DLC for Dummies

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Dear Shamus...

First let me say... You are a God.... you adressed the matter perfectly, i couldnt put better words....

I have been hating on DLC's mainly because they leave hoels in the game, in great majority of the times it punishes people for not getting that super-weapon or having that continuation of the story.

But things Valve did On Portal 2 about the DLC... no warning, no references and no lack of experience if you didnt get them... pure perfection. Valve.. you are and always will be in my heart, you are from the community to the community and ALWAYS think in youre fans.

I trust the waiting time for HL3 or HL:ep3 is worth it, because you guys never delivered a half experience... you always worked to maitain a standart, and i love you guys for that.

So again Shamus... you adressed the matter perfectly... thank you very much for clearing this ghost that has been in my mind for so much time ;D

I had no idea the Day 1 DLC was a clothing item.

Who is complaining, and why? Bitches need to quit trifling.

I finished single player in about 6 and a half hours. I thought it lacked some things that could have made it interesting (like exploring more of the hows and whys of Aperture Science, especially in the far underground 1960's era area), and it felt a little long because it lost my interest almost completely in the last few puzzles, but I enjoyed the humor and how ridiculous (ly awesome) the ending was.

Oh well. C'est la vie.

Haters gonna hate.

*while reading the review*

Yeah! YEAH! YEAH! YOU TAKE THOSE LEMONS! YEAH! (Oh I like this guy!) BURN THAT HOUSE DOWN!

He says what we're all thinking!!

Grunt_Man11:

JerrytheBullfrog:

Grunt_Man11:

The problem I've heard about Blizzard isn't really DLC, but it is a micro transaction. Realm transfers.

I heard arguments that this easily done, and automated, process should be free with a month long cooldown instead of $25 per character. The main reasons are, as stated before, it is so easily done that is it now automated and that it could be considered an essential part of the game.

If your raiding guild decides to move to another server, and you don't have the $25 to spare to pay for a transfer yourself then you are out of a raiding guild. I've had that happen to me, so I can see the point in that argument.

Faction change isn't an easy process. Think about it, they need to take all of your quests and reputation and switch them for alternate quests from the other faction. More to the point, the fee is there as a penalty to discourage people from doing it a lot. Even a cooldown wouldn't stop someone determined to abuse the system.

I said Realm Transfer not Faction Change. You know when one of your characters is moved from one realm/server to another realm/server.

And again, a cooldown wouldn't discourage abuse, particularly from gold sellers. Money does.

Attacking the game because of DLC is stupid. You either like the game or you don't.

Portal 2 actually doesn't have DLC though. It has code in the game that is protected until you pay them money. There are no downloads when you purchase these items. They are already IN THE GAME. They are not really DLC. That is a problem. Is it worth not buying the game over? Of course not, but I'm tired of reading articles that refuse to at least acknowledge what it actually is. It's cosmetic items behind a wall of code you have to pay to remove, and it doesn't make me feel that great about the developers who are responsible for that decision.

Who organized this whole thing? I know the internet too well to believe that this all just happened.

I wouldn't put it past SPUF, but it somehow doesn't seem like their style.

Onyx Oblivion:

mireko:

Destructoid

I knew I liked Jim Sterling for a reason!

Yeah. This is ridiculous.

But on the other hand, I kind of like Project Ten Dollar. Assuming my DLC isn't a 100 KB file that just UNLOCKS content already on the disc...Like an Online Pass. If I'm just unlocking on-disc shit, Capcom style, I hate that. But if it's stuff that I can measure in MB or GB, I'm usually fine with it.

I'm...not alone...someone else actually likes Project Ten Dollar? Amazing...Simply Amazing.

Oh yeah, and spot on Shamus Young.

Calderon0311:
*while reading the review*

Yeah! YEAH! YEAH! YOU TAKE THOSE LEMONS! YEAH! (Oh I like this guy!) BURN THAT HOUSE DOWN!

He says what we're all thinking!!

That's still funny and will always remain funny. God I hope it doesn't become another Cake Meme.

John Funk:

Are you confusing me with Shamus? This article was his, not mine.

Oh yeah sorry you're the editor guy. My mistake.

And I'm referring to the further development of unfinished content. If a mission is cut from the game when half-finished because it won't be done/it isn't up to par, should the developers not get paid for the work to finish it?

That depends. If this content was originally slated to be released with the original game, and the released product is effectively less than what it was intended to be will this reduced package be reflected in the retail price? And if not, why then should consumers pay extra above and beyond the original price to effectively play a full game?

Or in other terms, if the developers screwed up, and couldn't meet their deadlines, why should the consumers pay extra for those mistakes to get the finished product?

Well, my take on the topic...

I will first state I think the people trolling Metacritic to lower the game's review score are being really immature. The game is obviously not THAT bad. However, I think people do need to seriously consider the arguments made about how this sort of "unlocked costume" happened inside the gameplay originally.
The funny thing is, I have seen cosmetic DLC that hasn't bothered me at all. I ended up concluding that the differences I saw in Portal 2 are that...
A. Portal 2 is a full $50 game
B. The DLC was available release-day.
Killing Floor had cosmetic items (character skins) for a cheap amount, but I found that it didn't rile me because the game itself was pretty cheap - $20. If you decide you must have all character skins for the complete experience, that's about $30 in total.
Some free to play games make their money through cosmetics. Obviously, the low boundary for entry is $0. Then, if you are really obsessed about character customization, it may go up to $40...or even higher if it's the type of game with "time limit items" that you must pay for again. To some people, it's worth it to pay hundreds of dollars. To others, it's only worth it to pay $10. You get a wide boundary.

For Portal 2, the cost starts at $50 and only goes upwards, I think totalling $130 for everything they made. From an economic standpoint, that tells me Valve believes they've made a product that, in total, is worth $130. What I'm annoyed about is how they don't have that "lower boundary" the previous scenarios have, when people think it isn't worth quite as much.

Finally, there's the point of exactly what "cosmetic" means. I'm a choreographer for Black Mesa. What if we released the whole game with purple-black checkerboard textures, no voice acting, no music, no NPC scenes, but perfectly functional gameplay...technically? You'd be able to play the game start to finish, no problem, but it would look like shit. You would obviously want it to be spiced up. We then of course introduce the Black Mesa Gift Shop, where you can pay up to $100 to get the full experience.

I'm sure the above scenario sounds ridiculous and cheap to you. You now know what the situation looks like to someone who DOES care about extra cosmetics. If they were "worthless to everyone" as so many claim, then there wouldn't be anyone paying money for them.

I believe in DLC in theory, but there is proper execution to it. I certainly don't agree with the execution present in Dragon Age or other games. Either have it as part of the business model from the beginning (meaning you release for less than $50, unless you hold your work in very, very high regard) or you develop it as an expansion once you've finished (like Fallout DLC)

Akalabeth:

John Funk:

Are you confusing me with Shamus? This article was his, not mine.

Oh yeah sorry you're the editor guy. My mistake.

And I'm referring to the further development of unfinished content. If a mission is cut from the game when half-finished because it won't be done/it isn't up to par, should the developers not get paid for the work to finish it?

That depends. If this content was originally slated to be released with the original game, and the released product is effectively less than what it was intended to be will this reduced package be reflected in the retail price? And if not, why then should consumers pay extra above and beyond the original price to effectively play a full game?

Or in other terms, if the developers screwed up, and couldn't meet their deadlines, why should the consumers pay extra for those mistakes to get the finished product?

The mistake you're making is that you're assuming that it's "screwing up." No, it's part of the full, natural cycle of game development.

What you see in a finished product is probably half of the ideas that the developers had, if that. Artists design concept art, make trial levels. Designers come up with enemy ideas, locations, etc. Sometimes, for whatever reason, they just don't work. Maybe the enemy is too hard to balance, maybe the concept art doesn't fit thematically with the story point, etc.

Basically, there comes a point where any game (or software) has to be "feature locked." If you try and put everything you think of into a game, you'll never finish. This point is where you say "Okay, we're not coming up with anything new, we're going with what we have." Anything that doesn't make the cut falls by the wayside.

Then, the second major cut is when the game is "content locked." This is when you look at everything thus far. Maybe this level isn't as fun as it ought to be, or maybe this enemy type just looks silly. You could correct it and finish it in time, but that takes time. This is the point where you decide, "Okay, we're going to ship with *this*, this will be our finished game." Narrative threads are connected, and the developers work on polishing what exists, fixing bugs, etc.

The content lock is what you actually get on the disk. It's still a full game - features and ideas and even whole levels get cut from development all the time, because they wouldn't have worked otherwise.

dududf:
7 hours with co op and campaign... so yeah.... only a couple of the puzzles were difficult persay, and a lot were just trying to find a portalble surface that is far away/obscured.( not to say of course that I didn't like the game, it's GOTY so far for me, just commenting that my play time was not that long in comparison)

*edit (completely forgot to put my comment regarding the dlc)

I like Valve's style of dlc. It has 0 effect on the game, and the idiots that buy the stuff essentially pay for everyones future DLC in the game. Instead of having to pay for DLC, by having the micro transaction system that doesn't effect anything it's essentially a money generator for valve, and has the possibility of giving a little back to the community, with say, bonus maps :D

Both of your statements were perfect. I'd add more but... perfect.

John Funk:

Then, the second major cut is when the game is "content locked." This is when you look at everything thus far. Maybe this level isn't as fun as it ought to be, or maybe this enemy type just looks silly. You could correct it and finish it in time, but that takes time. This is the point where you decide, "Okay, we're going to ship with *this*, this will be our finished game." Narrative threads are connected, and the developers work on polishing what exists, fixing bugs, etc.

The content lock is what you actually get on the disk. It's still a full game - features and ideas and even whole levels get cut from development all the time, because they wouldn't have worked otherwise.

I think one's definition of a full game can be pretty subjective, especially if DLC released later on is particularly crucial to the story itself as a lot of it seems to be. I've not played ME2 or AC2 but both seem to feature DLC that is fairly story-critical. DLC to me should be digital distributions of expansions, not what are effectively "deleted scenes", or segments that should have been in the game but were not for whatever reason.

If developers want to scrounge up old bits of unfinished game and try to sell them then that's fine, personally I won't be buying them. I suspect it will largely be like the free HL2 DLC that came out where you take out some gun on top of an island. It was probably not a bad level, but outside the context of the game it had no weight or relevance. And quit frankly I'm very glad it was free.

Compare this for example to the DLC for Enslaved, Piggies Perfect 10 or whatever. A completely new side quest with a new character, separate story and game mechanics. I've not played it but next time I grab some Microsoft points it's a definite must buy for me because it's a self-contained add on to an existing game.

I guess what I'm meaning to say is that to me a game is about the story, from completion to end. If a level got cut, too bad, it's not part of the story. I'm not particularly interested in revisiting some small side quest that somehow fits into the main story after I've already finished that story myself. It's like if George Lucas took all the new footage from the Special Editions and put them on a DVD and charged 10 bucks for it. Would you buy it? I wouldn't.

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.

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.

Sgt. Sykes:
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:
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?

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.

"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!!!

Shamus Young:
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.

Damn straight Shamus, I loved the hate it because it's black section. Epic.

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.

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

Some Random Tosser:
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?

What are you, another Valve fanboy having to take a piss at everyone who looks at them funny?

Every sort of day-one DLC, is stupid. Games are expensive as it is, asking more money just shows that the current state of gaming is unproductive and the publishers are greedy. And yes, Valve is a full-blown publisher, not a small indie developing house like people want to believe.

And asking money for extra clothing? The example I've stated was, if you go to a doctor or a lawyer, you don't get charged extra for sitting instead of standing. Even ASKING money for something like that is INSULTING. Portal is a good game, it will sell well and earn tons of cash, is it seriously worth it to ask for more pennies while looking as an asshole?

(And yes, I DO my own business. Yes, I'm jealous at Valve and other devs that they can charge extra for shit. It's still not right.)

Raiyan 1.0:
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:
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!

Longsight:

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.

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.

John Funk:

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.

Therumancer:

warfjm:

Therumancer:
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.

I think I just heard the sound of win from this post.

Yes, the people who criticize Portal 2 solely because of its literally-unnoticable DLC are idiots. Portal 2 excelled in almost all areas; the DLC was almost nothing.

tehroc:

Therumancer:

warfjm:

Small Comment

AWESOME WORDS OF AWESOMENESS

This guy should be getting his own weekly editorial.

Yes, get this guy his own blog. The more opinions the better! XD

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.

Johnmw:

Raiyan 1.0:
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. ^_-

For all those who badly rated Portal 2 on metacritic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yytbDZrw1jc

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.

Can be summarized with: Haters gonna hate.

And Shamus also forgot to mention that the DLC items will eventually be tradable.

And really this only proves that the more a company is loved the more extreme becomes the haters hating on ridiculous stuff like this.

I played the game on release minutes after it unlocked and there was no DLC available yet and never gave it another though until today when i read this article, mostly because the DLC button does not even say DLC but Robot Enrichment and is below the Exit button. Valve are almost going out of their way so you don't even notice it's there.

WhiteTigerShiro:

Shamus Young:
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.

People on a crusade against DLC need to find something more constructive to do with their time. Go feed a starving kid or something. It might actually to some real, tangible good.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here