DLC for Dummies Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT | |
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!! | |
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. | |
I'm...not alone...someone else actually likes Project Ten Dollar? Amazing...Simply Amazing. Oh yeah, and spot on Shamus Young.
That's still funny and will always remain funny. God I hope it doesn't become another Cake Meme. | |
Oh yeah sorry you're the editor guy. My mistake.
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. 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) | |
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. | |
Both of your statements were perfect. I'd add more but... perfect. | |
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. | |
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?
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. 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!!! | |
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 | |
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.) | |
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?
Hehe nicely put and exactly right! | |
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 ;) | |
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. | |
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. | |
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. | |
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. | |
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. | |
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 | |
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