Stolen Pixels: A Hat for Every Head

[leviadragon99]

Mmm, a fair point, just becuase aesthetic microtransactions have worked well for Valve in one game, does not equate their success in another...

 

[The Deadpool]

Things that should already be in the game

It SHOULD? Why SHOULD it be already in the game?

It would have just been in the game, as alternative costumes usually were.

Would it? It would just as likely (more so, looking at Portal 1) just NOT been in the game AT ALL.

I don't see the problem with separating actual content from useless fluff, so those of us who don't want to pay for such stupid crap DON'T HAVE TO.

and the game industry looking for literally every angle they can to make a buck off of people.

To be fair, those who aren't look to make a buck aren't really in business anymore.

But the old model was there you put a minimum amount of fluff to please the people who love that stupid crap and then charge EVERYONE for it.

Valve's current model is that thsoe of us who DON'T care about what our in game avatars look like DON'T PAY A DIME. Those of us who DO care, have a huge and extensive store worth of crap to pick from and the possibility of even more to come. Win/win.

While I can't speak for you, I'll also point out that a lot of the defenses of what Valve is doing is because it's Valve. You'll notice not many people have come running to Capcom's defense over what is pretty much the same exact issue, with them selling recolors and alternate costumes for characters in games like "Street Fighter".

I can't speak for him either, but were I to guess, his lack of comments on Street Fighter IV probably stem from his not playing Street Fighter IV.

It's fine to respecfully disagree with people, but to mock, misrepresent, and call them idiots?

I'm willing to go off on a limb and say it's possible to prove that it's idiotic.

Had this game been released for the SAME PRICE, without any fluff added and without a store NO ONE WOULD HAVE COMPLAINED.

Had this game been released for an extra ten dollars and had a pallet change (not even new skins) NO ONE WOULD HAVE COMPLAINED.

Hell, if your post is to be believed, if they had released the game for 50 bucks WITH the fluff, then charged 20 dollars for the co op campaign, you would have PREFERRED it.

But because Valve had the AUDACITY to charge for stupid, pointless, useless content only the people who WANT said stupid, pointless, useless content everyone is up at arms about it.

Me? I'm just glad I'M not being charged for some damned hats and mustaches.

 

[JonnWood]

It's fine to respecfully disagree with people, but to mock, misrepresent, and call them idiots? I'm sorry I can't really get behind that. What's more, think about how this is going to make you look if you at some point decide "okay, well DLC is going to far here" and people can point a finger at your passionate defense of Valve and ask "well, what makes it less ridiculous for Valve to do, as opposed to this other company?".

That question has been raised, and is being discussed.

The people he's mocking aren't the ones who think DLC is out of control, it's the people who say that it's worthless, yet simultaneously claim it costs too much. Those are mutually opposing viewpoints, and a sign of an entitlist philosophy.

To be honest, I think DLC and microtransactions are out of control, I have for a very long time.

I don't think this is a very good example. If the game is considered a complete, fulfilling experience, why does the value go down in people's eyes if they find out it's more to it they can't have, no matter how optional(as all DLC is)? It's a rhetorical question: they think they deserve the content for free. They don't.

I have no idea on how one would go about articulating a law to regulate it, but even as someone who doesn't want the goverment involved in business any more than absolutly nessicary, I really think digital transactions need to have more standards applied to them, especially when connected to other products.

I disagree. It'd be like regulating those Deluxe Special Ultra Platinum Backflipping Ninja Edition DVDs. Games are an entertainment product, not something to waste a small fortune in taxpayer money legislating. If you think DLC isn't worth it, don't buy it. Write letters. Don't just complain on some forum.

10-15 years ago when digital downloads were just a whisper on the wind, people would have thought what we are seeing now is the height of ridiculous, paranoid technophobia, after all the gaming industry would "never be that greedy". Leave the door open too long, and I can almost guarantee eventually we'll see people angling to not only put games online and supported by microtransactions, but have people pay by the minute or hour like the days of things like Q-Link. It will be worked in gradually if it goes there (or I should say returns there) but guaranteed, unless someone slams on the brakes things are just going to get worse. What seems insane today, is oftentimes the sad reality of tomorrow when it comes to money making schemes.

This is called a "Slippery Slope" fallacy. "Allowing X will eventually lead to Y, and Y is bad, so X should be outlawed."

Heck, people will say "pay by the hour" is dead, but at the same time they thought the same thing about interactive movies, and look at Heavy Rain, their return is heralded as some kind of new and revolutionary thing.

Heavy Rain was incredibly polarizing. Critics liked it, and players either liked it or declared it a glorified Quick-Time Event. There was a lot of discussion on the matter. I'm not sure how you missed it.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

There are two groups of people. "Rich" people with a relatively unlimited supply of disposable income. "Poor" people with a limited supply.

Though the game price is $X the "Rich" people are willing and able to spend $X+$Y on that game. The poor people are only able to spend $X. $Y is called [link src="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_surplus"]consumer surplus[/link].

Capturing the consumer surplus is done through [link src="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_segmentation"]market segmentation[/link] where practically the same product is offered for different prices with the higher priced version receiving amenities not available to the lower priced version.

This is similar to airlines offering coach, business, and first class tickets. All of them give you a ride to the destination. First class offers more room and the ability to get on and off first.

The reason there is a backlash is because poor are resentful of rich people. They hate being reminded that someone has the ability to spend more money even if it on something that has no practical value.


Things like cosmetic DLC let the rich people get to show off how rich they are and the poor people don't like it.

 

[JonnWood]

Things that should already be in the game

It SHOULD? Why SHOULD it be already in the game?

Because they want it.

It would have just been in the game, as alternative costumes usually were.

Would it? It would just as likely (more so, looking at Portal 1) just NOT been in the game AT ALL.

I don't see the problem with separating actual content from useless fluff, so those of us who don't want to pay for such stupid crap DON'T HAVE TO.

and the game industry looking for literally every angle they can to make a buck off of people.

To be fair, those who aren't look to make a buck aren't really in business anymore.

I like how people tend to vilify businesses for trying to make money.

But the old model was there you put a minimum amount of fluff to please the people who love that stupid crap and then charge EVERYONE for it.

Valve's current model is that thsoe of us who DON'T care about what our in game avatars look like DON'T PAY A DIME. Those of us who DO care, have a huge and extensive store worth of crap to pick from and the possibility of even more to come. Win/win.

Hit the nail on the head.

I can't speak for him either, but were I to guess, his lack of comments on Street Fighter IV probably stem from his not playing Street Fighter IV.

From what I've seen on 20sided, Shamus is mostly a PC gamer.

 

[Ris]

I'm willing to bet you'll see that steady stream of new maps pretty soon; in fact I'll be surprised if they don't open it up to community submission somehow, considering Valve's record with community content in the past. While I agree that Portal 2 hats wont be anywhere near as successful as they are in TF2, I wouldn't write them off quite as much as you have here.

 

[Wolfram23]

Those "self entitled" (as the phrase du-jour) whiners need to suck a lemon.

 

[fangedfuzzball]

@ The Deadpool and JohnWood I find that you make some good points and the issue of DLC or not is one that we could have a long and vicious argument over... (wait we are having that right now aren't we). But to me the big issue isn't being addressed.

@Therumancer to be clear I think that you have a kernel of truth in what you say but I'm going to defend the not at all ad-hominem usage of the term 'idiots' here for a second. (This also gets to the heart of *MY* problem with this whole kerfuffle.)

Pejoratives about intelligence have been flying around like crazy in this argument, as in most net 'discussions'. However most if not all of these were words before they were insults. And, this is the important part, it is in fact idiotic to torpedo the reputation and marketability of something that is objectively amazing over something so very very petty and irrelevant as optional digital hats. Portal 2 without the silly little hat store would be amazing, the individual aspects of Portal 2 are on average pretty amazing, the effort and love Valve (and the voice actors) clearly poured into it is rare in my experience (and dare i say Amazing). I won't claim that it has no flaws, I won't go so far as to say it's a 10 (though seeing as how no game has had me spontaneously orgasm though game play no game is), but i will say unequivocably that it is not a 4.7 out of 10. and that kind of petty juvenile sniping is not only idiotic, it's vicious and could drive away future attention to something that is, if not art, a gem in the cesspool of AAA games available these days.

 

[Mute52]

Obviously Valve is planning DLC and whatnot to make people want to get hats more. Possibly even Portal hats to trade to TF2?

 

[illiterate]

Ask yourself if DLC didn't exist, would Valve, Capcom, or other companies doing things like this have tried to ship out and sell this content as a seperate disk based add on? No, they wouldn't have. It would have just been in the game, as alternative costumes usually were.

The point is that people who are upset over this don't like being gouged, and the game industry looking for literally every angle they can to make a buck off of people. Increasingly, anything that can be held back from a game and sold seperatly will be.

Actually a valid point, but you really can't put that genie back in the bottle.

I am not a TF2 player, but the sheer volume of extra content being sold as DLC would certainly not exist if the microtransaction model didn't exist.

I think that over time this will be a good thing -- note that MMOs are going free-to-play and making even more money with microtransactions. I am curious when we'll see someone experiment with this in the AAA realm.

While I can't speak for you, I'll also point out that a lot of the defenses of what Valve is doing is because it's Valve. You'll notice not many people have come running to Capcom's defense over what is pretty much the same exact issue, with them selling recolors and alternate costumes for characters in games like "Street Fighter".

Valve gets more latitude in some quarters because they're Valve. Just as Blizzard gets a pass on late releases because they're Blizzard. To be honest I don't know if I quite feel the same way about Blizzard as I used to, but nothing valve has done really damages their reputation.

The Portal2 ARG encouraged a lot of people to buy the potato sack, but the people who completed the golden potato challenge ended up with a very nice, unannounced prize. So Valve doesn't get the same default assumption of being evil that might extend to other publishers.

It's fine to respecfully disagree with people, but to mock, misrepresent, and call them idiots? I'm sorry I can't really get behind that. What's more, think about how this is going to make you look if you at some point decide "okay, well DLC is going to far here" and people can point a finger at your passionate defense of Valve and ask "well, what makes it less ridiculous for Valve to do, as opposed to this other company?".

I don't think Shamus meant to call everyone on your side of the fence an idiot. Just the idiots. I can't see into another person's heart, but I haven't really seen Shamus show that kind of over-generalization and malice. His comic is intended to be funny, and if he presented all sides of the issue rather than zooming in on this one aspect of the review-bomb crowd, the comic would not be funny. If you want to see a more open discussion of the issue which takes the time to respect the opinions of those involved, see his experienced point column here on the escapist, and the thread over on shamusyoung.com concerning the same. http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=11445

To be honest, I think DLC and microtransactions are out of control, I have for a very long time. I have no idea on how one would go about articulating a law to regulate it, but even as someone who doesn't want the goverment involved in business any more than absolutly nessicary, I really think digital transactions need to have more standards applied to them, especially when connected to other products.

The important thing to remember is that these are totally optional items that are not necessary to fully enjoy a game, which is itself a luxury item.

Regulation is something that one could argue should apply to things like food and shelter, which are necessities. And water and power, which are necessities over which providers will generally have a natural monopoly. Not for silly hats that aren't needed to fully enjoy a game.


Also, Valve needs to sell me a space core, and a turret. Please?? http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.279925-This-Talking-Plush-Portal-Turret-Doesnt-Hate-You

 

[restoshammyman]

While I'm tempted to say "Stout Shako for 2 Refined", I'll hold my tongue.

Valve are walking a very precarious tightrope at the moment between WoW-style drones and DCUO's discoverable styles. Anyone whose ever played Champions Online, The Sims or City of Heroes/Villains knows how important style can be to immersion, especially self-immersion - but paying for it?

It was more viable as, as Shamus says, long-term gaming. (Tell me any WoW player that wouldn't chuck a month's subscription on a TF2 hat for their avatar) Making this a standard policy though? That's dangerous; as it will actually damage immersion.

most of the game is in first person mode. you cant even see the stuff you got on unless you gesture or something.
you might as well pretend you have a hat on. its not like you would notice it aint there.

 

[saito82]

To me the only problem I have with crap like this is I am an older gamer...been gaming since long before DLC was around, or you could say mods were DLC in the day but they were free. So to someone like me I remember older games which use to have crap like that already in the game as an unlockable for doing something special or difficult. Hell back then mappacks were also free addons like with Unreal Tournament. However since the introduction the the DLC format they have found that they can usually charge extra for stuff that use to be free in the old days, and some companies realize that they can event get most idiot consumers to pay for worthless stuff because now a days most consumers have been raised in this DLC culture and don't remember that things use to be different.

But that is just from my point of view and is why I don't purchase DLC unless it fits in my idea of an expansion pack like the old days. And even games that seem to rely heavily on DLC I will just never purchase (and no I don't Pirate them either, I just don't play them at all). Though you know...*shrug*...to each their own, if you want to buy something that most modders can easily add for free then go for it.

 

[The Random One]

GIVE ME FREE HATS OR GIVE ME DEATH

The punchline should have been 'There's no space here for it.'

 

[Hyper-space]

The main gripe i have with Valve's DLC is not that its there, but that they said that they would never use DLCs because apparently all of them are only made to nickel and dime the customer, despite many excellent DLCs having been made. So when they make DLC content, they not only go back on their (frankly arrogant) statements, but they come out with weak-sauce DLCs such as 5$ hats.

Seriously, they could not have fucked this up more.

 

[Alar]

I want a Space Sphere. Right now. Please? Yes. Space, gotta see space...

 

[Therumancer]

It's fine to respecfully disagree with people, but to mock, misrepresent, and call them idiots? I'm sorry I can't really get behind that. What's more, think about how this is going to make you look if you at some point decide "okay, well DLC is going to far here" and people can point a finger at your passionate defense of Valve and ask "well, what makes it less ridiculous for Valve to do, as opposed to this other company?".

That question has been raised, and is being discussed.

The people he's mocking aren't the ones who think DLC is out of control, it's the people who say that it's worthless, yet simultaneously claim it costs too much. Those are mutually opposing viewpoints, and a sign of an entitlist philosophy.

To be honest, I think DLC and microtransactions are out of control, I have for a very long time.

I don't think this is a very good example. If the game is considered a complete, fulfilling experience, why does the value go down in people's eyes if they find out it's more to it they can't have, no matter how optional(as all DLC is)? It's a rhetorical question: they think they deserve the content for free. They don't.

I have no idea on how one would go about articulating a law to regulate it, but even as someone who doesn't want the goverment involved in business any more than absolutly nessicary, I really think digital transactions need to have more standards applied to them, especially when connected to other products.

I disagree. It'd be like regulating those Deluxe Special Ultra Platinum Backflipping Ninja Edition DVDs. Games are an entertainment product, not something to waste a small fortune in taxpayer money legislating. If you think DLC isn't worth it, don't buy it. Write letters. Don't just complain on some forum.

10-15 years ago when digital downloads were just a whisper on the wind, people would have thought what we are seeing now is the height of ridiculous, paranoid technophobia, after all the gaming industry would "never be that greedy". Leave the door open too long, and I can almost guarantee eventually we'll see people angling to not only put games online and supported by microtransactions, but have people pay by the minute or hour like the days of things like Q-Link. It will be worked in gradually if it goes there (or I should say returns there) but guaranteed, unless someone slams on the brakes things are just going to get worse. What seems insane today, is oftentimes the sad reality of tomorrow when it comes to money making schemes.

This is called a "Slippery Slope" fallacy. "Allowing X will eventually lead to Y, and Y is bad, so X should be outlawed."

Heck, people will say "pay by the hour" is dead, but at the same time they thought the same thing about interactive movies, and look at Heavy Rain, their return is heralded as some kind of new and revolutionary thing.

Heavy Rain was incredibly polarizing. Critics liked it, and players either liked it or declared it a glorified Quick-Time Event. There was a lot of discussion on the matter. I'm not sure how you missed it.

As far as "Heavy Rain" goes, I didn't miss it. It's one of those cases where I think the critics were largely being PAID to like it, and those that weren't being paid or stuck by negative opinions were largely being held back until the major sales rush was over and their influance on sales or professional ratings was minimal.

It's sort of like the whole Gerstmann "Kane and Lynch" scandal, like it or not, professional reviews and critics are bought and sold as part of the advertising budget. "Heavy Rain" is the kind of game that the industry wants to make in some quarters, so they are attempting to create the market for it through hype, rather than trying to have it accepted by the market that is already there. If they can present this as the future of gaming, and what everyone is playing, they have a chance of turning that into reality. It's a well known marketing technique.

This has a little to do with the current dicussion about Valve and Portal 2, at least directly, but I do think that right now one of the reasons why we're hearing all this "QQ" about metabombing is that user reviews are becoming notably out of sync with what are purchused reviews/advertising, which looks bad. "Portal 2" being a minor example compared to "Dragon Age 2" but still noteworthy because the point differances were noticed, and it's not something that can be excused by trolling.

As far as the DLC goes, understand something, I am a capitalist, but I believe that it needs to be reasonably balanced. Totally unfettered capitalism leads to a few greedy jerks ruining everything for everyone. That's why there are protections against monopolies, price setting, cartel behavior, and similar things. As time goes on, new angles need to be addressed.

Right now the reason why I say that I think the goverment might want to consider stepping in here is because of the sheer potential gaming possesses. Too many guys who want to make their huge fortunes even bigger can very easily wind up wrecking the industry long before it ever reaches it's potential. To a lot of people involved in the gaming industry, it doesn't matter if the whole thing collapses and a whole area of development is lost, as long as they walk away with a fortune in their pockets when it eventually does. As a result they are going to push, and push, and push, and make every arguement possible to find every single way to wring every penny out of the customer base until these greedy jerks doing it wind up ruining it for everyone.

Understand, I don't like the goverment being involved in business, but I think things like DLC, especially combined with arguements about the nature of intellecual properties and what rights companies have when it comes to digital distribution and the like, represent a huge area for abuse, and if the goverment waits too long to get involved, they will wind up being in a position where they can't do anything against a system that is already so heavily entrenched.

There is more to it than just virtual hats, it's the whole connected sector of business and development, things like this kind of DLC just being one of the more annoying aspects.

See, I guess what it comes down to is that I think you can be a successful businessman without gouging your customers, and looking to wring every dime out of everyone. It's fine to seek a profit, it's fine to want to get rich, but when your already sitting on top of a mountain of money and your sitting there simply trying to see how big you can make that mountain of money when you already have more of it than you can ever spend... well yeah, I have some issues with that. It's a differant type of situation, but I think it's that kind of thing that ruins functioning capitalist systems just like monopolies and cartels.

Like it or not, the bottom line is that if the digital distribution system didn't exist like it does now, content like this that was developed alongside the game, would be part of the game itself, rather than an additional paid download.

I don't think the issue is a case of people REALLY wanting those hats to a crazy degree like in Shamus' cartoon, but more a situation with people being upset about the situation entirely. See, I think people would rather there be no content, as opposed to this kind of additional trivial content. That's what I think "the other side" is missing in this arguement. It's the principle of the entire thing, more than a feeling of entitlement, or a mad lust for something they don't want to pay for.

 

[Therumancer]

There are two groups of people. "Rich" people with a relatively unlimited supply of disposable income. "Poor" people with a limited supply.

Though the game price is $X the "Rich" people are willing and able to spend $X+$Y on that game. The poor people are only able to spend $X. $Y is called [link src="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_surplus"]consumer surplus[/link].

Capturing the consumer surplus is done through [link src="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_segmentation"]market segmentation[/link] where practically the same product is offered for different prices with the higher priced version receiving amenities not available to the lower priced version.

This is similar to airlines offering coach, business, and first class tickets. All of them give you a ride to the destination. First class offers more room and the ability to get on and off first.

The reason there is a backlash is because poor are resentful of rich people. They hate being reminded that someone has the ability to spend more money even if it on something that has no practical value.


Things like cosmetic DLC let the rich people get to show off how rich they are and the poor people don't like it.

Well, there is some truth to what your saying, but I don't think it applies to this arguement in quite that straightforward a fashion.

There is indeed a "class war" involved in gaming, but it's mostly over cash shop games. In general a big part of multiplayer gaming is that within a game all people are equal and it comes down to the abillity of the respective players. Who they are in real life, has no real bearing to their success and failure. Two kids, one rich, and one poor, who both pay the same price of admission are equal in the game, even if one has some serious advantages in real life. This is becoming less true in cash shop games, when a rich kid can buy exps scrolls, buy off death penelties, or load up on special weapons and gear, in addition to his membership fee that gives him a huge advantage over the kid who can't afford to pay that
kind of money to remain competitive. That's a big issue.

There is also an increasing social dynamic, even with cosmetic items, where those who can't afford a fairly unique look, are looked down on. A problem not helped by game designers who will only allow a VERY limited array of Avatar apperances to play off the system and encourage people to pay.

HOWEVER, neither of those things really influance what we're seeing here with Portal 2, because it's not a persistant world game. Yes, it has multi-player, but it doesn't have the same kind of shared world social dynamic. It's not the kind of situation where someone is going to risk a subtle amount of scorn or have trouble finding groups or getting into guilds for having an "off the rack" Avatar which is taken as a sign that they don't view the game seriously enough, or aren't worthy people to a rich kid and their rich friends.

What we're looking at with "Portal 2" is more a matter of principle. The simple fact that Valve decided to embrace this kind of trivial cash grab, and sell content that could easily have been included in the game, especially going by when it was done, as a premium addition. People who complain about it are not doing so because of a feeling of entitlement, or some desperate love of virtual hats, it's because of the trend itself and the ultra-greedy mentality behind it. I don't think a lot of people defending this desician really get that.

See, I think people would have been happier with no trivial content like this at all, than having it being presented as a seperate product.

What's more the "defense" that some of this stuff can be obtained in the game through achievements, actually makes things worse, as it gets into whole issue of economic disparity. Some rich kid can just BUY the benefits of success in these games? That pretty much frags the idea of the games being an equal playing field (at least economically) and such pay offs being something a person gets from gaming abillity and/or dedicated play.

 

[Plurralbles]

they were talking about how they didn't want to use sticky wall paint shooting gun thing to be able to walk on walls because it made users too disoriented- THAT would be worthwhile DLC. This is just five minutes with whatever the fuck they use to model and skin

Fuck them.

Just as Notch has slipped from my confidence, now has valve.

Seriously, why do companies think they can charge or things that take modders five minutes to make?

 

[ThreeKneeNick]

Nobody asked for those hats, but they are there. And now people see them and want them and they can't help themselves about it. And Valve knows this. But hats come at additional cost. People aren't asking that Valve goes out of its way to give them free stuff. The hats will obviously never be free because you have to buy the game. They aren't asking for ponies or stuff. All they want is to buy a game and be done with buying the game.

People may also be worried about the future of DLCs. Other publishers may look at Portal 2 and see more opportunities to implement DLCs but they may do it with way less finesse and regard to the player than Valve, integrating DLCs deeper and deeper into core gameplay. We are still very far from that, but its not like publishers would be against the idea.

 

[Titan Buttons]

No I just want a space sphere, but anyone who wants to buy at hat should and no one should complain to them about it, it's there money let them spend it how they want.