DLC for Dummies

[timeadept]

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.

I wouldn't care if they made every emote and skin cost money. Honestly, i haven't bought any DLC, i was content with the basic stuff, hell i wouldn't even miss lousing the emotes that are free now.

Are you trying to pin a slippery slope argument onto this? If Valve has any DLC in their games at all then they'll move on to bigger stuff that matters? That's one of the

Spoiler: logical fallacies

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

you have there.

I honestly can't see what's (inherently) wrong with DLC in games.

 

[ZiggyE]

and its obvious there will be a Portal 3.

No it isn't.

 

[AldeBaron]

The only time Valve ever pissed me off was with the Mann Co. Store.

Yes, some of that money goes to the creators, but $5 hats are insane whatever way you swing it. But the really infuriating thing was that you could just straight up buy weapon sets and get them before anyone else had the chance to get them in game.

Then there were the crates where you paid money to have a chance of getting a random item (which could also be another crate).

But cream on top the shit sundae was when specific hats became part of weapon sets. Some of the bonuses of those sets had no negatives. If you were using the same weapons with no hat, you could lose an extra 10% max health. Meanwhile the assholes who can afford to pay $50 for a fake hat and its matching guns can tromp around with that fancy buff on Day 1. Now, to their credit, Valve has removed the hat limitations from all future weapon sets, although that hasn't applied retroactively to the first 5.

Why do I bring this up? Because that's what screwed up in-game stores look like. It's not purely cosmetic hats and emotes, it's being able to buy an advantage, no matter how slight. Last I checked, there's no hat in Portal 2 that lets me shoot 3 portals or something.

 

[timeadept]

Valve is one of the worst offenders when it comes to DLC.

That's with Team Fortress 2. About Portal 2, I agree with Shamus entirely.

What's wrong with TF2 DLC? I never paid for any of it and i still feel that the game is fun and balanced. Or is there something i'm missing?

 

[Yureina]

Great article. It made me giggle a few times. Suffice to say... I completely agree with what is being said here. The uproar about Portal 2 is really pathetic. I don't recall these people being around to yell at games with Day 1 DLC's that Bioware/EA have been pulling for a while now. Some silly multiplayer gimmicks in Portal 2, much like hats in TF2, don't affect the game experience at all, but a missing questline that adds alot to the plot... that is the real crime.

Portal 2 is yummy. Haters are... well they smell.

 

[ZiggyE]

Valve is one of the worst offenders when it comes to DLC.

That's with Team Fortress 2. About Portal 2, I agree with Shamus entirely.

What's wrong with TF2 DLC? I never paid for any of it and i still feel that the game is fun and balanced. Or is there something i'm missing?

This guy said it better than I could have.

The only time Valve ever pissed me off was with the Mann Co. Store.

Yes, some of that money goes to the creators, but $5 hats are insane whatever way you swing it. But the really infuriating thing was that you could just straight up buy weapon sets and get them before anyone else had the chance to get them in game.

Then there were the crates where you paid money to have a chance of getting a random item (which could also be another crate).

But cream on top the shit sundae was when specific hats became part of weapon sets. Some of the bonuses of those sets had no negatives. If you were using the same weapons with no hat, you could lose an extra 10% max health. Meanwhile the assholes who can afford to pay $50 for a fake hat and its matching guns can tromp around with that fancy buff on Day 1. Now, to their credit, Valve has removed the hat limitations from all future weapon sets, although that hasn't applied retroactively to the first 5.

Why do I bring this up? Because that's what screwed up in-game stores look like. It's not purely cosmetic hats and emotes, it's being able to buy an advantage, no matter how slight. Last I checked, there's no hat in Portal 2 that lets me shoot 3 portals or something.

Not to mention the fact that there a certain hats and weapons that the only way you can get is by buying or preordering a completely different game that you probably would have had no interest in to begin with.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Unprofessional and uncool Shamus, calling people idiots for not agreeing with you is pretty much what your accusing them of. I like your column, but I think you went overboard here.

I'll also be honest in saying that I disagree with you about how big a deal the DLC for "Portal 2" is. There is a reason for that, and one you didn't seem to consider. The problem is that nowadays the game industry is trying to charge extra money for the kinds of things that have traditionally been included in games as part of the overall product.

This is the part I took offense to the most in this reply. Aside from the fanboy comment. Are you saying League of Legends (a F2P game) should not be allowed to charge for skins? And how long have alternate costumes been a part of a game, where you don't have to jump through stupid hoops to get them?

Evidently you can unlock them by getting achievements, but can also pay money for them with Portal 2. It's just like with the Be a Pro Mode in the NHL games, you go online and pay real money to buy the boost equipment, or you can man the hell up and earn it by meeting certain requirements and playing the game well.

And Shamus is right, out of all the DLC this is what we as a gaming community have evidently decided we won't stand for? Not Bioware withholding basic quests in both Dragon Age and Mass Effect games? Not $15 map packs that provide 1/50th of the content at 1/4th of the price? The gaming community has decided to be outraged about this and take a stand? This is our line the sand?

I'm ashamed to be a part of such a community right now.

 

[Therumancer]

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.

 

[timeadept]

The only time Valve ever pissed me off was with the Mann Co. Store.

Yes, some of that money goes to the creators, but $5 hats are insane whatever way you swing it. But the really infuriating thing was that you could just straight up buy weapon sets and get them before anyone else had the chance to get them in game.

Then there were the crates where you paid money to have a chance of getting a random item (which could also be another crate).

But cream on top the shit sundae was when specific hats became part of weapon sets. Some of the bonuses of those sets had no negatives. If you were using the same weapons with no hat, you could lose an extra 10% max health. Meanwhile the assholes who can afford to pay $50 for a fake hat and its matching guns can tromp around with that fancy buff on Day 1. Now, to their credit, Valve has removed the hat limitations from all future weapon sets, although that hasn't applied retroactively to the first 5.

Why do I bring this up? Because that's what screwed up in-game stores look like. It's not purely cosmetic hats and emotes, it's being able to buy an advantage, no matter how slight. Last I checked, there's no hat in Portal 2 that lets me shoot 3 portals or something.

So don't buy $5 hats then, simple as that. Let people buy $5 hats if they think they're worth it,same goes for the crates i have a couple just sitting there that will never be opened. But you're saying that this shop shouldn't even exist because you would never use it?

I can almost see your argument about buying weapons holding weight. Except that the new weapons simply re-balance the game giving advantages but at a price (not monetary), allowing the class to preform a slightly different (or completely different) role. I still feel that the game is balanced despite the new weapons for each class. I honestly use the standard weapons just as often as i use newer ones. And in the end, you can still find all the weapons by playing the game, or trade your doubles for it.

 

[Flipao]

Valve is one of the worst offenders when it comes to DLC.

That's with Team Fortress 2. About Portal 2, I agree with Shamus entirely.

What's wrong with TF2 DLC? I never paid for any of it and i still feel that the game is fun and balanced. Or is there something i'm missing?

The problem is the prices are insanely high, for the price of a TF2 hat you can go to the Android or Apple app stores and buy 4-5 pretty decent games. Angry Birds and Dungeon Defenders may not be AAA titles, but they can keep you entertained for days, unlike a shitty hat that costs 5 times as much.

Pricing of PC software is a joke.

 

[Therumancer]

Unprofessional and uncool Shamus, calling people idiots for not agreeing with you is pretty much what your accusing them of. I like your column, but I think you went overboard here.

I'll also be honest in saying that I disagree with you about how big a deal the DLC for "Portal 2" is. There is a reason for that, and one you didn't seem to consider. The problem is that nowadays the game industry is trying to charge extra money for the kinds of things that have traditionally been included in games as part of the overall product.

This is the part I took offense to the most in this reply. Aside from the fanboy comment. Are you saying League of Legends (a F2P game) should not be allowed to charge for skins? And how long have alternate costumes been a part of a game, where you don't have to jump through stupid hoops to get them?

Evidently you can unlock them by getting achievements, but can also pay money for them with Portal 2. It's just like with the Be a Pro Mode in the NHL games, you go online and pay real money to buy the boost equipment, or you can man the hell up and earn it by meeting certain requirements and playing the game well.

And Shamus is right, out of all the DLC this is what we as a gaming community have evidently decided we won't stand for? Not Bioware withholding basic quests in both Dragon Age and Mass Effect games? Not $15 map packs that provide 1/50th of the content at 1/4th of the price? The gaming community has decided to be outraged about this and take a stand? This is our line the sand?

I'm ashamed to be a part of such a community right now.

Ultimatly, noone should be charging for things like "skins" if you want my opinion. I think DLC should only be used for signfigant additions after the fact to an otherwise complete game, rather than pretty much anything that could be considered an "extra" being stripped away and charged for seperatly. This is my opinion though, and has little to do with this debate overall.

Your correct that there is plenty of trivial content out there, and ALL of it garners complaints. Horse Armor, Map Packs, Skins and Costumes, Color Palette extensions. The whole racket has been causing a lot of people to get upset for a while, and it's hard to really say if any of this garbage is more worthy than any other.

However, I don't think there has really been a "line in the sand" drawn here. If there was I supposed it would be as good a place as any other, I mean anyplace it would be drawn would result in the same criticism. I think in the final equasion the DLC might have upset some people, but I don't think it was responsible for the ratings "Portal 2" has been getting, at most it, and resulting disappointment with Valve, was a contributing factor.

See, to really damage the meta-rating of a product you have to see a *LOT* of traffic comparitively thinking. Most of the "usual suspects" that head out to crash ratings have been out there for many years now, and are expected. They already figure into most ratings, or are weeded out from the ratings rather easily. Boards like /V/ might be vocal, and do some annoying things, but they aren't going to be able to massively influance professionally gathered statistics when people have been onto them this long. To see what your looking at here, and with "Dragon Age 2" (another game where the same thing happened) you have to have a lot of dissatisfied customers. I think in the end a lot of people were simply not content with the way "Portal 2" turned out after they purchused it, enough to tank the rating to the extent we're looking at.

You talk about Bioware's trivial DLC and such, but let's not forget, they got hammered too with their last release. The differance is that it seems like a lot of people are trying to use people being upset with Valve's DLC as a way to to say that's what it's all about, rather than problems with the game itself causing customer dissatisfaction.

 

[LCP]

The game's good.

Day 1 DLC, stuff so small that should just be given out, makes valve look greedy.

It's not even DLC it's just taunts and other stupid things.

Add expansion packs after, not in the release. At least try to make it seem you're making new stuff, unlike just dictatorially locking stuff out on the day of release

 

[Frostbite3789]

Ultimatly, noone should be charging for things like "skins" if you want my opinion. I think DLC should only be used for signfigant additions after the fact to an otherwise complete game, rather than pretty much anything that could be considered an "extra" being stripped away and charged for seperatly. This is my opinion though, and has little to do with this debate overall.

Your correct that there is plenty of trivial content out there, and ALL of it garners complaints. Horse Armor, Map Packs, Skins and Costumes, Color Palette extensions. The whole racket has been causing a lot of people to get upset for a while, and it's hard to really say if any of this garbage is more worthy than any other.

However, I don't think there has really been a "line in the sand" drawn here. If there was I supposed it would be as good a place as any other, I mean anyplace it would be drawn would result in the same criticism. I think in the final equasion the DLC might have upset some people, but I don't think it was responsible for the ratings "Portal 2" has been getting, at most it, and resulting disappointment with Valve, was a contributing factor.

See, to really damage the meta-rating of a product you have to see a *LOT* of traffic comparitively thinking. Most of the "usual suspects" that head out to crash ratings have been out there for many years now, and are expected. They already figure into most ratings, or are weeded out from the ratings rather easily. Boards like /V/ might be vocal, and do some annoying things, but they aren't going to be able to massively influance professionally gathered statistics when people have been onto them this long. To see what your looking at here, and with "Dragon Age 2" (another game where the same thing happened) you have to have a lot of dissatisfied customers. I think in the end a lot of people were simply not content with the way "Portal 2" turned out after they purchused it, enough to tank the rating to the extent we're looking at.

You talk about Bioware's trivial DLC and such, but let's not forget, they got hammered too with their last release. The differance is that it seems like a lot of people are trying to use people being upset with Valve's DLC as a way to to say that's what it's all about, rather than problems with the game itself causing customer dissatisfaction.

I think we just fundamentally disagree here. With LoL, a F2P game, where money is only brought in from skins/champs. Although champs can be purchased with a currency earned just by playing the game. All other content, updates, maps, everything else is completely free. I'm perfectly ok with this. Everything core to the game can either be earned by playing, or earned by doing nothing at all.

Only the things that aren't required and are for people that want to drop money on the game cost money. I've dropped money on some RP for skins, just because I want to support Riot. I love that game.

And yeah, DA2 was bombed, but not for DLC. For streamlining and simplifying. People aren't hating it for the quality, they are saying specifically in their reviews (the ones that actually write anything) that they're zero-ing for the DLC. They aren't complaining about the gameplay or the story. You know, the things that really matter. Costumes, they can't even see on themselves because it's a first person came really honest to god lowers their opinion of the game that much. Or they're just being dickheads.

I really hope it's the second. Because if it's the first, I have nothing to do other than sigh and shake my head.

(Random aside: The reCAPTCHA thing definitely does not always use...letters. It's kind of odd and off-putting.)

 

[sirtommygunn]

The problem is that nowadays the game industry is trying to charge extra money for the kinds of things that have traditionally been included in games as part of the overall product. Alternate costumes have been a standby for games for a very long time, one of the incentives to replay games a second time with the new look, or something part of the experience revolved around as you tried to figure out how to unlock them.

A lot of people talk about an attitude of entitlement among gamers when it comes to these kidns of things, but I don't think that's really the case.

I didn't read the rest, but it seems kind of odd that you claim you can't see a sense of entitlement while demanding companies give you stuff simply because other games did it.

 

[HeroKing89]

This is silly. This entire article was equally silly but commited the sin of ignorance. People DID complain about the DLC, people complain when a company does DLC wrong. Where are you living that you don't see the backlash as soon as it is announced?

 

[timeadept]

Valve is one of the worst offenders when it comes to DLC.

That's with Team Fortress 2. About Portal 2, I agree with Shamus entirely.

What's wrong with TF2 DLC? I never paid for any of it and i still feel that the game is fun and balanced. Or is there something i'm missing?

This guy said it better than I could have.

The only time Valve ever pissed me off was with the Mann Co. Store.

Yes, some of that money goes to the creators, but $5 hats are insane whatever way you swing it. But the really infuriating thing was that you could just straight up buy weapon sets and get them before anyone else had the chance to get them in game.

Then there were the crates where you paid money to have a chance of getting a random item (which could also be another crate).

But cream on top the shit sundae was when specific hats became part of weapon sets. Some of the bonuses of those sets had no negatives. If you were using the same weapons with no hat, you could lose an extra 10% max health. Meanwhile the assholes who can afford to pay $50 for a fake hat and its matching guns can tromp around with that fancy buff on Day 1. Now, to their credit, Valve has removed the hat limitations from all future weapon sets, although that hasn't applied retroactively to the first 5.

Why do I bring this up? Because that's what screwed up in-game stores look like. It's not purely cosmetic hats and emotes, it's being able to buy an advantage, no matter how slight. Last I checked, there's no hat in Portal 2 that lets me shoot 3 portals or something.

Not to mention the fact that there a certain hats and weapons that the only way you can get is by buying or preordering a completely different game that you probably would have had no interest in to begin with.

Ah, just responded to him actually. The advantages come at a price, and i usually find that price to be fair. I still use the standard weapons and find them to be extremely useful. The new weapons simply allow a class to preform a different role. I can understand being annoyed about needing a hat for an entire set to get a bonus, but it only applies to new sets right? They're not releasing hats that give bonuses for older weapons right? You can be just as competitive if you want to use a completely different set.

When i look at it your way i can see how it's stupid, but honestly it's not that bad. There are worse offenders than TF2 and the game still functions fine, just don't use that set until you find that hat, there are plenty of other just as plausible ways to use a class. I think you might be able to craft them as well (but i could be wrong).

*edit* managed to write my response inside a quote /facepalm

 

[Podunk]

The game's good.

Day 1 DLC, stuff so small that should just be given out, makes valve look greedy.

It's not even DLC it's just taunts and other stupid things.

Add expansion packs after, not in the release. At least try to make it seem you're making new stuff, unlike just dictatorially locking stuff out on the day of release

So you are saying
A: You are entitled to free hats because you say so.

B: Hats are stupid anyways.

and
C: They should release hats/gestures weeks or months after the game, so that most people, especially the ones that care the most, have already beaten the Co-op and have no reason to buy the optional items anymore? It's not Team Fortress. There's not a lot of replay value in a puzzle game. Holding off on the DLC would probably be the sign of the worst business sense for any video game company, ever.

CAPTCHA: ofmentr LnYt

 

[Flipao]

The problem is that nowadays the game industry is trying to charge extra money for the kinds of things that have traditionally been included in games as part of the overall product. Alternate costumes have been a standby for games for a very long time, one of the incentives to replay games a second time with the new look, or something part of the experience revolved around as you tried to figure out how to unlock them.

A lot of people talk about an attitude of entitlement among gamers when it comes to these kidns of things, but I don't think that's really the case.

I didn't read the rest, but it seems kind of odd that you claim you can't see a sense of entitlement while demanding companies give you stuff simply because other games did it.

If somebody sold me a house and when I moved in the toilet had a sign asking me to pay an extra 20% to unlock it I'd be pretty upset. It shouldn't be different for a game.

 

[timeadept]

Valve is one of the worst offenders when it comes to DLC.

That's with Team Fortress 2. About Portal 2, I agree with Shamus entirely.

What's wrong with TF2 DLC? I never paid for any of it and i still feel that the game is fun and balanced. Or is there something i'm missing?

The problem is the prices are insanely high, for the price of a TF2 hat you can go to the Android or Apple app stores and buy 4-5 pretty decent games. Angry Birds and Dungeon Defenders may not be AAA titles, but they can keep you entertained for days, unlike a shitty hat that costs 5 times as much.

Pricing of PC software is a joke.

So go do that then. If no one buys from the store then they stop supporting it. Obviously some people find it to be a good deal. No one is forcing you to buy a $5 hat. It's almost as if you're trying to argue that just because you refuse to use the store that it shouldn't exist at all.

 

[Arcticflame]

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.

There isn't though, it was metabombed, if you followed the user scores like I did, as soon as the game was unlocked for user reviewing, it went straight to a user score of 3-5, fluctuating around wildly. It stayed like this before people could possible have finished the game, and people who certainly had never played the game were jumping on the bandwagon with the reviews, as none of it made any sense, page on page of people prattling on about day one dlc when they clearly had no idea what was going on.

Yesterday it's score was 7.2, now it's score is 7.9, this is because the actual people who have played and finished the game are finishing around now, reviewing it, and bringing the score up to what people actually think, I think if you take out the day one troll bombs, the user score would be around a 9.

If you note, the user score for Dragon age 2 started low, and has stayed low
There was certainly some bombing going on there, but there were legitimate grievances for it. As much as I liked Dragon Age 2, I certainly see the flaws that the lowest common denominator are whining about on that one.

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.

Yes, it upset people to the point that they lost rationality, they saw day one DLC, and immediatly went OMG HORSE ARMOUR AGAIN without looking at it for what it actually was, useless cosmetics.

I don't see that as a way to apologise for their idiocy, if you are stupid enough to make decisions like that without first researching and actually working out what the exact effect is. You are an brainless follower of the tantrum brigade. You are metabombing because you are doing it without proper knowledge of what you are talking about.

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.

I think you very easily can defend it as good. Valve get more money out of people who aren't me. I dont buy this type of DLC, I dont care if I wear a funny hat in a game, if I get one for free that's cool, but I won't purchase it.

But valve get more money out of people who do, and valve are a company I want to have more and more money, and I would love for them to get tooooons of cash as they already do, because they deserve it in my books.
Purely selfishly for me? I don't think it's good, but I similarly don't think it's bad, it's entirely ignorable.

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.

I sure as hell can deny it, people like to buy cosmetic items like that, and they make money out of it. Valve isn't a saint, they saw what people did with hats in TF2 and went wahoo, more money.
I would do the exact same thing with my game, I draw the line at DLC locking you out of the game. Games like league of legends model for DLC is the way to go,cosmetic changes are $ only, gameplay changes can be got either not by money, or by both.
Valve have done this. The DLC changes no gameplay, you purchase it or can ignore it. If the DLC had never existed, nothing would effectively have changed. That is I think more of a teller about how important this DLC is.

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.

I think it did. Every single one of my friends who bought portal 2 (Over 20) have told me they thought it was at least a 90+ game, alf of these are not valve fanboys at all, they play call of duty as their multiplayer game of choice, they prefer xbox usually, etc etc. Only 2-3 have even noticed the DLC, because I think the majority of people, or at least a huge portion haven't even finished singleplayer yet.