DLC for Dummies

[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".

 

[Kyprioth]

I stopped reading this when I came across the word "idiot." Name-calling makes your post seem extremely unprofessional. I could go to a hundred different sites on the internet and get content like this; I come to the Escapist because I thought its contributors were a bit more mature than this article has demonstrated.

Just because I disagree with you, does not make me an idiot. It doesn't make you an idiot either.

 

[MercurySteam]

Why is Day 1 DLC such an issue? It probably wouldn't be there at all if you weren't receiving it for free on launch. Yes the Portal 2 store is stupid, but why do people have to go to so much trouble to complain about it if it's easier to simply ignore it? Perhaps deep down, they actually want all that DLC, but complain when they can't get it for free or not at all.

 

[czarevilsam]

I'll agree with complaining about the people complaining about the Portal 2 DLC, but I'm really not sure why Seamus thinks that beating on Blizzard's DLC is any better than beating on Valve's. The only DLC for Blizzard games that I am aware of are cosmetic items - minipets and a new skin for a mount. Nothing game changing - just like Portal 2 DLC. Please correct me if I'm somehow missing something.

 

[pokepuke]

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.

Not really. To both those things.

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.

Wait, so which is it, buying it or playing it? "Didn't buy it" would be a totally different kind of thing. Not playing it is absolutely an important piece to be missing.

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.

That is not a problem. That is your problem. So we don't have our own time machines, big whoop. You'd request your money back for seeing a crappy movie? Only douchebags with feelings of entitlement do that. It very much transfers over to video games as well. There is no guarantee of making you like the game so that the store can keep your money. You buy the game so that you can have the game. That is the way shit works.

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.

Yes. I agree with your fabricated exposition about why things are the way they are. Your reading into the events totally makes sense and must be right because you seem to really know what you're talking about. Tell me, is there a class or something you've taken that I can try to get into to become as knowledgeable as yourself about Internet goings-on?

I think the refusal to face reality is largely because by acknowleging that what happened here and with "Dragon Age 2",

You're just insulting Portal 2 by lumping it together with that other game. Although, I haven't played Dragon Age 2, so I guess you can ignore that remark on the grounds of it being baseless conjecture.

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.

You're right. And that lesson? "Don't listen to random driveling idiots online."

 

[Retsam19]

I stopped reading this when I came across the word "idiot." Name-calling makes your post seem extremely unprofessional. I could go to a hundred different sites on the internet and get content like this; I come to the Escapist because I thought its contributors were a bit more mature than this article has demonstrated.

Just because I disagree with you, does not make me an idiot. It doesn't make you an idiot either.

Several people have posted this sentiment, that Shamus is being rude here, but I disagree. I think when people behave like this, they're being idiots. I don't care if the poster has a Ph.D, if they're going to behave so childishly then they're being an idiot. I don't think it's "name-calling" to call someone out for a bad decision.



And, if no one has posted this, I was looking through the negative reviews on Metacritic and I found one that began like this:

Valve disappointed on this one. The game is good, but not groundbreaking in anyway. It costs about $30-35 too much money and should have stayed in Orange Box 2.

Let's play a little game here. If a game is "good" but "not groundbreaking", what sort of score do you give it? I think a 6 is probably a little low, I could see a 7 or even an 8, I mean, that's a B or a C, on an alphabetic scale.

The score from this reviewer: 0. That's right, a "good" game gets a 0. This isn't about "You don't agree with me, you're an idiot", this is "You're not even agreeing with yourself".

 

[Canadish]

It's a shame, because its great to see gamers standing up to the plague of DLC.
But for some reason this lot chose Portal 2, which as Shamus said, is relatively innocent, making anyone else who stands against the DLC business model look just as daft.

 

[Samsont]

Sturgeon's law is the unfortunate explanation here. When he said 90% of everything is crap, he wasn't excluding sentient beings. Fortunately the fact that things tend to group with others of their kind protects us here. In this case it is within the dregs of our gene pool known as 4chan. Every now and again they escape their biological wasteland to pollute some other aspect of the Internet. Their opinion is irrelevant, as it is the sad product of a twisted, and malfunctioning mind. Do not care for them, care only for those who may be unwittingly influenced by their verbal vomit. Those who find the overall score, and do not see the twisted machinations that produced it. For while they are yet weak, they are still not without hope. For we can teach them critical thinking. They may learn that REVIEW SCORES DON'T F*@&ING MATTER. Rather more important is the analysis behind the score.

This is why I hate metacritic... people care only for the numbers.

Amen to that.

 

[Titan Buttons]

I completely agree with you about this article.

2. Ideally, DLC should be multiplayer-only.

Remember the mess a couple of weeks ago when the servers went down at BioWare and suddenly all non-pirates were locked out of their game of Dragon Age? That sucked. Servers going down should not impact a single-player game. Being unable to reach the internet should not impact a single-player game.

But if the DLC is part of the multiplayer portion of the game, no problem. If you can't reach the servers then you can't play anyway.

Hell even in Team Fortress 2 when the serves wouldn't connect with Steam it still allowed everyone to play it, just without all the gear they had gotten.

 

[PortalThinker113]

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.

*points to critics' score of 95* That's not well-recieved?
I understand the point you're trying to make, and it's a very good, legitimate one, but I wouldn't apply it to this particular game. Using your Dragon Age 2 example, let's comapre the two games. Dragon Age started low and STAYED low; at time of writing this post, it sits at a user score of 4.5. Portal 2, on the other hand, started low, sure, but then slowly climbed up as people who actually played through the entire game finished it and came on to make their statements. It is currently sitting at an 8.0 user score, clearly indicating that the intital wave of trolls with their 0 scores was a minority that quickly settled down. If there really was a fundamental problem with the game that users wanted to make a statement about, the score would have stayed low, similar to the statement made by the Dragon Age 2 reviews. As it stands, the users seem to like it quite a bit- an 8 is nothing to take lightly. Your point about the blind fanboys stands, but there are clearly enough people liking and enjoying the game enough that the metascore has jumped almost 4 whole points since Day 1- blind fanboyism is not enough to attribute for such a jump. People must really enjoy it. Regarding your statement that it is not well recieved- do critics simply not count, then, too? Anyone who says that all critics are "bought off" by the game industry is simply spouting nonsense. A lot of game critics are people who have jobs that don't pay fantastically, but do what they do because they are people just like you and me who love what they do and want to share news and opinions about video games and what they can do for society. Critics don't just LIKE Portal 2- they ADORE it. A 95 is nearly impossible for a game to get, so for a game to be so univerally adored, it clearly had to have been positively recieved in some way. Moving away from Metacritic, we find more positive user reception- the GameInformer.com User Score is currently sitting at a 9.5, and the IGN readers' score is a 9.2. Yet more positive reception- only Metacritc got the bombing. I smell trolls!

Also, if you take some time to actually read the user reviews, the zero reviews make points that are simply fundamentally wrong. Some gripes are legitimate, and I can understand that not everyone would like the game, but some statements, like the idea that it is a rushed console port, are simply inaccurate and are misinformation that might decieve someone into having the wrong opinion of a game that deserves to be played and experienced. Other points might be debatable, so here are my positions. Regarding the DLC issue, I honestly didn't even notice that the DLC existed in the game until this firestorm happened. The DLC does not affect your experience whatsoever, and you can play through the entire game without ever even noticing that it's there, let alone being prompted to buy it. Make a stand about DLC if you want, but Portal 2 is not the game to do it on. Pick something else.

Regarding the length, I find it very hard to believe that the game can be finished in 4-5 hours- When I hit the 4.5 hour mark, I was nowhere near done with the game (I had been on Chapter 6 and hadn't played a second of co-op yet). Plus, to those who say that it's only 5 hours- would you rather have a stuffed, overpadded experience drawn out to 20 hours with a bunch of filler that wastes time? One of the things I love about this game is that so far, there has not been one second of wasted time. Everything in the game is honed to a point of perfection and is there for a purpose or as part of the immersive world that the game creates- nothing is wasted or superficial. I'd take 5 hours of perfection over 20 hours of boring padding any day of the week, thank you.

I know not all of this pertains to your post, but the point that I'm trying to make to you is that Portal 2 is not a game that deserves the Metabashing that it's getting in any way. Since you haven't tried the game yet, I don't want your opinion of it to be colored by this, as what I have played is an absolutely fantastic experience that I would recommend to almost anyone. Don't let firestorms like this color your opinion of a game- Pick it up for yourself and get the experience firsthand. I know I'm just one humble person in the vast seas of the interwebs, but in my personal opinion, Portal 2 is great, great, GREAT game and deserves to be remembered for the wonderful experience that it brings to players, not some stupid DLC-based firestorming.

 

[mythgraven]

You know...

There is ONE thing worse than complaining about meaningless DLC, or indeed, any DLC at all.

Making ones self seem like a "too hip for the room", well informed, yet still douchey champion for all the "easy" issues in gaming.

I cant honestly claim to have read all of Shamus's articles, and I certaintly have enjoyed my fair share of his comics, but it just seems to be that you spend too much time emulating Blizzard's own Greg Street, aka Ghostcrawler. (And Im sure the comparison rankles you to no end.)

Both of you stand on soap boxes, appearing on the surface to be some sort of kindly father figure, berating us silly gamers for our latest silly antics.

But in reality, you are both simply using your positions to quote platitudes on easy subjects, and of course, berate gamers.

People bitching about nonsensical things, like DLC? That took what... 30 minutes to write? "Empowering" female gamers? How many times have I read THAT old chestnut? Gamers in general retreading and retreading all the unfortunate aspects of human nature online? Is this the best you can do?

Try tackling something truly difficult, Id say. Choose a topic that isnt guarenteed to generate a ton of "You tell em, Bro!!" replies. Tackle a subject that people DONT like to talk about, or flame about like the day is long, Shamus. The articles you choose to do your pieces on feel mostly cheap, because theyre all safe, while being guarenteed flame-bait, and ANYONE could write that. Youre better then that, arent you?

Because if you arent, that would make you just another complainining attention seeker... like all those youve previously lambasted.


Whiskey Echo!!
Mythgraven

 

[snave]

I agree entirely basically, although I'd argue the DLC is a tad rough around the edges on its implimentation. You see, it's sitting there in the menu as something that I simply cannot understand and lacks any documentation to assist me with understanding. For example, I beat the single player and seemed to unlock a little beanie or something. Does that mean customers are paying to receive in-game unlocks, or was it a random gift for beating the game once, or are the rest of the items store exclusive?

If I, say, wanted Hypothetical Hat #32 I'd be disappointed if I paid for it to find out later it could be unlocked in game, not so much from the loss of real funds, but because I'd feel I cheated myself out of a game reward. I really doubt I'll pay for any such items anyway, and I agree that this is the best non-intrusive DLC type seen to date, but it's imperfect. I'm not sure if from a strictly design point of view a player should be left with such questions.

Regardless, it's refreshing to read a post on this topic with logical reasoning.

 

[SemiHumanTarget]

I think DLC in general (with the exception of full games, or cheap and/or free expansions) are basically ruining gaming.

I know other people have put this forward already, but the problem is that companies are now charging for all kinds of things that used to be free in games. Not only that, but being able to just buy a new costume or what-have-you for your character removes the sense of excitement and/or achievement that gaining such an item through gameplay, as was previously the case, would bestow. We see this happening in this most recent controversy, where Valve is charging for trinkets, costumes and extras. Game altering or not, in the past, even these extras were something you had to achieve, and they were a bragging right in themselves. And we also see it in the pre-orders and special additions that come with exclusive weapons or items.

And even in the case of fairly significant DLC, like an expansion, the price for these is rapidly inflating as the size and scope of the actual content shrinks. I think the most notorious example was the first MW2 map pack, which cost an unholy 15$ and, more nefariously, set the absolute bottom line for all similar DLC to come.

Now companies are more and more frequently turning to this nickel-and-dime tactic of charging for trinkets and small chunks of extra content, because the numbers prove it's very lucrative. But it's without a doubt changing, for the worse, the way games are played. And do we as gamers really deserve that?