Stolen Pixels: A Hat for Every Head

[-|-]

Well, by saying that I think the goverment should be involved in preventing digital downloads from getting out of control, as much as I hate the goverment being involved in business, I have also been argueing that it shouldn't be legal.

See, I'm a believer in capitalism, but not in unfettered capitalism. I believe that for such a system to work, self-destructive trends like monopolies, cartels, and similar things need to be regulated. This also includes limiting trends within a specific industry that are going to have an overall negative effect.

This can be subjective of course, but one of the big challenges of capitalism is to prevent a handfull of greedy jerks who find an angle from ruining it for everyone. Human nature being what it is, most people have no trouble raping an industry until it's dead, as long as they walk away with a fortune which they can presumably invest in something else. I see out of control DLC, and all of this nickel and diming as a trend which can destroy the developing games industry as all the bean counters who are already making more money than they could likely ever spend, turn making even more ridiculous amounts of money into a sort of persistant game for themselves. While it manifests differantly for differant industries, this kind of trend is never a good thing.

While it is difficult to solidly define in a law, the direction I think things need to go in is to create guidelines for a minimum amount of content that can be present in a paid-for digital download.

You say you believe in capitalism, but the rest of your post indicates that you do not at all. There are two parties engaged in a trade that they see as mutually beneficial - person gets game, company gets money. Providing there is no fraud or misrepresentation then I really don't see how it's your or the governments business what people spend there cash on or what a company can decide to put up for sale.

DLC won't destroy anything - the games market is highly competitive and when enough people see it as a rip off then they will stop buying it. This is market forces in action - you don't need the state stepping in to create new laws or guidelines - we don't live in north korea.

 

[Therumancer]

Incorrect actually, as demonstrated by the simple fact that things like alternative costumes have been part of the package of games since someone came up with the idea of alternative skins, until recently.

Untrue.

Not EVERY game had alternative skins. And even those that did, MOST games just had a color swap. Hell, most games STILL don't.

Even if (and I sure can't think of one) you can point to a ONE game that has even half of the sheer amount of alternative skins that Portal 2 has for free, that'd still be one against five billion that didn't...

And it still doesn't answer the fact that Portal 2 is ten dollars cheaper than the industry average.

And it doesn't change the fact that it WAS NEVER FREE. You ALWAYS paid for it. The difference was, I used to have to pay for it too, even though I never wanted the damned thing. All Portal 2 (and several other games rescently) did was give me the CHOICE to NOT pay for it. Now, if you want it, YOU pay for it. If you don't, you don't have to pay a dime.

Consumer choice. It's a GOOD thing.

The content, when it was present, was part of the price of the game. Not a matter of buying the game, and then having to purchuse trivial things like extra costumes seperatly.

However, while it goes past Valve, right now games are charging for the recolors as well. A lot of this defense is because it's involving Valve and Portal 2, and people want to defend it for that reason. Things would be far more balanced if the criticism was being made of Capcom or Valve.

As I see things, as long as they come up with trivial content and then try and demand a seperate fee for it, there will be an issue. Especially when your dealing with features that were included with games BEFORE they came up with a method of gouging consumers.

In the end we're going to have to agree to disagree, but as I said, my personal litmus test is "would they have released this as a seperate product before digital distribution". Nobody would have packaged an alternate costume, shipped it out to the stores, and sold it. If they made the costume, it would be right there as part of the game.

It's only a consumer choice because they are putting the trivial content on the market.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, by saying that I think the goverment should be involved in preventing digital downloads from getting out of control, as much as I hate the goverment being involved in business, I have also been argueing that it shouldn't be legal.

See, I'm a believer in capitalism, but not in unfettered capitalism. I believe that for such a system to work, self-destructive trends like monopolies, cartels, and similar things need to be regulated. This also includes limiting trends within a specific industry that are going to have an overall negative effect.

This can be subjective of course, but one of the big challenges of capitalism is to prevent a handfull of greedy jerks who find an angle from ruining it for everyone. Human nature being what it is, most people have no trouble raping an industry until it's dead, as long as they walk away with a fortune which they can presumably invest in something else. I see out of control DLC, and all of this nickel and diming as a trend which can destroy the developing games industry as all the bean counters who are already making more money than they could likely ever spend, turn making even more ridiculous amounts of money into a sort of persistant game for themselves. While it manifests differantly for differant industries, this kind of trend is never a good thing.

While it is difficult to solidly define in a law, the direction I think things need to go in is to create guidelines for a minimum amount of content that can be present in a paid-for digital download.

You say you believe in capitalism, but the rest of your post indicates that you do not at all. There are two parties engaged in a trade that they see as mutually beneficial - person gets game, company gets money. Providing there is no fraud or misrepresentation then I really don't see how it's your or the governments business what people spend there cash on or what a company can decide to put up for sale.

DLC won't destroy anything - the games market is highly competitive and when enough people see it as a rip off then they will stop buying it. This is market forces in action - you don't need the state stepping in to create new laws or guidelines - we don't live in north korea.

Quite to the contrary, things like these kinds of DLC gimmicks are becoming entrenched as part of the business model, and assumed as part of projected profits. Sadly the economy is no longer simple enough where straightforward logic about an industry adapting to customers still applies. Beyond a certain point, if these things are allowed to continue, cutting them out will affect the business to the point where the industry will collapse when producers pull out if nothing else. That's one of the problems with the corperate mentality, and how modern businesses work. The goverment is generally behind society in producing relevent regulations, and that includes business. The regulation in this case actually benefitting the industry in the long run by stopping it from institutionalizing these practices beyond the point of practical removal. It might upset certain greedy profit mongers right now, but in the long term it will benefit everyone, including those businesses. Putting the genie back in the bottle is not easy, but right now it can still be done, albiet it would take the intervention of something like the goverment in order to do it and reverse the trend, before it gets to the point where it can't be stopped even if the businesses want to.


Right now you'll notice there is a lot of talk about the industry being unable to sustain it's current model. That's because the industry is trying to act like it's Hollywood, when it's not anything like that yet, although it could be. Rather than tightening their belts and embracing more realistic expectations, your seeing more ways being contreived to keep the profit growth going, and pay the increasingly lavish demands of the people within the industry. This kind of DLC is actually developed to hep maintain a system that is fundementally incapable of supporting itself, and is ultimatly going to help bring about an industry crash as things progressively get worse.

In the end we're going to have to agree to disagree, but that's how I see things, and it's a bit more than "just my opinion" despite what you might want to think, as plenty of analysts have been saying exactly the same thing. Albiet nobody wants to tighten their belts and cut back. Everyone waits for someone else to do it, and a lot of the people at the top of the totem poles figure "so what if it crashes? I'll have made my fortune".

As far as the discussion of Capitalism goes, I am a Capitalist, just not a purist. I do not believe in unfettered, unrestricted Capitalism. I think one of the jobs of the goverment is to maintain the health of the economy, and keep it open to everyone. Stopping monopolies, cartels, or private little empires like the one Ted Turner tried to build before they occur, and breaking them up when they do. According to strict capitalism, that's not appropriate, but under the American version it is. In this case the problem isn't as straightforward as dealing with a monopoly, but it's being done for the similar motive of protecting an industry and keeping it alive so the people involved won't strangle it, especially before it's even come close to it's potential.

There is a lot of room between pure capitalism, and North Korean-type or Chinese socialism. We exist in that gray area, tending far more towards the capitalist side of things.

 

[The Deadpool]

The content, when it was present, was part of the price of the game.

Right. So you agree that it was NEVER FREE. So the argument that "it used to be free" is null and void: You ALWAYS paid for it. The only difference with this model is a) You have a much bigger (and likely better quality) library of random fluff to pick from and b) I no longer have to pay for YOUR crap.


You argue "they would have been part of the game" and I argue "They were NEVER part of the game". This level of uniqueness in character model wasn't the norm (most versus games have recolors and like a symbol, some RPGs and sandbox games have character creations, everything else has eitehr recolors or NOTHING) it was a damned rarity.

So no, new costumes were never free, and if they couldn't be charged for separately they would have more than likely not have been made AT ALL. And the funny thing is, you would have bought the game then and been happy about it.

I know this because the console sales (who DON'T have access to any store OR costumization choices) are doing just fine...

In the end, Valve sold you the game WITHOUT the costumization options. They never promised it for free. They told you straight up: "Give us 50 bucks, we give you single player and multiplayer content." You, when you went to the store, said "This content is very much worth 50 bucks, here is my money kind sir."

You then went home, found out they were selling hats and mustaches and whatever the hell else it was and all of a sudden it became a problem...

 

[-|-]

Quite to the contrary, things like these kinds of DLC gimmicks are becoming entrenched as part of the business model, and assumed as part of projected profits. Sadly the economy is no longer simple enough where straightforward logic about an industry adapting to customers still applies. Beyond a certain point, if these things are allowed to continue, cutting them out will affect the business to the point where the industry will collapse when producers pull out if nothing else. That's one of the problems with the corperate mentality, and how modern businesses work. The goverment is generally behind society in producing relevent regulations, and that includes business. The regulation in this case actually benefitting the industry in the long run by stopping it from institutionalizing these practices beyond the point of practical removal. It might upset certain greedy profit mongers right now, but in the long term it will benefit everyone, including those businesses. Putting the genie back in the bottle is not easy, but right now it can still be done, albiet it would take the intervention of something like the goverment in order to do it and reverse the trend, before it gets to the point where it can't be stopped even if the businesses want to.


Right now you'll notice there is a lot of talk about the industry being unable to sustain it's current model. That's because the industry is trying to act like it's Hollywood, when it's not anything like that yet, although it could be. Rather than tightening their belts and embracing more realistic expectations, your seeing more ways being contreived to keep the profit growth going, and pay the increasingly lavish demands of the people within the industry. This kind of DLC is actually developed to hep maintain a system that is fundementally incapable of supporting itself, and is ultimatly going to help bring about an industry crash as things progressively get worse.

In the end we're going to have to agree to disagree, but that's how I see things, and it's a bit more than "just my opinion" despite what you might want to think, as plenty of analysts have been saying exactly the same thing. Albiet nobody wants to tighten their belts and cut back. Everyone waits for someone else to do it, and a lot of the people at the top of the totem poles figure "so what if it crashes? I'll have made my fortune".

As far as the discussion of Capitalism goes, I am a Capitalist, just not a purist. I do not believe in unfettered, unrestricted Capitalism. I think one of the jobs of the goverment is to maintain the health of the economy, and keep it open to everyone. Stopping monopolies, cartels, or private little empires like the one Ted Turner tried to build before they occur, and breaking them up when they do. According to strict capitalism, that's not appropriate, but under the American version it is. In this case the problem isn't as straightforward as dealing with a monopoly, but it's being done for the similar motive of protecting an industry and keeping it alive so the people involved won't strangle it, especially before it's even come close to it's potential.

There is a lot of room between pure capitalism, and North Korean-type or Chinese socialism. We exist in that gray area, tending far more towards the capitalist side of things.

So your argument is that the companies in the industry that have what you consider to be bad business practices need protecting from themselves? I disagree completely, games development isn't anything like banking, or power generation, or telecoms - there are no TBTF developers or publishers that need breaking up.

You talk about monopolies and cartels as if such things actually exist amongst games companies when the opposite is actually true. Competition is fierce and companies are being created or going bankrupt all the time.

In this specific case, valve did some work and if you want to benefit from it they want you to pay up. I'm still at a loss why you think you should get their work for free, or worse why you want the government to force them to give you their work for free. What you are asking for are in effect price controls - and price controls always create shortages. Always.

 

[scott91575]

Shamus, I think you are being deliberatly obtuse on the issue.

The issue is that DLC has been getting out of control, with companies releasing things like alternate character skins and costumes as additional paid-for DLC. Things that should already be in the game, especially if the content is availible on day #1. The only reason why these additions are NOT part of the game, is because the company figures it can make more money by selling them as a DLC.

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.

You might not have an issue with this, scream about entitled-feeling morons, and everything else, but that doesn't change that a lot of people don't like it, and want their games to be self-contained, with only meaningful add ons and expansions being released for additonal payment.

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".

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?".

Now, I know people will probably get on my case yet again for saying this, but really I don't think Valve was effectively "Metabombed" for this, since trolls aren't that powerful on their own. While some people might be unpleasant in the way they express their dislike of trivial DLC, simply it's very existance being annoying to them, I don't think that is a reason to totally dismiss their position.

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. 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. 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.

That is quite a rant. Of course there is a simple way of avoiding it. Do like I do, ignore it and don't buy it. See how simple that is?

Perhaps you should go to your local store and complain about all the random crappy trinkets they display at the check out counter. Not much different.

 

[jabrwock]

Remember how games used to come compleate and not "sold separately" ?

Really? I seem to have a cloth Bungie Marathon collectors bag from back when games didn't get packaged differently for different markets. Probably boxed away next to my collectors edition Warcraft III...

And my extended edition LotR, and god knows how many editions of Star Wars...

 

[Moriarty70]

Shamus, I think you are being deliberatly obtuse on the issue.

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".

Personally I was on Capcom's side in this issue.

He articulated it better in his weekend article here http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8819-Experienced-Points-DLC-for-Dummies

But at it's core I agree with Shamus, people have picked the wrong time to take a stand. They have lost their minds over purely cosmetic DLC when a game like PGA 11 has main tournament courses that are DLC only.

Basically it shows some misguided prioities when we can't believe we're being charged to look a different kind of pretty.

 

[mcnally86]

Remember how games used to come compleate and not "sold separately" ?

Really? I seem to have a cloth Bungie Marathon collectors bag from back when games didn't get packaged differently for different markets. Probably boxed away next to my collectors edition Warcraft III...

And my extended edition LotR, and god knows how many editions of Star Wars...

Listen here sunny! I was referring to pacman and load runner (gameboy). Also WC has expansion but they were release so much later it gave the illusion of being sold separately.

 

[jabrwock]

Listen here sunny! I was referring to pacman and load runner (gameboy).

I give you... the Colecovision Video Club iron-on transfer for t-shirts...

http://www.colecovisionzone.com/page/collectible/videoclub.html

Also WC has expansion but they were release so much later it gave the illusion of being sold separately.

I'm not talking about the expansion. I'm talking about the version of the game that came with a fancier box than the bourgeoisie saps who bought the regular edition. I paid an extra $15 for a nicer box and other "extras" that contributed zip to the gameplay.

 

[VirtualSin]

Remember everyone, Shamus has at least one previous article saying he does not necessarily support DLC content itself, so don't shoot the messenger.

I'm not really supporting either side of the argument, can't be buggered to. Though, I think part of the issue is really that DLC items become a status symbol. You see someone wearing a hat and you know they paid for it; unless it's a free hat, but most people won't wear those because they don't want to look like the cheap kid who didn't pay for their hat.

I think the hats are an obvious cash grab, but they're far from the worst example of one. If you're really that bothered by them, then don't buy them, and shun your friends who do buy them. It's either that or keep arguing and learn to live with it.

 

[mcnally86]

Listen here sunny! I was referring to pacman and load runner (gameboy).

I give you... the Colecovision Video Club iron-on transfer for t-shirts...

http://www.colecovisionzone.com/page/collectible/videoclub.html

Also WC has expansion but they were release so much later it gave the illusion of being sold separately.

I'm not talking about the expansion. I'm talking about the version of the game that came with a fancier box than the bourgeoisie saps who bought the regular edition. I paid an extra $15 for a nicer box and other "extras" that contributed zip to the gameplay.

Honestly collector's Editions didn't show up on my radar until WOW. And that only because now I know, had I bought one, it would sell really well. But I don't really fault collector's editions because they sell something that wont be sold again ,ideally, And I always attach a higher value to something that exists physically, such as coffee table books of metal boxes.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

In other words, you're complaining about the DLCs being useless, and the price for the DLC you don't want.

That's you in the comic.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

And you're basing this on...what, exactly? Assuming that the critics who liked it were being paid off is remarkably presumptuous of you. There's often a gap between critics and the public.

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.

Yes, and? It's marketing. Marketing tries to sell to as many people as possible. Advertising isn't some sort of mind control ray. It's incumbent upon the consumer to be wary, not the people marketing the product.

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.

Good on them. Still no evidence of, pardon the pun, playola.

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.

Yes it is. People give movies on IMDb "1" scores or "10" just because they want to see it bought closer to the score they think it deserves. You get enough disappointed fanboys together, and they can and have easily done the same thing, such as all the people who downvoted Spore on Amazon just because of DRM.

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.

I see absolutely nothing here that's not a slippery slope fallacy.

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.

Again, slippery slope.

My view on IP is essentially thus: you make it, you sell it, but I don't have to buy it.

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.

Fallacy of Composition.

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.

They're charging for silly hats on top of a critically acclaimed game that I keep reading is already worth full price. DLC is optional. As always.

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.

That's not provable or relevant.

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.

Trust me, it's this exact situation. People complaining about prices being too high for something they say they didn't want in the first place. This isn't the first DLC to receive such a response, and it won't be the last.

See, I think people would rather there be no content, as opposed to this kind of additional trivial content.

That doesn't make any sense. It's not like a few man-hours programming hats devalues the game, so there's no logical reason to complain about Valve making additional content. Feel free to complain about it costing too much, but complaining about it existing in the first place is a self-centered view at best. "I don't like it, so no one else should get to enjoy it, ever!"

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.

What principle is that, exactly? I've heard people use almost exactly the sort of logic in the comic.

 

[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.

In other words, you're complaining about the DLCs being useless, and the price for the DLC you don't want.

That's you in the comic.

...what.

Am i not allowed to criticize lackluster DLCs? is it that much of a crime to criticize the almighty Valve? its official, you cannot say ONE bad word about them, lest the Valve defence force comes out of the woods. I am sorry that i wanted DLCs to give me a little bang for my buck, i am sorry that i wanted more out of it, i am fucking sorry that i wanted quality.

Seriously, this fucking ignorance only does the service of allowing developers to become lazy and come out with 5$ hats/skins, instead of something worthwhile. Do you know why i do not want to buy their DLC? BECAUSE THEY SUCK, i mean, why even have DLC when its just going to be some fucking skin changes (things that you easily could have just made a mod for).

But fine, let the developers churn out crap-DLC, for hey, we do not want anyone to think that they are getting something out of it, right? we do not want to make fucking quality DLC because that would lead to people actually wanting to buy it.

 

[JonnWood]

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.

In other words, you're complaining about the DLCs being useless, and the price for the DLC you don't want.

That's you in the comic.

...what.

Am i not allowed to criticize lackluster DLCs? is it that much of a crime to criticize the almighty Valve?

I never said that.

So when they make DLC content,[...]they come out with weak-sauce DLCs such as 5$ hats.

There, right there. Complaining about the low quality, and the price for the DLC you say you don't want.

its official, you cannot say ONE bad word about them, lest the Valve defence force comes out of the woods. I am sorry that i wanted DLCs to give me a little bang for my buck, i am sorry that i wanted more out of it, i am fucking sorry that i wanted quality.

And then you complained about the price as well.

Seriously, this fucking ignorance only does the service of allowing developers to become lazy and come out with 5$ hats/skins, instead of something worthwhile.

Arbitrary designation of "worthwhile", based on your personal opinion and no one else's. Someone is going to buy these.

Do you know why i do not want to buy their DLC? BECAUSE THEY SUCK, i mean, why even have DLC when its just going to be some fucking skin changes (things that you easily could have just made a mod for).

Actually, the skins can be unlocked through gameplay. All you're paying for is saving time.

But fine, let the developers churn out crap-DLC, for hey, we do not want anyone to think that they are getting something out of it, right? we do not want to make fucking quality DLC because that would lead to people actually wanting to buy it.

If they make stuff you don't want, don't buy it. It's as simple as that. They are not committing some sort of personal wrong against you if their DLC sucks.

 

[Hyper-space]

snip

So no developer has any obligation or need to make quality games/DLCs because hey! you do not want it either way!

What a marvelous line of thinking, developers are scott-free from any criticism, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING A PERSONAL WRONG AGAINST ANYONE!

This is just crap and i am done, you might not see anything wrong with the logic that no developer could be criticized or has any obligation to create ANYTHING worthwhile, but to me its just laziness and detrimental to the quality of video-games overall.

 

[JonnWood]

snip

So no developer has any obligation or need to make quality games/DLCs because hey! you do not want it either way!

Developers don't have any "obligation or need" to make good content, period. Valve could turn out a game that was just Gordon Freeman's foot stepping in a cow pie a few hundred times, if they wanted. I doubt people would buy it for anything more than the lulz, but there's no reason the game couldn't be made in the first place.

What a marvelous line of thinking, developers are scott-free from any criticism, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING A PERSONAL WRONG AGAINST ANYONE!

This is just crap and i am done, you might not see anything wrong with the logic that no developer could be criticized or has any obligation to create ANYTHING worthwhile, but to me its just laziness and detrimental to the quality of video-games overall.

I'm saying you're reacting as if Valve set out to piss you, personally, off.

I'm not saying you don't have a right to criticize. I'm saying your criticisms are wrong. I know it's subjective, but you seem to be basing your conclusions on a lot of false premises.

Game development isn't a closed system. If I make a crappy flash game, it doesn't mean that Team Fortress 2 is instantly a little less good. The existence of Justin Beiber doesn't make Florence + the Machine any less awesome.

And as I've already asserted, no developer has to make good games. Should they make good games? Yes. Do they make good games? Not necessarily.

 

[jabrwock]

Honestly collector's Editions didn't show up on my radar until WOW. And that only because now I know, had I bought one, it would sell really well. But I don't really fault collector's editions because they sell something that wont be sold again ,ideally, And I always attach a higher value to something that exists physically, such as coffee table books of metal boxes.

As do many people. But that doesn't make the practice any different, or "new". There has always been worthless merch. The industry is just finding new ways to sell it.

 

[mcnally86]

Honestly collector's Editions didn't show up on my radar until WOW. And that only because now I know, had I bought one, it would sell really well. But I don't really fault collector's editions because they sell something that wont be sold again ,ideally, And I always attach a higher value to something that exists physically, such as coffee table books of metal boxes.

As do many people. But that doesn't make the practice any different, or "new". There has always been worthless merch. The industry is just finding new ways to sell it.

And I'm sure when they added the coach section to an airplane and charged more for the seating and treatment people were used to it was a shock then as well. It feels like they are finding a way to raise the price without raising the price obviously. I remember getting a FH license. 2004 they raised the price 30% and since they could not get away with another rate hike so soon the next year they shortened new license issued from lasting 5 years to only last 3.