DLC, Again

[Skratt]

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.

 

[blackdwarf]

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.

 

[Catfoot]

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.

 

[Kevin7557]

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. )

 

[lazarus1209]

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.

In response to the gamers running the industry...

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?

 

[KingofallCosmos]

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)

 

[Enrathi]

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.

 

[Enrathi]

Edit: Double post, sorry.

 

[BrunDeign]

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.

You will get a Benaie in Portal 2 if you already have it in TF2.

As for the article-good points. The pizza toppings analogy is right on the money.

No not that beanie. The grey and pink one. It might not be called a beanie, that's just what I call it.

 

[MasterV]

How did you come to this conclusion without buying the game?

Also This, they rightly so review bomb the game, and then you say only idiots trust aggregate scores? You are you to say that article's logic is flawed?

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.

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.

 

[Gunner 51]

sic...

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.

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.

 

[Hyperactiveman]

They're just not worth the money...

I wouldn't dare tell someone not to buy what they want...

...But why pay those prices for hats?... I will never know.

I think it's really dumb that valve has implemented this... I mean I've paid for a bucketload of DLC in a wide array of games... Mostly Rock Band but also the Halo series and Gears of War.

The reason being is that they're worth it... They're interactive because they're maps you can play in multiplayer. I bought them when my friends had bought them and they were a fair bit of fun to play.

Pretty much the only time I paid for cosmetic DLC was for Killing Floor... But that was for good reason... First of all they're packs of character skins and secondly they're only $2 for a group of 4... That's worth it, and what's more is that KF is a multiplayer experience that lasts way longer than Portal 2 which I've played in co-op twice and am not thinking about picking it up again sadly. I don't think valve thought too much about re-playability in the co-op when they were too busy thinking about hats.

I was thinking how about a series of sandbox levels where you could really have fun, that had no unportable surfaces and was essentially a series of large rooms with things to collect in hard to reach places with a time limit. This could implement laser, bombs, propulsion & repulsion gel and those gravitation defying pasages.

These things should be unlock-ables that become available when certain achievements/trophies are obtained. That way coalitionists will have more drive to win science again and again...

... Hang on thinking too much like Valve there lol

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

@Shamus Because it is greedy beyond the price tag and dishonorable; and by extension, insulting.

The key word is "shameless". Imagine if Toyota decided that all its cars would be sold only in bright green. When everyone's car is green, no one really gives a damn. But then Toyota "offers" you some other color for an extra fee like Project $1000 or something.

Not only would peeps call shenanigans, the competition would shame them into abandoning Project $1000 by pointing out how their lineup comes in whatever colors you want without an extra fee, just like real car dealerships today.

In video games today, be it the youth of the industry, big brand marketing or some cultural peculiarity, this shamelessness is being increasingly tolerated and even embraced.

So no, Shamus. You're right. It's not a crime. It's just shameful.

I am so with you. "GAMERS EAT SHIT" is the new rallying cry for gamers everywhere. At some point it became completely unreasonable to expect quality product at a good value. If they sell overpriced shit and I say so, I'm the one who has done something wrong. Why are we so quick to betray our own interests? The argument that DLC does not represent diverted resources is bunk. Every game now is designed from the ground up to sell DLC, and you can no longer expect a complete experience right out of the box. It's certain that some DLC is unfinished content that we would never have seen otherwise, but this does not mean gamers are benefiting from the existence of DLC overall.

I miss expansion packs.

 

[AdmiralMemo]

My only problem with Portal 2 hats is the price, since the multi-player isn't as replayable as TF2. Other than that, I have absolutely no issue with it.