DLC for Dummies

Recommended Videos

Danish rage

New member
Sep 26, 2010
373
0
0
Sorry, but by writing this rant like thing Shamus, nice name btw. You kind of come of as an fanatic fanboy youself. You should just leave trools on metacritic to beeing trools on metacritic and go back and write some of that fantastic game jounalism you do so well. Just saying. Keep up the good work mate.
 

slackbheep

New member
Sep 10, 2008
183
0
0
I like Portal 2, and have no complaints about the game off the top of my head. That said I wanted to laugh in the face of the writer by the end of this article. Your argument was far stronger before you fell into the fan boy routine.

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

Porecomesis

New member
Jul 10, 2010
322
0
0
Sgt. Sykes said:
Well, the facts as I see them are:

1) day-one DLCs are stupid
2) asking people to pay for in-game clothing is stupid
3) paying for in-game clothing is stupid
Except you never have to and there is no reason for you to do so. Why are you complaining about something that's completely optional and has absolutely no impact on the game experience?

Sgt. Sykes said:
But from the business standpoint, Valve gets what they deserve for this DLC crap. No reason to spoil a great game like that. None.
How did they spoil it? The DLC? As I, and everyone else has said, there's no reason for you to buy it. Did you buy the DLC and now you feel ripped off, so you're taking typed revenge against Valve, who are never going to find your post or care?
 

viciouspen

New member
Dec 23, 2007
135
0
0
All I can say is I'd rather not have people that stupid playing my Portal games....so....win win for me.
Good riddance you malignant dinks.

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

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

Ed130 The Vanguard

(Insert witty quote here)
Sep 10, 2008
3,777
0
0
"Ok lets look at this DLC that everyone hates and what I need to buy to complete the game"

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

(Plays Portal 2 to the end)

WHY THE FU&K ARE PEOPLE COMPLAINING!!!

THIS GAME IS AWESOME!!!
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
Shamus Young said:
If you're on a crusade against DLC, start with EA. Start with BioWare. Start with Blizzard.
Wait wait. "Start with Blizzard"? The only thing they've offered for any of their games that could be considered DLC is vanity pets and mounts, which fall under the same category as the Portal 2 DLC. What DLC did Blizzard put out that broke one of the rules of what DLC shouldn't do?

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

Klepa

New member
Apr 17, 2009
908
0
0
This reminds me of the TF2 hat whine.

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

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

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

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

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

Jagji56

New member
Oct 29, 2009
24
0
0
Nice article. Tho I don't agree with you in full, I do however get where you?re going.

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

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

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

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

The Jagji
 

Johnmw

New member
Mar 19, 2009
293
0
0
Raiyan 1.0 said:
So a professional writer like Shamus goes out and uses expletives against the subjective reviews of a certain group of consumers who are well within their rights to voice their opinions - gah, poor attempt at trolling on my part, good job Shamus! :D
Not really he just pointed out the massive gaping holes in their entitled little tantrums, as it is his right to and indeed makes a living out of. As he has covered bad DLC, the DLC the ruins games, encourages piracy and milks the customer, I can see why he's a bit annoyed that the DLC gamers take a stand against its the least harmful of the lot. It doesn't speak well for a general understanding of the issue

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

Klepa said:
This reminds me of the TF2 hat whine.

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

Don't buy the stuff! It doesn't affect your gameplay at all, it's cosmetic!.
Hehe nicely put and exactly right!
 

kingmob

New member
Jan 20, 2010
187
0
0
Longsight said:
The problem here is that you're assuming that development can essentially run right up to printing, and that printing can happen a few days before release. While this may be true to an extent with digital delivery such as Steam, with console markets it's most definitely not. Everything has to be checked and certified by external sources, and for quite some time you're beholden to someone else's timeframe.
That was actually not what I was doing, but I can see how you might think that. I was just following Funk's own logic in an effort to debunk it. DLC has to go through the same cycle, except printing the disc, that was kind of my whole point ;)
I felt Funk was suggesting there was a more 'legitimate' reason for 1st day DLC besides just another money maker and there simply isn't.
 

tehroc

New member
Jul 6, 2009
1,292
0
0
Only company that makes good DLC is Rockstar which fails every one of your 4 bullet points. At least the huge publishers give you something worth your dollars, not just skins that we used to get for free off places like fileplanet or by beating the game. So good job Shamus, you are Valve's white knight and maybe you will be rewarded with an advanced copy of their next release.
 

kingmob

New member
Jan 20, 2010
187
0
0
John Funk said:
Please read that post again. A game's disk is often content-locked many months before the game actually ships. And the disk itself starts printing probably a month before ship. That you think otherwise just demonstrates ignorance of the matter at hand.

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

tehroc

New member
Jul 6, 2009
1,292
0
0
Therumancer said:
warfjm said:
Therumancer said:
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.
This guy should be getting his own weekly editorial.
 

Luke5515

New member
Aug 25, 2008
1,197
0
0
I'll be honest, I thought the campaign was a little short, but it was really good so I'll forgive it. I mean really good.
But they've been doing this in tf2 for quite some time. Since the engineer update if memory serves me. No one cared. It's all hats there too, and sure people didn't really like it, but there was nowhere near this much outrage. Just don't buy it, and shut up.
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
3,078
0
0
Johnmw said:
Raiyan 1.0 said:
So a professional writer like Shamus goes out and uses expletives against the subjective reviews of a certain group of consumers who are well within their rights to voice their opinions - gah, poor attempt at trolling on my part, good job Shamus! :D
Not really he just pointed out the massive gaping holes in their entitled little tantrums, as it is his right to and indeed makes a living out of. As he has covered bad DLC, the DLC the ruins games, encourages piracy and milks the customer, I can see why he's a bit annoyed that the DLC gamers take a stand against its the least harmful of the lot. It doesn't speak well for a general understanding of the issue
Good sir, you missed a critical part of my post:

'...poor attempt at trolling on my part...'

And if the smiley indicates anything further, it's that I was kidding.

If I'm to quote Longsite, Valve is a company that has released 2 additional free campaigns for L4D, 3 additional free campaigns for L4D2, about six million free content updates for TF2, a complete free overhaul of everything that was wrong with CS:S, an entirely free game in the shape of Alien Swarm, free copies of Portal on Steam and free PC version of Portal 2 for the PS3 and free engine updates to every single Source game since 2004 to build upon 6 years' worth of technological advancement. They have never, ever charged for any of it, and they've made no suggestion that they ever intend to do so. Do you know what they have charged for? In-game merchandise. And if those in-game merchandises that are not integral to the game experience go to fund all those free stuff even a bit, I don't know what we have to complain about.

Some people don't deserve Valve.

In my opinion, Valve should be very happy with the whole fiasco. The only 'flaw' people are bitching about is not integral to the game itself, so they I guess they pretty much made a flawless game, if you know I mean. ^_-
 

Iscin

Schism Navigator
Sep 8, 2009
49
0
0
For all those who badly rated Portal 2 on metacritic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yytbDZrw1jc
 

Earaldor Xerron

New member
Jan 7, 2011
28
0
0
First of all, I think the user rewievs on Metacritic are as accurate as converting a classic piece presented by a complete orchestra to 2 or 3 different sounds. About every tenth review has anything to do with opjectivity; the others rate the game to either 1-3 or 8-10, based mainly on one thing or maybe not even that, only because the game "sucked"/"owned". Dragon Age II hater flooded the site and wrote terrible reviews about a not so terrible game, COD:BO wasn't that terrible as to deserve a rating of 4.2 either.

Second, while I don't really like the idea of buying cosmetics for money either, as long as it's not a requirement for enjoying the game to it's fullest, I don't care. If there are people who actually want to spend their money on this, then I'm happy for them. Everyone else should be, since if this prooves to be a succesful form of DLC then maybe we can say goodbye to the other forms of it, mentioned in the article. So I must agree with Sheamus almost entirely.
 

Dauntless

New member
Mar 21, 2004
1
0
0
WhiteTigerShiro said:
Shamus Young said:
If you're on a crusade against DLC, start with EA. Start with BioWare. Start with Blizzard.
Wait wait. "Start with Blizzard"? The only thing they've offered for any of their games that could be considered DLC is vanity pets and mounts, which fall under the same category as the Portal 2 DLC. What DLC did Blizzard put out that broke one of the rules of what DLC shouldn't do?

Otherwise I agree with your article, 100%. As I stated on the Portal 2 forum though, if people didn't have the purchasable DLC items to cry about, they'd have found something else to throw a fit over. Some people are simply happy only when they're complaining.
You said everything I wanted to say. I totally agree. Blizzard is doing DLC the right way, and even better. A lot of the income they get from the DLC (vanity pets/mounts) go to charity. How awesome is that?

Also, Sgt. Sykes is, as defined in this article, an idiot. Don't listen to him.