that the DLC that annoys people though? The kind that you already have but have to pay to use?Shamus Young said:
As legitimate as that point is, my answer is: somewhat, yes. I'm not going to slander every single person who makes money in the industry, but I do think some groups are melodramatic about profit loss.Shamus Young said:
As I've stated before though I can't really blame companies for trying to make more money, it's their goal when they make games (besides making a good game, but some people do seem to get distracted from that).
Terrifying, how has this guy not destroyed himself with the things he says?Shamus Young said:
I try not to demand things, but mostly because I think the average, somewhat casual, gamer is probably uninformed and thinks he can't have satisfaction without paying much more than is necessary.Shamus Young said:
I specifically support this by saying I have a friend who told me he had 60$ and wanted to buy a game but didn't know what to buy; thus I directed him to Steam and told him to spend wisely, as there are many good games on Steam and it often has good deals. My friend ignored me for the rest of the night and later complained about me trying to give him cheap games instead of good games.
Though I want to elaborate and state that if someone can afford it and wants a jaunty hat in a game they enjoy, then I have no complaints.
Hello, well written article, as is often the case with you. I have... complex thoughts about this.Shamus Young said:
I think the best way to communicate what I'm thinking is in discussing Mods. Like you mentioned, making a mod that changes your hat to something is nice, but it is a lot more fun to know that other people are able to see your hat as well. But this is also true for other aspects of the game, and even some that are intended for Single player!
Consider for example, an RPG like Dragon Age: Origins. This game had a lot of modular content for purchase that could drastically effect how difficult the game was. New characters, early powerful items, etc. It very much damaged the illusion that the challenges you were experiencing were necessarily the same others had. There was no gold standard of 'this is how hard the game is, you must do well to defeat it' because the tools the player might bring to the table were not set in stone.
It's just like if I downloaded a mod for DA:O that added or removed, or changed a bunch of things. I wouldn't really be a PART of the DAO community in the same way after doing that, because the game I was playing was different. Parts hard for others might be easier for me, or funny moments involving a certain character might have not come up because I was able to use a different party.
Take this and port it over to single player strategy games like Civilization. The amount of disucssion of strategy for such games is often off the charts. Look up civ 4 strategy forums and you'll find all sorts of discussion. This is only exciting and interesting because we are all playing the same game. We can share, train, commiserate and disdain one another because of the shared experience of the game. Edit: But we CANNOT take part in such discussions if we have modded our game to use different rules.
Lastly, think about the very common scenario in games for you to 'level up' during deathmatches to unlock new things. For example, Bioshock 2 has you gain experience from the deathmatch multi-player, and you level up to get new plasmids, tonics, guns etc. There is always the feeling when playing early on in these games, that your 'losses' are due to something beyond your control. Did that guy have a damage boost I haven't unlocked yet? Maybe more health? I don't know, I'm not on the same playing surface as he is!
Even Team Fortress 2 has some of that going on.
At the end of the day, I think having a Gold Standard of what a 'game' is, can be important to a game. To the community that surrounds it. It isn't a question of what is fair or not, but a question of enjoyment.
I don't understand why people are raging against Portal 2's DLC. As far as I have heard, it's purely cosmetic and have no effect on the game play whatsoever. In my opinion, developers can do whatever they want with cosmetic DlC: Day 1, on disc, charging an arm & leg... because people are not going to miss out anything substantial if they don't buy them. No one is putting a gun to their and force them to buy the DLC and who know? May be the people who actually brought them are happy with their purchase.
No, I think all of the arguments Shamus addressed are only valid for story-wise DLC or contents that actually affect the game play. That said, I'm fine with DLC in general but the concept of Day 1 story wise DLC completely baffles me. I can think of no reason for it than except to squeeze the most money of your customers as fast as possible. (Which is a valid reason but please hear me out.) Isn't the whole concept of DlC is something for the fan? If people played and liked the game, then they're willing to pay for content that expand that game. It make no sense for developers to create DLC for people who hate or never heard of their game. It pretty irrational for someone to don't know if they like a game to go: 'Hm... I don't know if I like this but I might as well pay an extra £10.00 for this character!' Furthermore, I haven't see anyone go: 'I am so excited for the DLC of Mass Effect 3, Skyrim etc..,'
My point is that story-wise DLC is that it should be an after thought for people who enjoy the game, not some quick cheap cash in. What's the point of rushing for Day 1 DLC when you're not sure if there's any demand for it? Would it be better to wait to see how people receive your game then tailor your DlC to the contents that they want? Hell, you can even charge extra and that way everyone wins: People wants are happy for quality content; Developers are happy because they get even more money.
And yes, the argument that I don't have to buy it still stand - No one is forcing me to. But the only reason I'm complaining in the first place is that I actually like your game. I am willing to extra money to support the people who made it. But every time I see developers I like releasing Day 1 DLC, I feel like they're treating me as a cash cow and feel a little dead inside.
In short, do whatever you want with cosmetic, put effort in releasing DLC that actually matters.
Or you can ignore this wall of text. That's... fine too.
No, I think all of the arguments Shamus addressed are only valid for story-wise DLC or contents that actually affect the game play. That said, I'm fine with DLC in general but the concept of Day 1 story wise DLC completely baffles me. I can think of no reason for it than except to squeeze the most money of your customers as fast as possible. (Which is a valid reason but please hear me out.) Isn't the whole concept of DlC is something for the fan? If people played and liked the game, then they're willing to pay for content that expand that game. It make no sense for developers to create DLC for people who hate or never heard of their game. It pretty irrational for someone to don't know if they like a game to go: 'Hm... I don't know if I like this but I might as well pay an extra £10.00 for this character!' Furthermore, I haven't see anyone go: 'I am so excited for the DLC of Mass Effect 3, Skyrim etc..,'
My point is that story-wise DLC is that it should be an after thought for people who enjoy the game, not some quick cheap cash in. What's the point of rushing for Day 1 DLC when you're not sure if there's any demand for it? Would it be better to wait to see how people receive your game then tailor your DlC to the contents that they want? Hell, you can even charge extra and that way everyone wins: People wants are happy for quality content; Developers are happy because they get even more money.
And yes, the argument that I don't have to buy it still stand - No one is forcing me to. But the only reason I'm complaining in the first place is that I actually like your game. I am willing to extra money to support the people who made it. But every time I see developers I like releasing Day 1 DLC, I feel like they're treating me as a cash cow and feel a little dead inside.
In short, do whatever you want with cosmetic, put effort in releasing DLC that actually matters.
Or you can ignore this wall of text. That's... fine too.
I still think you should get to pick 1 or 2 items from the store if you payed full price for it. Once the price point drops stop with the freebies. Then its like "pre-order bonus" but its more like "full price bonus". As to unethical I don't really like how the things you could unlock are not labeled. Also the easiest to unlock items were "on sale" and you had to close the sale pop-ups before seeing anything else. That part seemed shistery to me. I don't think "sale" or even sellable items should be unlock-able. Its more ok in TF2 because its 100% random what you can unlock, but portal its do X collect Y. Unless you bought Y already sucker because you didn't know it was free.
I hope we can all agree that this puts to rest the whole question of Gabe Newell's birth, so we can get on with the important business of creating quantum space-holes.
You made some good points. I doubt if anyone who needs to hear them will actually be bothered to read them and if they do they'll probably just flame the thread but at least the points were said.
"Free Hat" reminds me of South Park...
OT: I love DLC. I love the option of purchasing things I want and not paying for things I don't. Like everything it comes down to making a value judgement on a product and putting money towards the ones that are worth it.
OT: I love DLC. I love the option of purchasing things I want and not paying for things I don't. Like everything it comes down to making a value judgement on a product and putting money towards the ones that are worth it.
Portal 2 is fucking great and the people who are complaining about it for reasons like these are entitled fuckwit brats and didn't deserve the experience the game offered in the first place.
I guess what everyone fails to take into account in this whole DLC issue, is that these companies that give us video games are out there to make money. At this stage of the industry, there are very few people making games purely out of the love of games and I'd hazard a guess that no video game company, developer or publisher, outside of the occasional one or two man operation, is concerned with anything more than making a game good enough to make money.
This is how free markets and capitalism work: Someone produces something and offers it for sale. Consumers purchase it if they like it, they need it, or they are otherwise compelled to buy it. If consumers don't like, don't need or aren't otherwise compelled to buy it, it won't sell and the producer most likely will not continue to offer said product without sufficient sales.
That's how consumers vote, they use their wallets.
Now, Valve has angered some people by "sneaking" some DLC under the radar that people who purchased the game weren't aware of. The possible outcomes from this are that all those angry gamers won't buy the next Valve product, or they'll pirate it or wait to find it used or on sale. All those hurt Valve's revenue stream. Perhaps next time around Valve won't take this route, but most likely, a few hundred or thousand disgruntled gamers won't make one fucking bit of difference. There will still be plenty of people to pay for the games, and the overpriced DLC.
If anyone needs any evidence on how little the "hardcore" gamer matters to the industry, just take a look at Hollywood. Hollywood doesn't make movies for film critics, film buffs or even intelligent movie goers, for the most part; Hollywood makes games for the common man, the lowest common denominator because that's where the money is.
In a few years, maybe a few decades the true "hardcore" gamer will play games like film fans watch films: they'll take the good with the bad, they'll know when something is a "popcorn" game that's only worth a rental or good for a date night, they'll be choosier about how and what they buy and will become smart and discerning customers. Unfortunately there won't ever be enough of them to really change the industry because the LCD always wins when it comes to numbers and the gaming industry will continue to pander to them, with crummy sequels (just like Hollywood!), rehashes, reboots and cliches (just like Hollywood!), and dumbed down (sorry, "streamlined") gaming experiences designed solely to appeal to the widest possible audience (just like Hollywood!).
This is how free markets and capitalism work: Someone produces something and offers it for sale. Consumers purchase it if they like it, they need it, or they are otherwise compelled to buy it. If consumers don't like, don't need or aren't otherwise compelled to buy it, it won't sell and the producer most likely will not continue to offer said product without sufficient sales.
That's how consumers vote, they use their wallets.
Now, Valve has angered some people by "sneaking" some DLC under the radar that people who purchased the game weren't aware of. The possible outcomes from this are that all those angry gamers won't buy the next Valve product, or they'll pirate it or wait to find it used or on sale. All those hurt Valve's revenue stream. Perhaps next time around Valve won't take this route, but most likely, a few hundred or thousand disgruntled gamers won't make one fucking bit of difference. There will still be plenty of people to pay for the games, and the overpriced DLC.
If anyone needs any evidence on how little the "hardcore" gamer matters to the industry, just take a look at Hollywood. Hollywood doesn't make movies for film critics, film buffs or even intelligent movie goers, for the most part; Hollywood makes games for the common man, the lowest common denominator because that's where the money is.
In a few years, maybe a few decades the true "hardcore" gamer will play games like film fans watch films: they'll take the good with the bad, they'll know when something is a "popcorn" game that's only worth a rental or good for a date night, they'll be choosier about how and what they buy and will become smart and discerning customers. Unfortunately there won't ever be enough of them to really change the industry because the LCD always wins when it comes to numbers and the gaming industry will continue to pander to them, with crummy sequels (just like Hollywood!), rehashes, reboots and cliches (just like Hollywood!), and dumbed down (sorry, "streamlined") gaming experiences designed solely to appeal to the widest possible audience (just like Hollywood!).
I think this form of DLC is great,
It's totally optional, and doesn't impact gameplay.
It's a fun way to support the game companies you love.
It's totally optional, and doesn't impact gameplay.
It's a fun way to support the game companies you love.
*raises hand*
I don't care about the DLC and don't really want to pay for it.
So I didn't.
And it hasn't affected the game at all for me.
Played single player. Played multiplayer. Liked both.
Didn't need the hats. Didn't buy the hats.
Might change my mind later. Who knows. It's just 5 bucks.
Still playing the game. Trying the challenges. Still really fun.
Did I mention it hasn't affected the game at all for me?
Know why?
I bought the game, and it was complete.
And fun.
It's like getting a nice, big, chocolate sundae, you take a bite and it's DELICIOUS.
It has whipped cream, chocolate sauce, brownies underneath, and a big glob of vanilla/chocolate ice cream.
Then Gabe Newell comes in and asks: "Want some sprinkles? Five bucks."
To which I reply: "Nah, not right now, but if I get another sundae I might."
And the option is there.
I CAN take it.
But I don't have to.
Because I have a complete sundae.
And it is awesome.
I don't care about the DLC and don't really want to pay for it.
So I didn't.
And it hasn't affected the game at all for me.
Played single player. Played multiplayer. Liked both.
Didn't need the hats. Didn't buy the hats.
Might change my mind later. Who knows. It's just 5 bucks.
Still playing the game. Trying the challenges. Still really fun.
Did I mention it hasn't affected the game at all for me?
Know why?
I bought the game, and it was complete.
And fun.
It's like getting a nice, big, chocolate sundae, you take a bite and it's DELICIOUS.
It has whipped cream, chocolate sauce, brownies underneath, and a big glob of vanilla/chocolate ice cream.
Then Gabe Newell comes in and asks: "Want some sprinkles? Five bucks."
To which I reply: "Nah, not right now, but if I get another sundae I might."
And the option is there.
I CAN take it.
But I don't have to.
Because I have a complete sundae.
And it is awesome.
only one thing I still think is a legitimate concern: Modding as an argument. Locking down the game so it can't be modded just so you can sell your shit is a garbage move, end of story, Shamus.
If there's one thing I've learned from Steam, its to wait six months for the price to drop to a reasonable charge ($50 for an 8 hour game is bad; $20 for the same game is acceptable), or better yet wait a year for the "Complete Game of the Year Edition" that will have all the DLC on board along with the core game for $20-30. The I buy it on the New Years Sale for $4.95.
Valve has no one but themselves to blame for my severe "sales opportunity conditioning." Only the early adopters suffer under today's pricing scheme and only the pirates and the entitlement "I want it all for free" crowd suffer under the DLC.
If the DLC is really outrageous, draconian or representative of true greed at the expense of a complete game....people will vote with their pocketbooks and we won't see that happen again, simple as that.
Valve has no one but themselves to blame for my severe "sales opportunity conditioning." Only the early adopters suffer under today's pricing scheme and only the pirates and the entitlement "I want it all for free" crowd suffer under the DLC.
If the DLC is really outrageous, draconian or representative of true greed at the expense of a complete game....people will vote with their pocketbooks and we won't see that happen again, simple as that.
Can you even buy these hats on Consoles (where most of the sales for this game were, anyway)?
I haven't seen them.
I haven't seen them.
I have to wonder how you would answer these questions if you replaced "VALVe" with "Activision". Most certainly people would be up in arms, saying that it's just another way for Activision's "greedy" CEOs and whatnot to rake in more cash from their audience.
While I do agree with some of your points, I can't help but feel that the goodie-feely feelings to VALVe get in the way of people's reasoning. Not that I think it's bad of them to sell these things, though I do find it incredibly pointless and in a sense a waste of resources on their part.
While I do agree with some of your points, I can't help but feel that the goodie-feely feelings to VALVe get in the way of people's reasoning. Not that I think it's bad of them to sell these things, though I do find it incredibly pointless and in a sense a waste of resources on their part.
Are we still on this? I once hated the DLC, but at the end of the week I accepted it and moved on. Don't make this issue have the same fate as MLP.