DLC for Dummies

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

If it was multiplayer only on DLC then Borderlands wouldn't have Crawmerax, one of the most entertaining bosses to solo I have ever come across in any game ever created. There are lots of challenging bosses in other games, but little comes close to the sheer entertainment value provided by the feeling of sprinting past him knowing full well the second you stop you're going to need to take a perfect shot or be splattered horribly.

Of course DLC should be important to the experience. Maybe not integral, but the armour of Knoxx brought an entire new area, story, levels and weapon set. It vastly improves the experience. It wasn't necessary to buy to enjoy the game but saying that it shouldn't be integral at all suggests you'd prefer that all DLC should be limited to small, unecessary items that don't change the game in the slightest way, and who the hell is going to pay for DLC if that's all it has to offer. Beyond the TF2 players and their hats that is.

Also, your last section was so irritatingly fanboyish that you're no better than the the idiots who were marking it 0 on metacritic. I've played both portals, I never completed either. They are a fun semi game that does not remotely draw me in or convince me it's worth completing.

This entire tirade had a decent intention, but your attitude suggests you would blindly give Portal a 100 just as quickly as they gave it a 0.

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, good job Shamus!

Does Shamus' position as a writer somehow remove his ability to express his own opinion about said consumers? I really hope I'm misunderstanding that...

I agree that it was incredibly poor attempt at trolling, because it wasn't an attempt at trolling at all. http://artoftrolling.memebase.com/ Study this site. That is trolling, this is not. Don't come back until you understand the difference.

why are people calling this game short? i played both the single player and co op. and it was anything but short.

and i dare everyone in here to tell me they did not crack up in laughter over the manual override of the wall.

It's only a matter of time before some of those idiots misinterpret your last paragraph

bjj hero:
We seem to be agreeing...

Yes, I agree with you regarding the people who have an undeserved sense of entitlement, but I disagree that it's simply Valve fans who are to blame. I think it's people who aren't smart enough to understand and will blame Valve, yet they're ok with what other developers, such as Microsoft, charging for things that shouldn't be charged for.

Note: I'm sorry if I caused confusion, going back and forth between the computer and bed nursing a migraine.

JerrytheBullfrog:

qbanknight:
Thank you calling these little damn ingrates on their BS Shamus; Blizzard, BioWare, and EA have committed far worse in terms of DLC. They are just picking on Valve because they didn't get Portal 2 a whole DAY earlier as WAS NOT promised by the Potato Sack ARG

Excuse me? WTF does Blizzard do with DLC? Activision has its moments, with COD map packs and other things that gullible people buy, but I haven't seen anything about DLC in any of their games and I've been playing since Rock N' Roll Racing.

The worst they have is the Sparkle Pony, which falls under all four of Shamus' rules.

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.

Shamus Young:

Shamus skewers the Portal 2 DLC backlash

Thank you so much.

The reason why there are so people attacking ANY game (not Portal exclusively) for day 1 DLC and various pre-order bonuses is because this sets an example. If people are willing to buy only complete products, then companies would not try to pull this kind of stuff. If users show that they are willing to shell out cash you get things like Capcom and EA where complete DLC is sitting on the disk waiting to be unlocked.

Here is a short, and quick, list of things you skip and still finish a game (not talking about Portal 2 atm):

-Side quest
-Side characters
-Minor characters
-Most of the major cast
-Anything besides the basic story outline (There is a bad guy, stop him. Motivation and so forth aren't necessary for finishing the game.)
-More than one weapon
-Alternative routes (even in level design, left path is 0.99$)
-Main character voice (everyone could be Gordon Freeman)
-Co-Op

Just to name a few. Can we live without those things? Yes. Should we?

I don't think anyone is against Portal 2, but things like that signal publishers that people are willing to gobble it up. EA is getting flak for it, so is Activision and Valve is no special for it. People don't want gaming to turn into that kind of a beast.

Just to clarify, I haven't taken any actions against Portal 2, hell, I don't even care about the game, but I can fully understand why some people do it.

Unprofessional and uncool Shamus, calling people idiots for not agreeing with you is pretty much what your accusing them of

Also - this. I've seen blogs more professionally written than this.

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.

Its a 50p hat. It is for about 5 hours you will spend doing multiplayer challnges. It is 50p. Has it really ruined the game for you? REALLY. Look at you wrote. Really look at it. Do you HONESTLY think a 50p hat in a game has "spoiled" it. Is it really DLC crap? I dont count it as DLC. DLC is a level, a character, some weapons, an integral gameplay element that im made to pay for. And thats bullshit. This? If DLC is bullshit, this is the cosmic shit of a tiny mite living in the dust behind my sofa. It doesnt ruin the sofa.

You know what i did when i saw the store? I thought "thats nice, i could get some hats for my robots, shame im poor" and didnt give it a SINGLE OTHER THOUGHT. Why are people SO BUTTHURT over this. Seriously. This is the reaction id expect if valve made 50% of the game DLC on day one. Or sent armed men in hockey masks to throw rocks at your house if you didnt buy a hat. ITS A HAT. Remember that part of portal that ya know... is THE GAME?! Thats fun too! No need to cry and get all angry over SOME HATS THAT YOU DONT EVEN NEED! Why are people so freakin upset. Its beyond belief.

Honestly when i first saw this i was like "o shit, did valve have day one dlc levels". I was worried. I thought it would be an actual reason to be upset. Then i saw it was hats.

Seriously community. GROW THE HELL UP. This is pathetic whiney and stupid. If you honestly think the hats are SUCH A BIG ISSUE you dont deserve portal. You dont deserve any of the game. Wheres all your entitlement now?!

Guy i quoted this isnt all aimed at you, only paragraph 1. Jesus. This makes me annoyed >.>

JerrytheBullfrog:

qbanknight:
Thank you calling these little damn ingrates on their BS Shamus; Blizzard, BioWare, and EA have committed far worse in terms of DLC. They are just picking on Valve because they didn't get Portal 2 a whole DAY earlier as WAS NOT promised by the Potato Sack ARG

Excuse me? WTF does Blizzard do with DLC? Activision has its moments, with COD map packs and other things that gullible people buy, but I haven't seen anything about DLC in any of their games and I've been playing since Rock N' Roll Racing.

The worst they have is the Sparkle Pony, which falls under all four of Shamus' rules.

Well there's also the services that they charge for such as race change, realm change etc that are a bit on the pricey side, but those are DLC so...

"Indignant little rage-bot" has to be the most deliciously scathing term of endearment for internet half-wits I've ever heard. Hope you don't mind if I borrow that one Mister Young.

Ironic Pirate:

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, good job Shamus!

Does Shamus' position as a writer somehow remove his ability to express his own opinion about said consumers? I really hope I'm misunderstanding that...

Er, yes you did. I meant, poor attempt at trolling on my part. I was basically kidding. You know, with the whole smiley?

You know what, I'm gonna go rephrase my original post to be more clear. :/

Oh, thanks for the link!

Agreed. :D

Who needs religion when there are endless other things for idiots to crusade about...

Grunt_Man11:
The WoW community can be pretty damn self-entitled and stupid, but apparently it's nothing compared to the cesspool that is the Value community.

While every other thread on the wow forums being about the supposed end of wow or how ghostcrawler hates the OP's class/race/faction personally, I would agree with you and say those reviews seem more vitriolic. And what widens the gap between the two even more is that for wow you have to pay 15 bucks per month, which functions as a sort of implied agreement that you will keep getting updates/new content(within reason, anyways). Valve owes you nothing but the game you paid for. You are not "investing" in any other content. With DRM and DLC the way it is for other companies, why attack Valve? I see disagreeing with DLC altogether, but that can be done without slandering the entire project or being pejorative towards a developer who has a pretty decent track record of not screwing over fans, especially considering what other devs/publishers do.

That being said, I enjoyed the article. It might have been a bit too insulting in some places, but the message is spot on.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I really don't have much to say except "thank you," for putting out an opinion that actually makes sense to me. I'd even go so far as to say Portal 2 didn't have DLC, it just had a gimmick store.

I just honestly can't understand the waves of negativity. Regardless of your opinion on the game, Portal 2 was not a bad game by any stretch of the imagination in terms of technical, functionality and aesthetic aspects; it was "above average" at worst. There are so many more games deserving of hate than this one. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth to imagine what the guys over at Valve must think when they see this response to an obviously lovingly crafted piece of work.

...Okay, I lied, I did have a fair bit to say.

WaaghPowa:

JerrytheBullfrog:

qbanknight:
Thank you calling these little damn ingrates on their BS Shamus; Blizzard, BioWare, and EA have committed far worse in terms of DLC. They are just picking on Valve because they didn't get Portal 2 a whole DAY earlier as WAS NOT promised by the Potato Sack ARG

Excuse me? WTF does Blizzard do with DLC? Activision has its moments, with COD map packs and other things that gullible people buy, but I haven't seen anything about DLC in any of their games and I've been playing since Rock N' Roll Racing.

The worst they have is the Sparkle Pony, which falls under all four of Shamus' rules.

Well there's also the services that they charge for such as race change, realm change etc that are a bit on the pricey side, but those are DLC so...

They charge for those services not because they're expensive in themselves, but to deter people from changin servers/races/factions on a whim whenever they feel like it. Puttin a month cooldown or whatever wouldnt have the same desired effect as sayin you need to fork over cash for it.

Edit - Gonna echo the "The hell did Blizzard do thats worse than Valve?" sentiment. Somehow mounts (that arent faster than anythin in game), and pets (which have no game impact at all) are somehow worse than t-shirts and hats is...kinda disingenuous. Sure rage at Activision all ya like about their DLC stuff, but tossin Blizzard in there just makes you look like you dont know what you're talkin about.

BiscuitTrouser:
Its a 50p hat. It is for about 5 hours you will spend doing multiplayer challnges. It is 50p. Has it really ruined the game for you? REALLY. Look at you wrote. Really look at it. Do you HONESTLY think a 50p hat in a game has "spoiled" it. Is it really DLC crap? I dont count it as DLC. DLC is a level, a character, some weapons, an integral gameplay element that im made to pay for. And thats bullshit. This? If DLC is bullshit, this is the cosmic shit of a tiny mite living in the dust behind my sofa. It doesnt ruin the sofa.

Even less reason to charge for it. Seriously, how much do they earn from these hats that it's worth it for them? It's just retarded. It's like when you go to a lawyer or a doctor and they charge you extra for sitting on a chair instead of standing. Sure, they'll earn some extra pennies but at the end, they WILL come out as assholes.

(Same goes for every other day-one DLC and basically any DLC that's just 'putting back the stuff we removed from the game before launch'.)

Sgt. Sykes:

BiscuitTrouser:
Its a 50p hat. It is for about 5 hours you will spend doing multiplayer challnges. It is 50p. Has it really ruined the game for you? REALLY. Look at you wrote. Really look at it. Do you HONESTLY think a 50p hat in a game has "spoiled" it. Is it really DLC crap? I dont count it as DLC. DLC is a level, a character, some weapons, an integral gameplay element that im made to pay for. And thats bullshit. This? If DLC is bullshit, this is the cosmic shit of a tiny mite living in the dust behind my sofa. It doesnt ruin the sofa.

Even less reason to charge for it. Seriously, how much do they earn from these hats that it's worth it for them? It's just retarded. It's like when you go to a lawyer or a doctor and they charge you extra for sitting on a chair instead of standing. Sure, they'll earn some extra pennies but at the end, they WILL come out as assholes.

(Same goes for every other day-one DLC and basically any DLC that's just 'putting back the stuff we removed from the game before launch'.)

Your example is poor. Sitting is something that without ill be VERY uncomfortable theres a LOT of motivation to buy the chair, and i lose something if i dont. This is something that with or without, the experience is THE EXACT SAME. This is more akin to paying 2p for the doctor to call you "my lord" instead of sir. Its not even close to being comparable. You are blowing this far far larger than it is like everyone else.

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.

shintakie10:
-

Well yes, it's understandable that they would put charges and cool downs in place to deter people, especially the kinds who are notorious for being massive dick heads, from changing all the time. I personally have only ever used their services for race/faction change for reasons such as the class I chose didn't have my preferred race at the time or I didn't want to abandon the alliance character so I transferred it horde to my guild. I just wish it didn't have to cost so much for honest people such as myself, but hey, make an exception for one person and everyone will be nagging for their exception.

I agree on every point except that DLC should be multiplayer-only. And I would add that developers shouldn't charge for "DLC" that's already on the disk.

Also, I've been asking this question for a week and still haven't gotten an answer, so I'll ask again: can console Portal 2 players play the user-generated maps made by PC players? (If it matters, I'm concerned with the the 360 version)

Shamus Young:
Experienced Points: DLC for Dummies

Shamus skewers the Portal 2 DLC backlash

Read Full Article

Damn straight, I can't believe some of the crap people have been sprouting about this game! I've clocked in 13 hrs on it on one full playthrough of single and co-op and some fooling around chasing achievements and I've really enjoyed it. Not even got the slightest need to buy the gestures or cosmetics (what is this, robot dressup simulator? No? Then you're not missing out on the content, lol!) - especially as you can see the animations in the preview. (though tey're only "level 1" gestures... are there higher "levels" of gestures 0.0?)

All I want to see are some challenge maps like the original had. Then the game shall be complete :D

Raiyan 1.0:

Ironic Pirate:

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, good job Shamus!

Does Shamus' position as a writer somehow remove his ability to express his own opinion about said consumers? I really hope I'm misunderstanding that...

Er, yes you did. I meant, poor attempt at trolling on my part. I was basically kidding. You know, with the whole smiley?

You know what, I'm gonna go rephrase my original post to be more clear. :/

Oh, thanks for the link!

Oh, that's what the smiley was for...

shit.

JerrytheBullfrog:

qbanknight:
Thank you calling these little damn ingrates on their BS Shamus; Blizzard, BioWare, and EA have committed far worse in terms of DLC. They are just picking on Valve because they didn't get Portal 2 a whole DAY earlier as WAS NOT promised by the Potato Sack ARG

Excuse me? WTF does Blizzard do with DLC? Activision has its moments, with COD map packs and other things that gullible people buy, but I haven't seen anything about DLC in any of their games and I've been playing since Rock N' Roll Racing.

The worst they have is the Sparkle Pony, which falls under all four of Shamus' rules.

Based on Shamus' other Blizzard rants, like the fact that they split Starcraft II into three games instead of one. Yeah, I guess the next Starcraft II is supposed to be different from the last one since you play another race. But really, it's the same game, you're just given slightly different mechanics in the second one and need to buy it if you want the WHOLE story of Starcraft 2

Traun:
The reason why there are so people attacking ANY game (not Portal exclusively) for day 1 DLC and various pre-order bonuses is because this sets an example. If people are willing to buy only complete products, then companies would not try to pull this kind of stuff. If users show that they are willing to shell out cash you get things like Capcom and EA where complete DLC is sitting on the disk waiting to be unlocked.

Here is a short, and quick, list of things you skip and still finish a game (not talking about Portal 2 atm):

-Side quest
-Side characters
-Minor characters
-Most of the major cast
-Anything besides the basic story outline (There is a bad guy, stop him. Motivation and so forth aren't necessary for finishing the game.)
-More than one weapon
-Alternative routes (even in level design, left path is 0.99$)
-Main character voice (everyone could be Gordon Freeman)
-Co-Op

Just to name a few. Can we live without those things? Yes. Should we?

I don't think anyone is against Portal 2, but things like that signal publishers that people are willing to gobble it up. EA is getting flak for it, so is Activision and Valve is no special for it. People don't want gaming to turn into that kind of a beast.

Just to clarify, I haven't taken any actions against Portal 2, hell, I don't even care about the game, but I can fully understand why some people do it.

The point is that, as Shamus says, Portal 2 handles DLC the best I've seen - it's basically like a "donate" function; a paint job or extra animation for a couple of bucks, and only if you go out of your way to find them. Compare that to your list. Now ask yourself why the one game that gets it right deserves all this hate compared to all those other day one DLC titles that lock away quests, characters etc etc.

It doesn't, that's the whole point of the article. Many people ARE up against Portal 2 for no good reason. Shamus isn't defending DLC, he's defending a game that's being targeted for no good reason, and you seem to have missed that point with your post here.

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, good job Shamus!

But their reviews aren't subjective. The game is longer than they said it was. The price is in-line with other games. The DLC is inconsequential to every rational human. It was also a concentrated smear-campaign rather than a group of consumers 'coincidentally' sharing the same opinion. This opinion would never have come to light without zealous leadership by some head-honcho on 4Chan.

We need to live in a world where idiots can be called out for what they are, when appropriate.

THANK YOU! I can't stand how on any gaming news site, whenever there's an article related to TF2, it's the usual parade of 'I hate this game now because there's a way to buy things I could get in-game for free, as well as items that don't impact gameplay at all!' Portal 2 doesn't deserve it either; the DLC's a bit of window dressing with no impact on gameplay at all. Get over it, people.

I honestly can not understand this either.

Portal 2 is NOT short. It took me probably ~7 hours, and I played the first one to death (doing all the advanced maps and challenges and such). I still haven't tried Co-op yet. I expect there will also be some Advanced Chambers and Challenges to be released at some point, as is Valve's way.

All of this combined means I'll probably end up putting more hours in to this than I would most other AAA titles.

And you know what I feel about the DLC?

Nothing. I clicked on the 'Robot Enrichment' thing on the main menu, thought "Well that's neat I guess" then suddenly realised I could be using that time to play more of the god damn game. If someone wants to pay 2 to make his robot look prettier, that's fine by me. Just as I don't care if people want to pay for beauty treatments, but the point is, I don't rally against beauty salons for offering me their services.

WaaghPowa:

bjj hero:
We seem to be agreeing...

Yes, I agree with you regarding the people who have an undeserved sense of entitlement, but I disagree that it's simply Valve fans who are to blame. I think it's people who aren't smart enough to understand and will blame Valve, yet they're ok with what other developers, such as Microsoft, charging for things that shouldn't be charged for.

Or like with Bioware making you pay for DLC unless you pre-order a game way before launch.

There's DLC for Portal 2? I didn't notice, I was too busy playing the best game of the year...

I liked the article - I'd say I'm about half way through (Chapter 5, presuming the others are of similar length then pretty much mid-point) and I've spent around 4-5 hours so far, though currently I'm at my first point of being stuck having solved a fair few puzzles off the bat.

I don't mind charging for gestures or clothes - yeah I'm used to Resident Evil style games where the alternative costumes were rewards for completing the game (usually with some caveat) but it's just pointless shit I don't need. As mentioned in the article it doesn't affect my solo game and if I want it I can get it as a nice extra.

What I do dislike is been hit over the head Fable three style - virtually every time I go to that damn room I have John Cleese telling me there's new shite to buy in the shop - now I've completed it the quest with the most reward points (which A) put it to the top of the quest list so it's always default next after finishing a quest and B) the reward points are needed for improving the character on the "road to rule") is "go buy dlc". Now I finished the game within a month of it coming out (I don't get that much chance to play games these days) but extra content to the volume of whole new quests shouldn't be out so quickly - if they were why aren't they part of the game - especially as the hole game feels unfinished without me forking out more money.

This is why it's now sat on a shelf and will never come back out, unlike Fable 2 which I still have the odd run around in (even though they're trying to do the same by introducing the travelling salesman and aquanaught where you have to buy the DLC to do their quests).

So in short - as the article says, there's much worse examples of badly done dlc if you need a bandwagon to jump on, I don't mind Valve trying to make a few extra quid on things people still seems to spend money on (like horse armour) - it also appears it helps keep the price down, first day 30 PC (23 pre-ordered) & 40 PS3/Xbox is a lot less than the 45, 50 or even 60 asked for the latest FPS which is no where near as good a game (but that's a different argument).

Therumancer:

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.

You're allowed to have an opinion and weigh in on the issue, but having only indirect experience with what you are talking about does degrade your arguments somewhat. You're complaining about something you've only experienced by second hand knowledge, this is only a controversy you've heard about. Its the difference between someone staring out a window and wondering what the weather's like, and somebody who's standing outside in the weather and getting a feel for it. Sure, you can guess, and you're definitely intelligent about it. But if you talk to somebody who's actually out there, they have the right to correct you, because they have much more accurate information.

Shamus gets it 100% right. And the idiots in here are starting to unpretty the place, shame.

Perhaps when Valve releases the modding tools and starts releasing their customary massive free maps, levels, and other extra content via Steam, the idiots will take a stand back and say, "oohhhh.... hats aren't DLC! They're just hats." Yeah, I'm sure you'd prefer it if Valve charged you for genuine content. No. You wouldn't. Valve did fine by this.

restoshammyman:
and i dare everyone in here to tell me they did not crack up in laughter over the manual override of the wall.

Mmm, sorry. I only cracked up (like cracked up, dying from laughter-style laughter) at "if the laws of physics no longer apply in the future, god help you."

But I had seen the first scene from PAX videos so, eh.

Very well written. I have agreed on all your points on DLC, although I think that to some extent, it should be allowed to give you maybe unique weapons that other players need the DLC to choose. The only example I have is Socom. In Socom: Confrontation, if you have the DLC, you can fill your load out with new weapons, but if you don't have the DLC, you can still play with everybody, you just can't choose those weapons. If you kill someone, you can pickup the weapon however. The weapons are all balanced, I don't even use many of the new weapons in fact. I think it's an addition that is fair, because it does not add over powered weapons, while at the same time not segregating people who have the DLC and people who don't (like map packs on Call of Duty do). That's just my little difference there, I don't know if any other games do that in a way like Socom does, but that's just my...exception to one of your rules.

All in all, very good article, I hope that at least 1 of those Portal 2 haters sees this and realizes how awesome Valve is.

 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
Registered for a free account here