DLC for Dummies

[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.

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.

Wait what when did we start talking about the kind of dlc in games that locks vital content? We are talking about the kind of DLC that has no effect on the actual gameplay. Your metaphor doesn't work because you are talking about something vital to the house, whereas we were talking about something that doesn't change the game in any significant way. A house that doesn't have a toilet is significantly different from a house that does have a toilet, but two houses that are identical with the exception of a different colored laundry room are not significantly different.
EDIT: podunk said it way better than I could.

 

[timeadept]

I never said that... i must have managed to write my response inside a quote again...

It was at the end of your post, so I got confused. Fixed my previous post now, though.

Yeah, like i said, i managed to write my response inside a quote (and then promptly fixed it). No harm done, but thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Therumancer]

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.


.

Well, we'll see where the ratings even out as. I think the first "portal" was more of a phenomena than "Dragon Age" was, and as such I think the rating has become a user warzone of sorts, because there are doubtlessly people flocking to the metaratings just to give it perfect reviews to offset the alleged "bombing".

I don't doubt that plenty of people did have the day 1 DLC figure into their rating, and were quite blunt about it (and let's be honest, when something annoys you, it's wise to make that clear). However arguements about how the ratings were too fast for people to finish the game are rather ridiculous, after all you can tell pretty quick if you like a game or not, and if you don't like a game your not going to finish it. The guy who plays for an hour or two and decides "wow, I really don't like this, and am not going to finish it, this sucks" has every right to rate the game accordingly, that is after all the whole point of the ratings.

It will be interesting to see how things turn out in the end, but right now I do tend to think that as shocking as it is, Valve has finally made a game that isn't being well received.

 

[The Random One]

Be angry more often, Shamus. I will like you when you're angry.

And yeah, my reaction to Portal 2's scorebombers was at first LOLWAT and then just LOL.

 

[timeadept]

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

Are you suggesting that there should be new levels available for DLC on day 1 instead of something meaningless like hats and skins?

And are you honestly complaining that these extra skins that don't change the gameplay at all have to be paid for to use?

You've got it completely ass backwards. Shamus was arguing that DLC that doesn't change the gameplay is the type that doesn't matter.

Besides "so small that it should have just been given out" is completely subjective. You can't make money by giving stuff out (not directly) in any case. And again, this stuff has a whopping 0 affect on gameplay. You are no worse off for not buying it.

 

[Therumancer]

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.

I see it as less a sense of entitlement as much as being upset over being gouged. While the bathroom example someone using is rather extreme, it's sort of like how if someone was to stop putting erasers on #2 pencils so you had to buy erasers seperatly. The eraser has always been there, but they decided to seperate the two permanantly specifically because they realized they could make more money by doing so.

It might not be a god given entitlement where I believe it was declared from on high that all pencils have erasers on them, but I'm still going to be pissed that someone is trying to gouge money out of me.

See, if it was a sense of entitlement you'd be seeing more insanity in people claiming that the goverment should get involved because alternative outfits in video games are a fundemental human right or something ridiculous. Right now it's mostly just people being POed because they are breaking things off of the products in order to make more money.

Honestly, I don't think gamers would really care that much if the gaming industry wasn't a multi-billion dollar industry at the moment. These guys are making huge profits, and yet they aren't content with them, and want to nickel and dime people for even more money.

If the gaming industry was actually in trouble as a whole, and we were on the verge of seeing a situation where there were going to be no games at all if they didn't find some way of making more money to literally keep their heads above water. A situation where instead of the occasional company going under (like in any business) and a lot of big boys looking down from giant castles made out of money, we had guys like Bobby Kotick living out of the back of their cars instead of flying private jets, and similar things, then if they were to start charging for these extra skins and such I think you'd see a differant attitude.

I look towards some of the crazy things people have done to support small press PnP RPG companies occasionally as an example. Or in the arena of video games, how there are people who will buy the absolute dumbest DLC for JRPGs put out by companies like NISA because they operate on such a small scale at least within the US.

The thing is that even with the DLC there is a matter of context. I mean if NISA wants to support "Hyperdimension Neptunia" with $100 of potential DLC, people care less about that due to the nature of the company and it's releases (as they understand it) than say Valve which is making masssive swag off of things like STEAM. I mean does Valve really need to charge you for a couple of extra outfits? That's greed at it's most base. The same thing can be said about companies like EA, or Activision/Blizzard...

I won't get into a huge run down on it, but the point is that I think when it comes to rage over DLC, there is usually some context to it. Some companies wind up getting a lot more flak for it than others based on their situation and how it's perceived. "Horse Armor" being noteworthy for example because it was unleashed by Bethesda, in connection to what was a hugely successful game, making tons of money.

 

[Arcticflame]

It will be interesting to see how things turn out in the end, but right now I do tend to think that as shocking as it is, Valve has finally made a game that isn't being well received.

But that's the thing, a user review of 8 as it currently is, is well received.

The user review scores are currently saying portal 2 is a solid game. The disparity between critics and users, purely according to metacritic user score, is now that critics believe the game is a masterpiece, and users believe the game is a decent one.

 

[Warhobo]

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.


.

Well, we'll see where the ratings even out as. I think the first "portal" was more of a phenomena than "Dragon Age" was, and as such I think the rating has become a user warzone of sorts, because there are doubtlessly people flocking to the metaratings just to give it perfect reviews to offset the alleged "bombing".

I don't doubt that plenty of people did have the day 1 DLC figure into their rating, and were quite blunt about it (and let's be honest, when something annoys you, it's wise to make that clear). However arguements about how the ratings were too fast for people to finish the game are rather ridiculous, after all you can tell pretty quick if you like a game or not, and if you don't like a game your not going to finish it. The guy who plays for an hour or two and decides "wow, I really don't like this, and am not going to finish it, this sucks" has every right to rate the game accordingly, that is after all the whole point of the ratings.

It will be interesting to see how things turn out in the end, but right now I do tend to think that as shocking as it is, Valve has finally made a game that isn't being well received.

I don't know from where you are getting this "poorly recieved" idea; Metacritic lists all critic responses as positive and the overwhelming majority of user reviews positive. In addition, all sources from which I have heard have praised the game. Have you considered the possibility you stumbled upon a vocal minority and mistook it for the majority?

 

[Arcticflame]

Well, we'll see where the ratings even out as. I think the first "portal" was more of a phenomena than "Dragon Age" was, and as such I think the rating has become a user warzone of sorts, because there are doubtlessly people flocking to the metaratings just to give it perfect reviews to offset the alleged "bombing".

I don't doubt that plenty of people did have the day 1 DLC figure into their rating, and were quite blunt about it (and let's be honest, when something annoys you, it's wise to make that clear). However arguements about how the ratings were too fast for people to finish the game are rather ridiculous, after all you can tell pretty quick if you like a game or not, and if you don't like a game your not going to finish it. The guy who plays for an hour or two and decides "wow, I really don't like this, and am not going to finish it, this sucks" has every right to rate the game accordingly, that is after all the whole point of the ratings.

It will be interesting to see how things turn out in the end, but right now I do tend to think that as shocking as it is, Valve has finally made a game that isn't being well received.

Yes, but even if people flocking to portal 2 to offset the bombing, why is that it didn't happen to dragon age 2? Bioware has a nearly as large PC fan brigade as valve, and yet it didn't help them a bit.
I think it's because portal 2's bombers really didn't have a leg to stand on, where as biowares the angry people really were a huge section of biowares fan base, so many of them hated it.

The fact is, the game is universally applauded now, the vast majority of user reviews and professional reviews love the game. Shamus isn't pointing his thread at that, he is pointing it at people who bombed the game in a raid, and flamed in comments about the dlc.

 

[AsurasFinest]

Now to be fair, I have not played "Portal 2".

This sentence takes away any credit away from the previous wall of text paragraph. If you haven't played it, then why bother writing an essay on the subject? Stick to the DLC argument not the game itself.

Two things:

For starters your wrong, since we're talking about how the game is received overall, and metacritic ratings and such at this point. What any one person thinks is more or less irrelevent in the scope of that point. I was pointing out that even if it's a wonderful game, it's getting bombed, and that takes a LOT of people, far more than can be mustered by trolls who go after just about any game out there.


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.

Right now a big problem with the gaming industry is that when someone buys a game, and doesn't like it, the industry already has their money. With digital downloads, or purchused PC software, you can't decide "gee, this sucks" and bring it back, your stuck with it. It's quite a racket when you get down to it, and probably screws dissatistifed, legitimate purchusers worse than the pirates they are trying to crack down on screw the companies. Even with console games, they can be tricky to return. While Gamestop tends to be decent with people returning new games for full value within a couple of days, there are retail places that will give people major issues with returning any kind of opened software, including console games. Some game shops also force you to return any opened product as a "trade in" meaning you lose half or more of the value of the game just to try it and see if you like it.

Like it or not, with the price of games, the economy, and the leap of faith required, playing a game should hardly be a requirement to have an opinion. Especially seeing as by buying a game, even if you hate it, the industry gets to consider you a satisfied customer and you get put into that entire "we've sold X number of copies" speil.

To be honest even with the pre-order incentives, I'm rapidly becoming far less willing to go right out and buy games on release, since it's becoming a bigger and bigger racket.

In the case of this discussion though, understand that I have said nothing bad about Portal 2 itself, other than it's not being well received. The user ratings speak for themselves. The point is that all this talk about "metabombing" and how it's all over "trolls upset about day #1 DLC" are just excuses from those not wanting to face reality. Deserved or not, and loved by some or not, "Portal 2" is not being received as well as it has sold.

I think the refusal to face reality is largely because by acknowleging that what happened here and with "Dragon Age 2", it means the industry is going to have to change some things it really doesn't want to, since it will mean cutting down on their profit margins in one way or another. It's better for a lot of bean counters to try and deny reality and say "it's those blasted trolls" rather than accept that "damn, I guess our audience is smarter and has better standards than we assumed". Give it time though, I suspect this is a trend and it will get hammered into skulls eventually.... or it will contribute to an industry collapse.

I think it should be taken as a warning sign when two beloved companies like this get hammered the same way, right in a row. If a darling like Valve can suffer in the user ratings like that, it's important to walk away from it with the right lesson learned.

Listen, the game is good
The metacritic bombing is being done by retards, who think that somehow this DLC will ruin the game
I didn't even know it had any until after I finished the game for christs sake, its hidden at the bottom of the screen and i thought it was a fricking logo.
Suprise, suprise, I had unlocked a piece of DLC just by getting a acheievement and apparentlly all of them can be unlocked like that.
Its a similar system to TF2, if you want the stuff now you can get them, but you can get them by working hard at it and trust me someof the acheivements are incredibly difficult to complete

It does not hamper the game in any way, shape or form
But you have no experience with the game, you can't possibly make the judgement on whether it affects the quality, because guess what? You haven't played the game!
Neither have the users on metacritics website

Biowares issues were clear as day, but this?
This came as a result of that, making people think that user bombs would give them some sort of power over companies and so instead of using it on games which deserve it, they do it on anything because it can't cure cancer
Thats all this is, its just retarded idiots, thinking they have power and trying to throw it around with half assed excuses

 

[WarCorrespondent]

I took around 7 hours to finish it, 6 if you take away the hour I spent when I forgot a certain game mechanic that my brain wasn't prepared to learn about after the previous 5 hours of work. (for the record, it was using the excursion tube to touch the roof, then fall into a portal with launches at 45 degrees for maximum distance speed)

I don't usually read Experienced Points, but I'm glad you pointed out that there are people hating on the most innocent DLC and microtransaction system ever. TF2 does this, and it kinda sucks because its hard to get the weapon you want for free, then buy it, and find it for free *facepalm*. Or that other thing where you're at your wits end, finally treat yourself to a pyro hat, then find a BETTER hat that only works on, you guessed it, the Pyro.

But Portal 2's stuff is cosmetic, and cosmetic ONLY. There is a market for people who want a little more out of their game, and developers have been playing to that market for yonks (see ANY special edition of a game that cost an extra $20 but gets you a poster of the main character or something). WHY are you upset with Portal 2 now?!

It's as Shamus says, because you're entitled little shits.

 

[Podunk]

The following is a short list of items I would buy and not expect a free hat for:

Spoiler

Cantaloupe
Wallet
Game Controller
Book
Pony
Desk
Painting
Wedding Ring
Rendering Software
Pants
Dinner
Laptop
Potato
Jet Ski
Lighter Fluid
Video Game (Really.)

 

[sirtommygunn]

I see it as less a sense of entitlement as much as being upset over being gouged. While the bathroom example someone using is rather extreme, it's sort of like how if someone was to stop putting erasers on #2 pencils so you had to buy erasers seperatly. The eraser has always been there, but they decided to seperate the two permanantly specifically because they realized they could make more money by doing so.

It might not be a god given entitlement where I believe it was declared from on high that all pencils have erasers on them, but I'm still going to be pissed that someone is trying to gouge money out of me.

We seem to be discussing different kinds of DLC at this point, because an eraser is something that is useful to a pencil. Demanding a different costume for free is like demanding that the pencil can change its color at any time.

See, if it was a sense of entitlement you'd be seeing more insanity in people claiming that the goverment should get involved because alternative outfits in video games are a fundemental human right or something ridiculous. Right now it's mostly just people being POed because they are breaking things off of the products in order to make more money.

But you aren't losing anything in the product that is important to the game, you are just losing the ability to make your avatar look different, which has no actual effect on the gameplay.

Honestly, I don't think gamers would really care that much if the gaming industry wasn't a multi-billion dollar industry at the moment. These guys are making huge profits, and yet they aren't content with them, and want to nickel and dime people for even more money.

What's wrong with a company giving players the option to buy extra things for their game? As stated before, the things being offered add nothing of value to the game beyond a paint job, so you really aren't missing out on any content if you choose not to buy it.

If the gaming industry was actually in trouble as a whole, and we were on the verge of seeing a situation where there were going to be no games at all if they didn't find some way of making more money to literally keep their heads above water. A situation where instead of the occasional company going under (like in any business) and a lot of big boys looking down from giant castles made out of money, we had guys like Bobby Kotick living out of the back of their cars instead of flying private jets, and similar things, then if they were to start charging for these extra skins and such I think you'd see a differant attitude.

The entire goal of a company is to make money, so I don't see why they need to be in dire straits before they're allowed to pursue that goal.

I look towards some of the crazy things people have done to support small press PnP RPG companies occasionally as an example. Or in the arena of video games, how there are people who will buy the absolute dumbest DLC for JRPGs put out by companies like NISA because they operate on such a small scale at least within the US.

The thing is that even with the DLC there is a matter of context. I mean if NISA wants to support "Hyperdimension Neptunia" with $100 of potential DLC, people care less about that due to the nature of the company and it's releases (as they understand it) than say Valve which is making masssive swag off of things like STEAM. I mean does Valve really need to charge you for a couple of extra outfits? That's greed at it's most base. The same thing can be said about companies like EA, or Activision/Blizzard...

Again, a company's goal is to make money and if they're doing it in a totally nonintrusive way (which they are, in my opinion) then they shouldn't be criticized based on that fact alone.

(Last post for the night, so I won't be able to respond again in a timely manner.)

 

[vivster]

i wonder where the DLC for Assassin Creed 2(or brotherhood...can't remember) falls there
it was in no stretch integral to the game but it still felt like something was missing since the DLC was already integrated in the menu

 

[timeadept]

Spoiler: -snip-

Now to be fair, I have not played "Portal 2".

This sentence takes away any credit away from the previous wall of text paragraph. If you haven't played it, then why bother writing an essay on the subject? Stick to the DLC argument not the game itself.

Two things:

For starters your wrong, since we're talking about how the game is received overall, and metacritic ratings and such at this point. What any one person thinks is more or less irrelevent in the scope of that point. I was pointing out that even if it's a wonderful game, it's getting bombed, and that takes a LOT of people, far more than can be mustered by trolls who go after just about any game out there.


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.

Right now a big problem with the gaming industry is that when someone buys a game, and doesn't like it, the industry already has their money. With digital downloads, or purchused PC software, you can't decide "gee, this sucks" and bring it back, your stuck with it. It's quite a racket when you get down to it, and probably screws dissatistifed, legitimate purchusers worse than the pirates they are trying to crack down on screw the companies. Even with console games, they can be tricky to return. While Gamestop tends to be decent with people returning new games for full value within a couple of days, there are retail places that will give people major issues with returning any kind of opened software, including console games. Some game shops also force you to return any opened product as a "trade in" meaning you lose half or more of the value of the game just to try it and see if you like it.

Like it or not, with the price of games, the economy, and the leap of faith required, playing a game should hardly be a requirement to have an opinion. Especially seeing as by buying a game, even if you hate it, the industry gets to consider you a satisfied customer and you get put into that entire "we've sold X number of copies" speil.

To be honest even with the pre-order incentives, I'm rapidly becoming far less willing to go right out and buy games on release, since it's becoming a bigger and bigger racket.

In the case of this discussion though, understand that I have said nothing bad about Portal 2 itself, other than it's not being well received. The user ratings speak for themselves. The point is that all this talk about "metabombing" and how it's all over "trolls upset about day #1 DLC" are just excuses from those not wanting to face reality. Deserved or not, and loved by some or not, "Portal 2" is not being received as well as it has sold.

I think the refusal to face reality is largely because by acknowleging that what happened here and with "Dragon Age 2", it means the industry is going to have to change some things it really doesn't want to, since it will mean cutting down on their profit margins in one way or another. It's better for a lot of bean counters to try and deny reality and say "it's those blasted trolls" rather than accept that "damn, I guess our audience is smarter and has better standards than we assumed". Give it time though, I suspect this is a trend and it will get hammered into skulls eventually.... or it will contribute to an industry collapse.

I think it should be taken as a warning sign when two beloved companies like this get hammered the same way, right in a row. If a darling like Valve can suffer in the user ratings like that, it's important to walk away from it with the right lesson learned.

I just want to respond to a section of this, I agree that it is our duty as consumers to judge before we buy, but DO NOT WRITE A REVIEW about a game that you have not played. People read those to get a better idea about what they're buying. You are not credible to comment on the quality of a product that you not try. It's well within your right to not buy a game that you think you won't like. But again people read reviews because they're expecting informed opinions. If you give them speculation or distorted claims then you are doing them a disservice. You have no right to rate the quality of a product as a whole based on a single feature. I never bought Assassin's Creed 2 because of what i heard about the DRM, but i would never consider trying to give it a rating based on that (but i would not recommended it to my friends whom i could explain to exactly why i wouldn't get it).

 

[A Distant Star]

I dont have a current gen console or a computer powerful enough to handle Portal 2, but what I do own is a PSP, and the game that is seeing the most play on that PSP is Final Fantasy Dissidia 012, and from your description of how the DLC works on Portal 2, is exactly the same as how DLC works on FFD012. And you know what, that's awesome, this is the ideal way to handle DLC in my mind. I pay an extra dollar and I get 5 new songs to fight to, or a new sexier costume for Tifa? Thats awesome. It doesnt change any of the core mechanics of the game in any way shape or form, it doesnt give me any advantage over my friends in multi-player, its just 1 buck for some extra musical or aesthetic verity. It's a way for Square to bring in some revenue even if the games bought used, it doesnt punish me for buying it new like Project 10$ did. I do not understand why any one would have a problem with this.

 

[Azdron]

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.

 

[Wolfram23]

All I can say is: Fuckin right, Shamus. Fuckin right.

 

[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.

Wait what when did we start talking about the kind of dlc in games that locks vital content? We are talking about the kind of DLC that has no effect on the actual gameplay. Your metaphor doesn't work because you are talking about something vital to the house, whereas we were talking about something that doesn't change the game in any significant way. A house that doesn't have a toilet is significantly different from a house that does have a toilet, but two houses that are identical with the exception of a different colored laundry room are not significantly different.

There are already games out there where DLC locks out vital content, so the metaphor stands, as far as Portal 2 is concerned, Gabe Newell is testing the waters, you may see nothing wrong with cosmetic items, but you can rest assured it won't stop there.

We're getting less and less value out of games, and the trend is now to make gamers pay for stuff that used to be included in the cost of the game, free DLC was never free, you'd already paid for it, it was simply delivered after release. People have every right to be disappointed when they see diminishing returns.

Paid for content does make sense given the right situation, I understand the store in TF2, the game is 3 years old, was bundled with Portal and Episode 2 and has been updated regularly with new content. Sticking one in Portal 2 at launch?, it just feels like Valve are screaming out "you haven't paid enough, we want more".