DLC for Dummies

[Brian Hendershot]

Destructoid

I knew I liked Jim Sterling for a reason!

Yeah. This is ridiculous.

But on the other hand, I kind of like Project Ten Dollar. Assuming my DLC isn't a 100 KB file that just UNLOCKS content already on the disc...Like an Online Pass. If I'm just unlocking on-disc shit, Capcom style, I hate that. But if it's stuff that I can measure in MB or GB, I'm usually fine with it.

I'm...not alone...someone else actually likes Project Ten Dollar? Amazing...Simply Amazing.

Oh yeah, and spot on Shamus Young.

*while reading the review*

Yeah! YEAH! YEAH! YOU TAKE THOSE LEMONS! YEAH! (Oh I like this guy!) BURN THAT HOUSE DOWN!

He says what we're all thinking!!

That's still funny and will always remain funny. God I hope it doesn't become another Cake Meme.

 

[Katana314]

Well, my take on the topic...

I will first state I think the people trolling Metacritic to lower the game's review score are being really immature. The game is obviously not THAT bad. However, I think people do need to seriously consider the arguments made about how this sort of "unlocked costume" happened inside the gameplay originally.
The funny thing is, I have seen cosmetic DLC that hasn't bothered me at all. I ended up concluding that the differences I saw in Portal 2 are that...
A. Portal 2 is a full $50 game
B. The DLC was available release-day.
Killing Floor had cosmetic items (character skins) for a cheap amount, but I found that it didn't rile me because the game itself was pretty cheap - $20. If you decide you must have all character skins for the complete experience, that's about $30 in total.
Some free to play games make their money through cosmetics. Obviously, the low boundary for entry is $0. Then, if you are really obsessed about character customization, it may go up to $40...or even higher if it's the type of game with "time limit items" that you must pay for again. To some people, it's worth it to pay hundreds of dollars. To others, it's only worth it to pay $10. You get a wide boundary.

For Portal 2, the cost starts at $50 and only goes upwards, I think totalling $130 for everything they made. From an economic standpoint, that tells me Valve believes they've made a product that, in total, is worth $130. What I'm annoyed about is how they don't have that "lower boundary" the previous scenarios have, when people think it isn't worth quite as much.

Finally, there's the point of exactly what "cosmetic" means. I'm a choreographer for Black Mesa. What if we released the whole game with purple-black checkerboard textures, no voice acting, no music, no NPC scenes, but perfectly functional gameplay...technically? You'd be able to play the game start to finish, no problem, but it would look like shit. You would obviously want it to be spiced up. We then of course introduce the Black Mesa Gift Shop, where you can pay up to $100 to get the full experience.

I'm sure the above scenario sounds ridiculous and cheap to you. You now know what the situation looks like to someone who DOES care about extra cosmetics. If they were "worthless to everyone" as so many claim, then there wouldn't be anyone paying money for them.

I believe in DLC in theory, but there is proper execution to it. I certainly don't agree with the execution present in Dragon Age or other games. Either have it as part of the business model from the beginning (meaning you release for less than $50, unless you hold your work in very, very high regard) or you develop it as an expansion once you've finished (like Fallout DLC)

 

[John Funk]

Are you confusing me with Shamus? This article was his, not mine.

Oh yeah sorry you're the editor guy. My mistake.

And I'm referring to the further development of unfinished content. If a mission is cut from the game when half-finished because it won't be done/it isn't up to par, should the developers not get paid for the work to finish it?

That depends. If this content was originally slated to be released with the original game, and the released product is effectively less than what it was intended to be will this reduced package be reflected in the retail price? And if not, why then should consumers pay extra above and beyond the original price to effectively play a full game?


Or in other terms, if the developers screwed up, and couldn't meet their deadlines, why should the consumers pay extra for those mistakes to get the finished product?

The mistake you're making is that you're assuming that it's "screwing up." No, it's part of the full, natural cycle of game development.

What you see in a finished product is probably half of the ideas that the developers had, if that. Artists design concept art, make trial levels. Designers come up with enemy ideas, locations, etc. Sometimes, for whatever reason, they just don't work. Maybe the enemy is too hard to balance, maybe the concept art doesn't fit thematically with the story point, etc.

Basically, there comes a point where any game (or software) has to be "feature locked." If you try and put everything you think of into a game, you'll never finish. This point is where you say "Okay, we're not coming up with anything new, we're going with what we have." Anything that doesn't make the cut falls by the wayside.

Then, the second major cut is when the game is "content locked." This is when you look at everything thus far. Maybe this level isn't as fun as it ought to be, or maybe this enemy type just looks silly. You could correct it and finish it in time, but that takes time. This is the point where you decide, "Okay, we're going to ship with *this*, this will be our finished game." Narrative threads are connected, and the developers work on polishing what exists, fixing bugs, etc.

The content lock is what you actually get on the disk. It's still a full game - features and ideas and even whole levels get cut from development all the time, because they wouldn't have worked otherwise.

 

[godofallu]

7 hours with co op and campaign... so yeah.... only a couple of the puzzles were difficult persay, and a lot were just trying to find a portalble surface that is far away/obscured.( not to say of course that I didn't like the game, it's GOTY so far for me, just commenting that my play time was not that long in comparison)

*edit (completely forgot to put my comment regarding the dlc)

I like Valve's style of dlc. It has 0 effect on the game, and the idiots that buy the stuff essentially pay for everyones future DLC in the game. Instead of having to pay for DLC, by having the micro transaction system that doesn't effect anything it's essentially a money generator for valve, and has the possibility of giving a little back to the community, with say, bonus maps

Both of your statements were perfect. I'd add more but... perfect.

 

[Danish rage]

Sorry, but by writing this rant like thing Shamus, nice name btw. You kind of come of as an fanatic fanboy youself. You should just leave trools on metacritic to beeing trools on metacritic and go back and write some of that fantastic game jounalism you do so well. Just saying. Keep up the good work mate.

 

[slackbheep]

I like Portal 2, and have no complaints about the game off the top of my head. That said I wanted to laugh in the face of the writer by the end of this article. Your argument was far stronger before you fell into the fan boy routine.

The pissing and moaning around Project Ten Dollar, and the Wardens Keep DLC both seemed silly to me as well, even in the case of DAO/ME2 the $10 DLC included was modular, anyone who told you they felt like the universe had a hole in it because they were missing Zaeed is on pretty thin ice, and while Shale had more of a tie into the core storyline it was again modular and meshed fairly well with the rest of the game without detracting from it with its absence.

 

[Porecomesis]

Well, the facts as I see them are:

1) day-one DLCs are stupid
2) asking people to pay for in-game clothing is stupid
3) paying for in-game clothing is stupid

Except you never have to and there is no reason for you to do so. Why are you complaining about something that's completely optional and has absolutely no impact on the game experience?

But from the business standpoint, Valve gets what they deserve for this DLC crap. No reason to spoil a great game like that. None.

How did they spoil it? The DLC? As I, and everyone else has said, there's no reason for you to buy it. Did you buy the DLC and now you feel ripped off, so you're taking typed revenge against Valve, who are never going to find your post or care?

 

[viciouspen]

All I can say is I'd rather not have people that stupid playing my Portal games....so....win win for me.
Good riddance you malignant dinks.

Honestly these are the people that should be shipped to Glados for testing purposes.

Portal 2 really does have the most reasonable Dlc that I can think of in like I don't know how long.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

"Ok lets look at this DLC that everyone hates and what I need to buy to complete the game"

"this is just a bunch of skins for co-op"

(Plays Portal 2 to the end)

WHY THE FU&K ARE PEOPLE COMPLAINING!!!

THIS GAME IS AWESOME!!!

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

If you're on a crusade against DLC, start with EA. Start with BioWare. Start with Blizzard.

Wait wait. "Start with Blizzard"? The only thing they've offered for any of their games that could be considered DLC is vanity pets and mounts, which fall under the same category as the Portal 2 DLC. What DLC did Blizzard put out that broke one of the rules of what DLC shouldn't do?

Otherwise I agree with your article, 100%. As I stated on the Portal 2 forum though, if people didn't have the purchasable DLC items to cry about, they'd have found something else to throw a fit over. Some people are simply happy only when they're complaining.

 

[Sabinfrost]

Damn straight Shamus, I loved the hate it because it's black section. Epic.

 

[Klepa]

This reminds me of the TF2 hat whine.

"We shouldn't be offered to buy fluff items that have no effect on gameplay, because we are too greedy and dumb to not buy them!"

Don't buy the stuff! It doesn't affect your gameplay at all, it's cosmetic!

Imagine if you lived near a tuxedo shop. Every time you come home, you walk past the tuxedo shop. And every time walk past, you buy a new tuxedo, because it's slightly cooler than your current one. And every time you make a purchase, you accuse the salesman of being a money grubbing greedy bastard.

There is literally no difference between the situation I described, and the Portal 2 angst.

I could see a base for an argument here, if the stuff would actually make you more powerful than someone else, especially in multiplayer. However, it's all just cosmetic, in both Portal 2 and TF2, so there's no point in whining.

 

[Jagji56]

Nice article. Tho I don't agree with you in full, I do however get where you?re going.

DLC for single player is not a bad thing. In fact, it can be a really good thing. Borderlands is a game I think did it well. Each of the DLC's gave you a new story, new areas and so on to extend the Borderlands Universe. On top of this, they made the DLC's level with you, unlike the original game, so you could start a new game and go straight to the new content instead of having to play through the game again JUST to get to the new places you have spent your molar on.

The problem comes when companies decided they are going to tie a single player game to an only server using the acronym DRM to justify it, and make it imposable for you to play without longing in. Ala, the ORIGINAL Ubisoft DRM that was lunched with Assassins Creed 2/Settlers 7. Luckily they have re-thought it throw, and given you the option to now play in 'off line mode' which means you no longer need the net, other than the first time you boot the game up to play it.

DLC is OK for single player, it's the DRM that is in use that was the problem with Dragon Age.

As for portal 2 handling DLC 'properly' I disagree there. Having DLC that, until the game is out, looks like it will be part of the game from the get go thanks to all those trailers they made is a REALLY bad idea. Then there is no warring that it will be there, again, bad move, and finally the fact you?re paying $30US for them, which is almost as much as the game itself, is NOT the best idea for DLC. I do agree with you on the point of people going to Metric and raging on there about it tho... not the best thing you can do, especially considering all you are doing is making yourself look like the biggest dick in the world.... or competing for the title of the biggest dick in the world.... either way, not the best thing...

The Jagji

 

[Johnmw]

So a professional writer like Shamus goes out and uses expletives against the subjective reviews of a certain group of consumers who are well within their rights to voice their opinions - gah, poor attempt at trolling on my part, good job Shamus!

Not really he just pointed out the massive gaping holes in their entitled little tantrums, as it is his right to and indeed makes a living out of. As he has covered bad DLC, the DLC the ruins games, encourages piracy and milks the customer, I can see why he's a bit annoyed that the DLC gamers take a stand against its the least harmful of the lot. It doesn't speak well for a general understanding of the issue

Really this DLC barely even counts as DLC. I personally wouldn't want a new hat but, if a paid valve employee has spent his company time texturing and skinning one, then valve have the right to charge for it. All this commotion over not being able to dress up your characters?
This has to be the weirdest thing ever! The (generalisation incoming), gaming community constantly demands new and against the grain games, but when one comes out its all: "OH NOES, THIS GAME SUX, I HAS TO PAY FOR A TUXEDO!"
Note: that second part is not a reply to you Raiyan I'm not trying to strawman you.

This reminds me of the TF2 hat whine.

"We shouldn't be offered to buy fluff items that have no effect on gameplay, because we are too greedy and dumb to not buy them!"

Don't buy the stuff! It doesn't affect your gameplay at all, it's cosmetic!.

Hehe nicely put and exactly right!

 

[kingmob]

The problem here is that you're assuming that development can essentially run right up to printing, and that printing can happen a few days before release. While this may be true to an extent with digital delivery such as Steam, with console markets it's most definitely not. Everything has to be checked and certified by external sources, and for quite some time you're beholden to someone else's timeframe.

That was actually not what I was doing, but I can see how you might think that. I was just following Funk's own logic in an effort to debunk it. DLC has to go through the same cycle, except printing the disc, that was kind of my whole point
I felt Funk was suggesting there was a more 'legitimate' reason for 1st day DLC besides just another money maker and there simply isn't.

 

[tehroc]

Only company that makes good DLC is Rockstar which fails every one of your 4 bullet points. At least the huge publishers give you something worth your dollars, not just skins that we used to get for free off places like fileplanet or by beating the game. So good job Shamus, you are Valve's white knight and maybe you will be rewarded with an advanced copy of their next release.

 

[kingmob]

Please read that post again. A game's disk is often content-locked many months before the game actually ships. And the disk itself starts printing probably a month before ship. That you think otherwise just demonstrates ignorance of the matter at hand.

Digital delivery allows them to deliver the content alongside the disk at launch, not on it.

The point is they do not 'lock' the content for shits and giggles. Disk printing is not the reason, the content itself is. In a development cycle, what you mention simply doesn't happen and I know this from first hand experience. They do not fire these people, they simply start working on the next project.