Portal 2 - DLC Backlash
- Thread starter StriderShinryu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
grabbed this from my quote in http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.278315-Whats-the-problem-with-day-1-dlc?page=2#10845435
"day 1 dlc means to me that the developer had a completed game and took nonessential bits out to raise the price of the game.
For a weird analogy, look at it this way:
You buy a cheeseburger, everything is there upon you ordering it but then they decide to scrape off the condiments and charge you extra if you want ketchup, mustard etc.. You don't have to have it but it was done already and it's supposed to be part of the product.
... makes sense in my head anyway...
Basically they purposely created an unfinished product to raise profits."
^I'm not saying this is a bad practice, I just think it's rude to tell people the game they just bought is not really complete unless your willing to pay an additional fee.
"day 1 dlc means to me that the developer had a completed game and took nonessential bits out to raise the price of the game.
For a weird analogy, look at it this way:
You buy a cheeseburger, everything is there upon you ordering it but then they decide to scrape off the condiments and charge you extra if you want ketchup, mustard etc.. You don't have to have it but it was done already and it's supposed to be part of the product.
... makes sense in my head anyway...
Basically they purposely created an unfinished product to raise profits."
^I'm not saying this is a bad practice, I just think it's rude to tell people the game they just bought is not really complete unless your willing to pay an additional fee.
You're telling me it took a full development team to come up with some halfassed skins.blaza said:
And the consumer decides by buying or not buying the product. The consumer doesn't get to purchase the product and THEN ***** and moan after the fact. Caveat Emptor.believer258 said:
Why? What makes you entitled to the content simply because it was completed at launch? There is no RULE that says that a developer has to sell you a completed game at launch. Hell, look at what Blizzard is doing with Starcraft 2. You have to buy THREE games to get the story!believer258 said:
And to be honest, Developers do release games completed at launch, because it's good business strategy. DLC is optional side quests, Expansions, or cosmetics. I've yet to see a game where the ending of the game was some extra purchase.
That being said, there is nothing to stop a developer from releasing a game and making you buy the ending separate (so long as there is no consumer fraud). I don't think that would be good for the industry, but there is no rule against it. In that case, the consumer's remedy is to vote with your wallet so to speak and not purchase that game.
I personally don't get the issue here. I'd be riled if it was in any way game content, but cosmetic things like paintjobs for the co-op bots? Nah. It's like that horse armour thing - silly, but some people might like it so why not have the option?
Very silly to get all worked up about it - it's not DLC, it's trivial microtransaction extras.
Then again, maybe enough backlash will dissuade Valve from trying anything heavier next time; they could have been piloting the idea (well, TF2's already done that but...) with potential to upscale to more DLC content in future games. Better to nip it in the bud early maybe
Very silly to get all worked up about it - it's not DLC, it's trivial microtransaction extras.
Then again, maybe enough backlash will dissuade Valve from trying anything heavier next time; they could have been piloting the idea (well, TF2's already done that but...) with potential to upscale to more DLC content in future games. Better to nip it in the bud early maybe
Well in this case they didn't remove anything essential to enjoying the product, just a bunch of cosmetic shit that frankly only big girly-men would care about. It's essentially make-up, expensive make up at that.-Dragmire- said:
I mean what would having extra skins show about you? That you EARNED them by completing challenges? That you CREATED them yourself. No. Just that you flashed your cash and bought them, that you are a stooge with more money that sense.
I wouldn't be surprised if it became deeply unpopular to ever join a Portal 2 co-op lobby with premium skins, for fear of being griefed.
The original purpose of DLC was to provide a way for developers to add content to their game post-release. It benefitted both sides: the fans got more out of their game, and developers got paid. Now, DLC has turned into an exploitative business strategy. Developers make the game, then strip content out so that it can be sold to people who have already made their purchase. Some developers are going so far as to leave content on this disk, then restrict access to it until it is unlocked via microtransaction.Hydro14 said:
I figure they put the DLC in incase anyone didn't have the hats in tf2 yet or didn't have TF2. It is DLC but in this case DLC stands for Down loadable cosmetics. blame the tf2 team not valve if your gonna blame anyone.
the last part of this is very true all gameplay things in TF2 have been free (you just speed up getting them by using money.)Beryl77 said:
It's like a restaurant making you pay for condiments. It's not that big of a deal like some people are making it, but it certainly is low that Valve didn't just put these things in the game to start with. The thing about Day 1 DLC is that it isn't adding additional content to the full retail game, it's taking some content out of the full game and then billing it as additional content.Hydro14 said:
As to the argument "It's $60 worth of DLC"
Well that is skin variation, no one would buy ALL of them! That would be pointless, you'd buy the hats/skins that you like, not every shade of pink, purple and other crap that doesn't appeal to you.
It's like walking into a clothes store:
"WHHHAA! It would cost me $100'000 to buy every item in this shop. That's it, fuck this place, I'm leaving"
Well that is skin variation, no one would buy ALL of them! That would be pointless, you'd buy the hats/skins that you like, not every shade of pink, purple and other crap that doesn't appeal to you.
It's like walking into a clothes store:
"WHHHAA! It would cost me $100'000 to buy every item in this shop. That's it, fuck this place, I'm leaving"
It's day 1 TF2 store. It may not be pretty, but I would hardly call it DLC. In fact, Portal 2 has even less gameplay effecting items on sale than TF2 does.
It's a personal gripe that some people have scared others in to overestimating. It doesn't break the game. Can we move on now?
It's a personal gripe that some people have scared others in to overestimating. It doesn't break the game. Can we move on now?
Ok, so it's possible that the term DLC has been mis-appropriated; while it used to mean 'patch' it now more often than not means 'expansion,' I don't believe that the nature of what is being offered has changed; expansions have always been available (Starcraft Brood War, anyone?) and patches have been available for a long time. (This just re-enforces my initial point that this is not DLC, it's micro-transactions and they are not the same.) I'm guessing though that the same complaints would have been made if an expansion pack had been released on the launch date because 'it should've been in the game.' If a studio works on two games at once and releases them at the same time (stupid idea since they'd be competing with their own product but bear with me a second) is the player who buys one immediately entitled to the other? No, I think we'd all agree that would be silly. So why is it different when the two products are linked by the same intellectual property and one requires the other to be bought in order to be any use? The point I'm making is that the game 'Portal 2' and the hats are separate products.internetzealot1 said:
