DLC for Dummies

[Sampler]

I liked the article - I'd say I'm about half way through (Chapter 5, presuming the others are of similar length then pretty much mid-point) and I've spent around 4-5 hours so far, though currently I'm at my first point of being stuck having solved a fair few puzzles off the bat.

I don't mind charging for gestures or clothes - yeah I'm used to Resident Evil style games where the alternative costumes were rewards for completing the game (usually with some caveat) but it's just pointless shit I don't need. As mentioned in the article it doesn't affect my solo game and if I want it I can get it as a nice extra.

What I do dislike is been hit over the head Fable three style - virtually every time I go to that damn room I have John Cleese telling me there's new shite to buy in the shop - now I've completed it the quest with the most reward points (which A) put it to the top of the quest list so it's always default next after finishing a quest and B) the reward points are needed for improving the character on the "road to rule") is "go buy dlc". Now I finished the game within a month of it coming out (I don't get that much chance to play games these days) but extra content to the volume of whole new quests shouldn't be out so quickly - if they were why aren't they part of the game - especially as the hole game feels unfinished without me forking out more money.

This is why it's now sat on a shelf and will never come back out, unlike Fable 2 which I still have the odd run around in (even though they're trying to do the same by introducing the travelling salesman and aquanaught where you have to buy the DLC to do their quests).

So in short - as the article says, there's much worse examples of badly done dlc if you need a bandwagon to jump on, I don't mind Valve trying to make a few extra quid on things people still seems to spend money on (like horse armour) - it also appears it helps keep the price down, first day £30 PC (£23 pre-ordered) & £40 PS3/Xbox is a lot less than the £45, £50 or even £60 asked for the latest FPS which is no where near as good a game (but that's a different argument).

 

[Jjkaybomb]

Secondly, the attitude of "if you haven't played it, you can't have an opinion" is one of the most dangerous ones out there right now, and at the root of a lot of problems. Even if I was talking about the game content, as opposed to reception, the opinion of someone who didn't buy the game should be pretty well valued for the reasons on why they didn't buy it, as opposed to attacked.

You're allowed to have an opinion and weigh in on the issue, but having only indirect experience with what you are talking about does degrade your arguments somewhat. You're complaining about something you've only experienced by second hand knowledge, this is only a controversy you've heard about. Its the difference between someone staring out a window and wondering what the weather's like, and somebody who's standing outside in the weather and getting a feel for it. Sure, you can guess, and you're definitely intelligent about it. But if you talk to somebody who's actually out there, they have the right to correct you, because they have much more accurate information.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Shamus gets it 100% right. And the idiots in here are starting to unpretty the place, shame.

Perhaps when Valve releases the modding tools and starts releasing their customary massive free maps, levels, and other extra content via Steam, the idiots will take a stand back and say, "oohhhh.... hats aren't DLC! They're just hats." Yeah, I'm sure you'd prefer it if Valve charged you for genuine content. No. You wouldn't. Valve did fine by this.

and i dare everyone in here to tell me they did not crack up in laughter over the manual override of the wall.

Mmm, sorry. I only cracked up (like cracked up, dying from laughter-style laughter) at "if the laws of physics no longer apply in the future, god help you."

But I had seen the first scene from PAX videos so, eh.

 

[thedeathscythe]

Very well written. I have agreed on all your points on DLC, although I think that to some extent, it should be allowed to give you maybe unique weapons that other players need the DLC to choose. The only example I have is Socom. In Socom: Confrontation, if you have the DLC, you can fill your load out with new weapons, but if you don't have the DLC, you can still play with everybody, you just can't choose those weapons. If you kill someone, you can pickup the weapon however. The weapons are all balanced, I don't even use many of the new weapons in fact. I think it's an addition that is fair, because it does not add over powered weapons, while at the same time not segregating people who have the DLC and people who don't (like map packs on Call of Duty do). That's just my little difference there, I don't know if any other games do that in a way like Socom does, but that's just my...exception to one of your rules.

All in all, very good article, I hope that at least 1 of those Portal 2 haters sees this and realizes how awesome Valve is.

 

[Traun]

The point is that, as Shamus says, Portal 2 handles DLC the best I've seen - it's basically like a "donate" function; a paint job or extra animation for a couple of bucks, and only if you go out of your way to find them. Compare that to your list. Now ask yourself why the one game that gets it right deserves all this hate compared to all those other day one DLC titles that lock away quests, characters etc etc.

It doesn't, that's the whole point of the article. Many people ARE up against Portal 2 for no good reason. Shamus isn't defending DLC, he's defending a game that's being targeted for no good reason, and you seem to have missed that point with your post here.

But this ISN'T about Portal 2, at least not the anti-DLC outcry. Sure, you buy an extra skin now, but how long before every non-vital skin costs money, how long before every secondary animation costs money? It doesn't matter if you do it right or wrong, the problem is that you're doing it.

 

[sheah1]

That ending was utter word sex.

 

[Koroviev]

While I do agree that Portal 2 offers an example of a lesser evil with respect to launch-day DLC, I cannot say that I particularly like the tone of this article. Name-calling isn't an especially professional method of discrediting the opposition. It honestly makes the opposing argument seem like a straw man.

 

[mcnally86]

People are not idiots to dissent against valve on this decision. Their company is going in a direction (I'm looking at hat fortress with its economy made of trading mass amounts of in game ear buds and keys) that people are worried about. If we don't want this trend to continue we must fight back: give negative reviews, wright valve letters, clog forums, stop buying digital enhancements, and hurt their bottom line. Then they might go back to rolling these things into their game.

Remember how cool counter strike was when we learned we could upload our own custom sprays? Well why let us upload a skin for the tiny flag on the robot antennas in portal? Because buying all the flags would get valve some money. And letting you color on your bot would not.

No we are not idiots. Some are trolls, sure. Trolls go both ways though. But some of use want a game to not feel like a sleazy sales pitch. I payed good money to get in I was offended that then inside they were holding a hand out for more. Micro transact or charge 60$ not both.

 

[Skratt]

Any dissenters are idiots? Ok I object to portal 2 DLC. I am not an idiot. I gave it a chance. But the fact is that the "sale items" were the things that you could unlock with achievements. And I mean these peaches were waved in your face once you clicked on "robotic enrichment." That means they suckered people into buying the only free things they could have. Gotta sell them first before people know how easy they are to get.
Now here is an idea that combines things. Have the sale items. Sell all the gestures you want. Then maybe you get free skins for any potato sack or valve games you own. Buy portal get 5 fun bucks for the store. Or better yet have Coke or Pepsi corp. pay the companies make and give out free coke or Pepsi skins cause I sure as hell would like to play as a vending machine. Maybe a free Cadbury Egg skin. That would be delicious, free, and drive up their stock prices.

You object to something that is basically free but you have the freedom to buy it if you want? Yeah, you are sounding much like that which you claim not to be. Fuck man, did you even read the article?

*sigh*

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Experienced Points: DLC for Dummies

Shamus skewers the Portal 2 DLC backlash

Read Full Article

You can hate Portal 2 if you like. Hate it for being only about 50% longer than the average shooter. Hate it for having fantastical pseudo-science setting instead of a gritty, ultra-brown motif. Hate it for being playful and witty instead of macho and serious. Hate it for having puzzles instead of murder as its core mechanic. Hate it because protagonist Chell is just a boring analytical Latina woman instead of an awesome white Ex-Navy SEAL dude with short brown hair. Hate it because it allows console and PC gamers to play together instead of maintaining the firm platform segregation that's made the gaming community such a joy these last few decades. Hate it for experimenting with new ideas instead of sticking to what already works and has been done elsewhere. Hate it because you're an indignant little rage-bot and you know deep down you don't deserve something this good. But don't hate Portal 2 for actually moving against the prevailing DLC trends. If you're on a crusade against DLC, start with EA. Start with BioWare. Start with Blizzard.

I was with you until this paragraph. Hate it for being longer than shooters? Hate it for not being brown? Hate it for being playful? Hate it if you are racist? Hate it because we don't "deserve" anything so good from our god-like Valve masters? That they would feel pity on the lowly muck covered mass of sub-human garbage we all know deep in our hearts we truly are.

Like I said I agree they are dumb, but you you Shamus, are much worse. Be a critic. Do your job. Critique the game's actual flaws and give the stupid people real issues to discuss. Don't stand on a soapbox and yell how much smarter you are then everyone else. I am saddened by this paragraph. I can understand why you wrote it, I cannot understand why you published it.

Way to completely miss both the sarcasm and the point.

 

[Allan53]

Huh, this is an interesting read. I haven't played the game yet (waiting for it to drop in price. Although I'm sure it's great, I don't feel the need to play it right now, and really can't justify spending $110 on a video game at this point) but it's interesting to see that people are raging on it with regard to something that (to me) isn't really all that important.

 

[Dusk17]

I disagree with the part about dlc should be multi player only. Some of my favorite game experiences were from single player dlc. Also some people (or at least me) HATE multi player.
(Also is it just me or are the captchas getting harder to read)

 

[SchoonerCaptain]

Sing it Shamus!

This is one of the best articles I have read on The Escapist, and I loved that slant that you've frankly had it with some of these people, as frankly, I feel the same.

I agree that this is the best use of DLC I have ever seen. Valve tested how much people love microtransactions for cosmetic gear in TF2, and the haters were there as well. They always struck me as people who were ultimately jealous that they didn't have the disposable income to spend on something like hats.

So boohoo all you want haters; you didn't pay for this cosmetic content - it's not on the disc. Also, despite your vitrol, we all know you'll be first in line to buy the next Valve product, so stop your crying.

 

[Warrior Irme]

Decent article up until your last paragraph. Then you start insulting people that have real grievances against Portal 2, instead of just those against the dlc. The game is really short still for a full priced release. First time through was just over 4 hours for me, barely. I then spent 2.5 hours doing coop with a friend. And after that I have done about 6 farming all the achieves. It's a good game, but I shouldn't be left with absolutely nothing left to do in the game in the same week as release. Yes 12.5 hours is a nice amount of time for a game, but I normally expect that to be the time for the single/coop time, and then have the achievement farming add more time.

 

[Tharwen]

Any dissenters are idiots?

I was about to raise that point too, but I realised he didn't say 'any dissenters'. He just said he would have to deal with idiots.

Still, I don't see anything wrong with this DLC. They've been doing exactly the same thing in TF2 for ages now, and I thought everyone had got that out of their systems.

 

[Longsight]

While the column did tail off a little in the readability stakes, on this issue I'm going to fully support Shamus' stance, and even his attitude towards it, because he pretty much nailed it. Well, him and Jim Sterling:

Apparently, years of free content, and treating consumers with respect, and actually understanding gamers has the effect of creating some of the most demanding, infantile, greedy little fuckers on the face of the earth.

Dear god yes, with twinkly cuboid bells on. You know, I'm fairly sure I've paid well less than £100 for Valve games in my entire lifetime. For that money, I have spent 984 hours playing them - in the last year alone. For every single pound sterling I have given to Valve, they have given me a good ten hours of playtime, just in the last twelve months. To my mind, they are entitled to day one DLC, if it is really even worth calling it that. They could charge me by the hour to play their games from now on and it would still work out a better deal than I've got from any other developer out there.

That aside, there are a couple reasons I am genuinely unconcerned by the existence of micro-transaction based hats and clothes in Portal 2. One is the fact that they add nothing - zero - to the game itself, nor does their initial absence take anything away from it. Like many others, I didn't even know the shop was there until I clicked the mysterious button, after finishing my first playthrough (7.1 hours, if we're counting, and I've played a lot of Portal in my time).

Another is that I spend an awful lot of time playing real Valve DLC, and it's all been free. Every single bit. I've played all the new L4D and L4D2 campaigns, I've played all the new and community maps in TF2, I've played Alien Swarm to bits. All of these genuinely expanded upon and improved existing games (or in the case of Alien Swarm, was a goddamn game), and all of them came with an affordably round price tag. When I consider that there are big-time developers out there that gleefully charge the price of half a full game for 'map packs', and that people gleefully pay for them without getting their panties in a twist, it seems a little petty to complain about an unintrusive and totally cosmetic DLC store from a developer that always gives away the good stuff for free. The "how long before they start charging for everything" and "I don't like the direction the company is going in" arguments really, really rile me up, because they show that actually, you're completely ignoring the company's entire history towards supporting its fans, and choosing to only pick up on what they've chosen to make money off (optional and inconsequential cosmetics) rather than what they've given away for free (games).

But what really, really annoys me about the sort of people that do complain about this sort of stuff - and it's entirely right to call them idiots, because that is what they are - is that, as Shamus intimated right at the end, they do not know what it is they're taking a stand over. There exists today a certain breed of PC gamer who simply cannot help but vomit bituminous bile at the mere mention of a few choice phrases - 'console port', 'day one DLC' and 'less freedom' being the choice few we're hearing most at the moment. These are not people who are making informed decisions before commenting on a product. They are not informed gamers who have made a personal judgement on a game they've played. They are not the bearers of constructive criticism. They are idiots, who are downvoting a good game that most of them claim to have enjoyed (as if to try to maintain a semblance of integrity, and it's this that really gives the game away) simply because they've latched onto la mot du jour or enjoy the fleeting sense of empowerment that comes with railing against the establishment, and that most of us get over by about 17.

Granted, Portal 2 has paid optional extras from release. However, nothing about the words "day" "one" and "DLC" makes the concept intrinsically bad; it's a concept that is frowned upon because of how it's been handled in the past. It's a concept that is disliked because gamers do not enjoy paying for a game, only to find out that the most interesting quests / missions / people are trapped behind a paywall, and have been there since before the game was released. This is understandably a state of affairs worth complaining about, but it is simply not the case with Portal 2. DLC on day one is not in itself a bad thing; DLC that makes every single player feel that they need to buy it to get the full game experience is. Anyone that dislikes the idea of paying for customisations for co-op robots can gleefully overlook the fact that the Portal 2 store even exists, because the game goes on just as happily with it.

Let us be clear; the Portal 2 store is not day one DLC in the traditional sense. It offers silly, cosmetic customisation options that have absolutely no bearing on the game whatsoever. There is a word for this, and it's been around a lot longer than video games: merchandising. When you complain about the Robot Enrichment centre you're complaining about nothing more than merchandising. You're complaining about the band t-shirt you're wearing, and the film posters on your wall.

The console port argument is a whole new ballgame, but let us summarise: Portal 2 is not a console port. It was developed simultaneously for multiple platforms, but, unlike other games that have received that unfortunate moniker, really shines on the PC. Crank the graphics up to full and have a go. My gaming PC is nothing particularly special but it certainly out-specs an Xbox 360, and yet I had to turn the effects detail down because it struggled at times to keep up. It'll need a further couple of upgrades before it's genuinely capable of displaying the lighting and fluid effects in all their spectacular glory while maintaining a playable framerate. I can only assume that the same effects had to be subtly toned down to make them playable on either console, so it's the consoles that are suffering for trying to run a PC port, not the other way around. Even the loading screens - bane of so many a complainer - have far more to do with the perhaps archaic architecture of the Source engine (closed and statically lightmapped BSP maps, a concept that has changed little since the original Doom) than any console-targeted design decision. On modern, speedy PCs they appear for less than five seconds, and they're specifically there to draw attention to the way the Aperture Labs changed during the 50s, 60s and 70s, and onwards into the future. They're a deliberate design decision that has nothing to do with consolitis. Just because we're used to a certain kind of loading screen in certain well-known console games doesn't mean console games invented them, or that they're never seen in PC games. Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas both had very similar and deliberately-themed loading screens whenever a new part of the world was loaded, but the screaming hordes remained silent.

Taking this point to a more general level: anyone who screams 'console port' like they're pointing out a genetic abomination has no idea what they're talking about, and precious little clue about game development. It hurts to see them spew their bile all over the nice, clean internets. If you're going to argue a point, work out what it is first. If you don't like day one DLC, what is it you don't like about it? What have console ports done to enrage you so? If these abstract concepts have actually ruined your game, then rage away, and may the gods heed your call. If the only thing that has actually offended you is that some games have handled them poorly, then take a deep breath, think really hard about what you're about to type and then, once you've realised you're being an idiot, go back and enjoy the game you were happily about to downvote for a reason that doesn't exist.

 

[Ickorus]

Hear hear!

Well said, agreed on every point.