DLC for Dummies

[Legion]

What is there to add except that I completely agree with the entire article, it's pretty much exactly what I have been saying in the discussion threads about it.

 

[theultimateend]

Honestly, Id actually be pretty keen to get more single-player experience out of dlc (like fallout three's broken steel, wherein I can buy more game for money)because.. well because dlc comes out quicker than sequels and tends not to run the risk of sucking ass.

Also? I totally support the idea of rewarding me with unbalanced and/or cheat items/powers for preorders and dlc downloads. But thats just because Im an egomaniac with a hard on for explosive overkill (though not appropriate in multiplayer for obvious reasons).

Otherwise? yeah I agree with the dude. Though.. seems poor form to have day one dlc. Kinda like going to a restaurant and getting served dinner and desert at the same time or asking if I want to reserve a table next week before Ive even started eating.

Yeah. I love games that have a "Pay 99 cents for 9 million money". Sometimes I get bored of a game and would rather spend a dollar to make it exciting for another week than run out and spend 60 bucks for a new game .

 

[John Funk]

Do people really not understand the difference between DLC and microtransactions?

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I think there is a slightly valid complaint about the DLC, that being the amount of it available on day 1. Sure it doesn't impact the game at all, but having these little things planned to be launched in a sideline store along with the game does grate a little for someone who grew up playing games in the days where things like what they are selling used to be in game unlockables. Like I said, not a big deal at all, just irritating.

The problem is that people that gripe about day one DLC, don't understand what goes on when a game is being made. John Funk, in the Portal 2 Backlash thread, used this link to a post by Virgil. Please educate yourself. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.154083-Dragon-Age-Designer-Says-DLC-Not-Meant-to-Rip-Off-Players#3719305]. Virgil's explanation of how the process of making games works, deflates all the madness people seem to have over day one DLC.

Day one DLC is perfectly understandable.

 

[darkcommanderq]

Idk the first portal was only 20 bucks. Im not really ready to pay 50 bucks for the sequal, even if its got improved mechanics.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think there is a slightly valid complaint about the DLC, that being the amount of it available on day 1. Sure it doesn't impact the game at all, but having these little things planned to be launched in a sideline store along with the game does grate a little for someone who grew up playing games in the days where things like what they are selling used to be in game unlockables. Like I said, not a big deal at all, just irritating.

The problem is that people that gripe about day one DLC, don't understand what goes on when a game is being made. John Funk, in the Portal 2 Backlash thread, used this link to a post by Virgil. Please educate yourself. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.154083-Dragon-Age-Designer-Says-DLC-Not-Meant-to-Rip-Off-Players#3719305]. Virgil's explanation of how the process of making games works, deflates all the madness people seem to have over day one DLC.

Day one DLC is perfectly understandable.

Oh, of course. But this isn't the full fledged DLC that Funk is describing. This is literally stuff that a generation ago would have been included in the game with no extra cost... and, yes, it would have been developed and added to the game during the regular development cycle.

 

[DanDeFool]

Spoiler: Spoiler'd, due to longness

While there are tons of Portal "OMG, Portal is the best thing ever" fans out there, who were going to support this game no matter what, I think there are actually more people who just wanted a good game and weren't involved in any kind of fan-cult even if they liked the first one. By many accounts, "Portal 2" is really a pretty poor game, that has been seriously overhyped due to the first one. One analogy I've heard is that Portal was an "indie" darling that took the world by surprise storm by being unique and differant. It's sort of like what " The Blair Witch Project" was years ago. "Portal 2" is the big budget sell out of the original, that was going down a checklist of cliques fans wanted to see, polished up, and made to be hip as opposed to being a "true to itself" product. Basically it's "Blair Witch 2", complete with it's goth girls, and "relevent" soundtrack. Unlike the movie industry though, an anticipated video game is going to sell like hotcakes due to early, unretunrable sales. You don't see word of mouth having quite the same effect on the game industry that it does with movies, especially given the way the industry can control information and surpress reviews until after the initial sales period when it first launches. I also think that since people are pretty much stuck with the games they buy, there is also a tendency for people to lionize even turds because they are dealing with turds they own.... or to defend franchises when an installment blows chips, in hopes that the next one will be better.

Now to be fair, I have not played "Portal 2". I am not a huge fan of the series. When it goes down in price, I'll probably give it a shot though, because the idea is interesting, but I'm neither a big FPS or Puzzle game player. I'm just going by some of the feedback I've heard bebopping around the internet (the "Blair Witch" analogy wasn't mine to be fair, I got that from a random post, but it seemed to be a good one for how some people were feeling about this). There is no need to shoot the messenger (so to speak).

Generally speaking I think "Portal 2" and "Dragon Age 2" are noteworthy because they are sequels right on the tip of a trend where the user meta-ratings are not matching the professional ratings, which were apparently paid for. What's more the response obviously involves enough people (as opposed to just troll groups) where traditional ways of "fixing" the problem, like having company employees shill for you, just aren't working.

Okay... I see what you're saying, but I think you really should play the game for yourself before deciding what opinions you want to parrot. And to be honest, I sincerely doubt that anyone's expectations were met when they played Portal 2, because Portal was so spectacularly good. At best, we were only going to get a somewhat longer campaign and some incremental improvements in the story and gameplay. We were never going to get "the best game ever made EVAR, OMGWTFBBQPWN!!!"

End part directed at Therumancer. Begin part directed at the people who actually played Portal 2 and then panned it for various reasons.

Shamus's point is that the DLC in Portal 2 is by no means the worst offender in the idiot-DLC department, and doesn't deserve to get down-rated solely for the issues with its DLC. If you want to say that Portal 2 was a vastly-inferior product because they sold out to the big time developers who completely missed the point of the original, that's fine. You still sound like a pretentious and incredibly stuck-up asshat, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. It just makes you sound untrustworthy, like a GameSpot reviewer.

However, if you've made that assessment because Portal 2 has lame DLC and not because the game itself was a disappointment, then I think you need to get your priorities straight. You do realize that we wouldn't be having this discussion at all if Valve decided to get rid of the DLC features entirely, right? What are you trying to say here? If you want to say Portal 2 is crap, talk about the game, not the ancillary content that you don't have to buy.

Also, I'm starting to agree more and more with Yahtzee that people should take the trouble to actually read the reviews because a complex opinion can't be expressed as a number. If you don't trust sites like GameSpot and IGN because their reviewers are all obviously bought-and-paid for, then follow <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/8812-MovieBob-How-to-Read-Movie-Criticism>MovieBob's advice and find a critic you can trust instead. Stop whining about the things you can't control, like the fact that professional game reviewers are all corporate whores.

I'm not parroting anyone's opinions though, all I'm doing is pointing out that there is a negative reception. The point here being that rather than acting like there is something wrong with the people for making the complaints, perhaps when you have this strong of a negative reaction, you should simply accept that there is something wrong with the game.

The point here being that just because a game is getting a bad user review, does not mean it's being "metabombed" for some trivial reason. Especially seeing as the whole "metabombing" concern has been recent, due to a couple of high profile games getting tanked in user reception, despite the groups that are considered to be responsible for it having been out there for a long time, and having never gotten this kind of noticible reaction.

The bit about the DLC is a side point, I think it upset people, especially coming from Valve of all people, but people have been complaining about day 1 DLC for a long time, and nobody has gotten "metabombed" to this extent for something like this before.... bsides which, a "bombing" isn't likely to do what we're seeing. We're looking at a ton of dissatisfied people as opposed to say upsetting a bunch of people on /V/ exclusively.

What's more I don't think anyone can rationally defend things like these outfits, or "Horse Armor" as being GOOD things. Trying to do so is just as ridiculous as trying to saying that an issue like this that has been around for so long, is going to inspire a massive reaction all on it's own all of a sudden.

Like it or not, Valve released a game that wasn't well received despite massive hype. That seems to be the bottom line, and trying to deny it or make excuses doesn't change it. It seems like the defenses are kind of pointless which is why I'm bothering to respond. Let things stand on their own, instead of trying to make excuses for companies like Valve or Bioware, and hope they can adapt and recover.

It didn't get de-rated soley because of the DLC, even if it upset a lot of people, it's not going to have any more effect here than it did for other games with DLC that POed people. It got de-rated because apparently a lot of people who bought the game were less than thrilled with the product they received. While it wasn't my analogy, I again think back to the whole "Blair Witch" vs. "Blair Witch 2" analogy. A game that is loved because it was the little "also ran" that could from "The Orange Box" that gets expanded into a full fledged "AAA" type ultra-hip title with massive marketing and specific exposure, and then crashes because not many people like it despite the fact that it should be "perfect" going by what people say made the first one great.... we've seen it before, within video gaming even, it shouldn't be shocking anyone, or need people to come up with excuses to explain what happened.

Okay, now I get where you're coming from a little better, I think.

I stand by my point that if Valve had simply decided not to include the features currently offered as DLC at all, we wouldn't be having this discussion (especially since Shamus was addressing the issue of people getting butt-hurt over the DLC; that's the whole point of this article), but if people genuinely feel that Portal 2 was a disappointment, well, then they are entitled to their opinion. Trying to arbitrarily reduce Portal 2's Metascore by giving it a 0 rating (essentially saying, "Portal 2 is so bad it is as though I were sold an empty box") is kind of immature, but if you feel the need to redress the issue of the corporate whore-ish-ness of professional game reviewers that badly then zero away.

Frankly, I don't think there's any way Portal 2 could have avoided some disappointment. It's the successor to one of the best games ever made, and part of the charm of the original was that it was new and excitingly different and an indie title. It was special in so many ways that you just can't replicate in a sequel.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

It seems like Mecha-Cricket needs to change, actually put in a way to counter this zero bombing that entitled arses seem prone to.

 

[Podunk]

Do people really not understand the difference between DLC and microtransactions?

I think the problem might be the term DLC has become too ubiquitous, like band-aids or q-tips. Now too many people use it to mean 'anything downloaded on a console or for a game, ever'. Not to mention that DLC has been demonized as of late due to some of it being crap and now it's almost a knee-jerk reaction for most. Games=Art, New IP=Good, and DLC=Bad.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

i disagree with them about the DLC but i don't understand why the review bombing is seen as childish. You can sit and complain and do absolutely nothing about it or you can actually go and try to change something. it doesn't matter that review bombing isn't likely to do much at least it's something.

That said i disagree with what there saying and they could have done something better then review bombing.

 

[Anjel]

I feel like an arse for commenting having not played the game myself, but I always take peoples play-through times with a grain (not a pinch) of salt as mine always seems to be significantly longer. I enjoy entering a new room/dungeon/city/area and spending however long it takes looking around at things - I can see this being shorter in a game like portal, but for games like Dragon Age and Fallout I would spent sometimes 10 mins in a new area, just running around and taking in the scenery.

Of DLC, I love DLC and don't mind forking out a bit of cash if it is worth it. I didn't mind Dragon Age: Origins directing me to the online store to purchase DLC, it let me know it was there and I didn't buy it on my first play-through. I enjoyed Borderlands DLC - well, most of them. I actively seek out Fallout DLC and can't get enough of it. DLC shouldn't be sold to complete a game - a game should be launched complete and any DLC should just add to the experience rather than complete the story.

Call me a douche if you will, but if you enjoy a game, why shouldn't you pay out a bit of extra cash for more game?

 

[Gotterdammerung]

I'm always a fan of cosmetic DLC, as it doesn't affect the game at all, or give you a lead over other players.

I'm also a big fan of tiny viking hats and robots (or normal-sized viking hats and giant robots?) so Portal 2 DLC seems nice. Also, it gives me an excuse to play TF2 more - for the drops.

I think that if they put any (more?) DLC into Portal 2 (it's not really DLC, when you think about it? It's just hat-sharing) they could put in some more fun cosmetic stuff, you know, new skins, voices, textures, whatever.

Also, who wants to spend £60 on hats? Stop getting all annoyed about this, please. Metacritic-bombing for cosmetic DLC is just petty, vindictive and silly. If it was for Blood Dragon Chell, or Black Box Portal Guns, then yes, it would be (kinda) vindicated. But for hats? No. No hat is worth that much to anyone, is it?

 

[JPH330]

Mecha-Cricket

Oh my god. Somebody needs to make a game or a movie about a Mecha-Cricket, that sounds amazing.

 

[TyrunnAlberyn]

I can follow Shamus' argumentation most of the way, but where does he get the idea that Blizzards DLC is any less purely cosmetic than Valve's DLC in Portal 2?

If he's lashing out at Blizzard (again) for, like I saw someone in the thread mention, splitting up Starcraft 2 in several games, I'll (again) put forth the counter-argument of: How the hell did Starcraft 2 as it was sold now NOT feel like a complete game? Yes, it has only one single-player campaign, but it is a fairly long one, with interesting map design and customisability for the player through choices made and upgrades bought. The multiplayer is as complete and engaging as ever with Starcraft.

The only other thing I can consider DLC that Blizzard does is the items in the Blizzard store for WoW, and like I mentioned, I cannot consider those any less cosmetic than the items Valve offers. They do have other possible paid transactions, but I don't feel those can be considered DLC, rather, they're additional services that can be bought and in no part integral to the game.

 

[JediMB]

I don't get the complaints about the DLC at all. Does anyone remember the campsite guy in Dragon Age: Origins? The one with the PREMIUM CONTENT QUEST? (EDIT: Ah.. didn't see it was referenced in the article. So, well.. that. Anyway.) That was the most jarring thing I have ever seen, yet nobody 0-bombed for that. This is all just petty bullshit and everyone involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Instead, fans of Dragon Age: Origins started 0/1/2-bombing Dragon Age II the very moment it was released. With reviews based on hearsay and the demo version.

But that was treated as legitimate criticism, and the only ones who got any backlash for the bogus reviews were EA and BioWare.

Anyway... I do agree fully with Shamus on the Portal 2 situation.

 

[Gotterdammerung]

Mecha-Cricket

Oh my god. Somebody needs to make a game or a movie about a Mecha-Cricket, that sounds amazing.

It can only be killed by micro-transactions! And the power of hearsay, bile and 4chan!

The brave forumites will stand up to take down the huge DLC monster, and make their malinformed voices heard! They'll even be a lesbian love side-story, but both of them will turn out to be guys!