DLC for Dummies

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

Therumancer:

I just want to respond to a section of this, I agree that it is our duty as consumers to judge before we buy, but DO NOT WRITE A REVIEW about a game that you have not played. People read those to get a better idea about what they're buying. You are not credible to comment on the quality of a product that you not try. It's well within your right to not buy a game that you think you won't like. But again people read reviews because they're expecting informed opinions. If you give them speculation or distorted claims then you are doing them a disservice. You have no right to rate the quality of a product as a whole based on a single feature. I never bought Assassin's Creed 2 because of what i heard about the DRM, but i would never consider trying to give it a rating based on that (but i would not recommended it to my friends whom i could explain to exactly why i wouldn't get it).

I dont have a current gen console or a computer powerful enough to handle Portal 2, but what I do own is a PSP, and the game that is seeing the most play on that PSP is Final Fantasy Dissidia 012, and from your description of how the DLC works on Portal 2, is exactly the same as how DLC works on FFD012. And you know what, that's awesome, this is the ideal way to handle DLC in my mind. I pay an extra dollar and I get 5 new songs to fight to, or a new sexier costume for Tifa? Thats awesome. It doesnt change any of the core mechanics of the game in any way shape or form, it doesnt give me any advantage over my friends in multi-player, its just 1 buck for some extra musical or aesthetic verity. It's a way for Square to bring in some revenue even if the games bought used, it doesnt punish me for buying it new like Project 10$ did. I do not understand why any one would have a problem with this.

Honestly, Id actually be pretty keen to get more single-player experience out of dlc (like fallout three's broken steel, wherein I can buy more game for money)because.. well because dlc comes out quicker than sequels and tends not to run the risk of sucking ass.

Also? I totally support the idea of rewarding me with unbalanced and/or cheat items/powers for preorders and dlc downloads. But thats just because Im an egomaniac with a hard on for explosive overkill (though not appropriate in multiplayer for obvious reasons).

Otherwise? yeah I agree with the dude. Though.. seems poor form to have day one dlc. Kinda like going to a restaurant and getting served dinner and desert at the same time or asking if I want to reserve a table next week before Ive even started eating.

All I can say is: Fuckin right, Shamus. Fuckin right.

sirtommygunn:

Flipao:

sirtommygunn:

I didn't read the rest, but it seems kind of odd that you claim you can't see a sense of entitlement while demanding companies give you stuff simply because other games did it.

If somebody sold me a house and when I moved in the toilet had a sign asking me to pay an extra 20% to unlock it I'd be pretty upset. It shouldn't be different for a game.

Wait what when did we start talking about the kind of dlc in games that locks vital content? We are talking about the kind of DLC that has no effect on the actual gameplay. Your metaphor doesn't work because you are talking about something vital to the house, whereas we were talking about something that doesn't change the game in any significant way. A house that doesn't have a toilet is significantly different from a house that does have a toilet, but two houses that are identical with the exception of a different colored laundry room are not significantly different.

There are already games out there where DLC locks out vital content, so the metaphor stands, as far as Portal 2 is concerned, Gabe Newell is testing the waters, you may see nothing wrong with cosmetic items, but you can rest assured it won't stop there.

We're getting less and less value out of games, and the trend is now to make gamers pay for stuff that used to be included in the cost of the game, free DLC was never free, you'd already paid for it, it was simply delivered after release. People have every right to be disappointed when they see diminishing returns.

Paid for content does make sense given the right situation, I understand the store in TF2, the game is 3 years old, was bundled with Portal and Episode 2 and has been updated regularly with new content. Sticking one in Portal 2 at launch?, it just feels like Valve are screaming out "you haven't paid enough, we want more".

While I agree that the portal DLC whiners are not justified in their position at all. I would like to point out that if Shamus Young wasn't a contributor and wrote this in a post as a common user, he'd probably draw mod wrath for it.

Also, since when is Chell Hispanic? I mean if she is, all fine and good. But almost nothing is known about Chell and what is known is not even remotely concrete. A lot of speculation exists that she might be Cave Johnson's daughter, but no one can even prove that. The only thing that's truly known is that her name is indeed Chell. In any case, Chell looks like she could be any number of ethnicities. But I fail to see how this is at all relevant, or how you even came to that conclusion in the first place.

I stopped reading this when I came across the word "idiot." Name-calling makes your post seem extremely unprofessional. I could go to a hundred different sites on the internet and get content like this; I come to the Escapist because I thought its contributors were a bit more mature than this article has demonstrated.

Just because I disagree with you, does not make me an idiot. It doesn't make you an idiot either.

Why is Day 1 DLC such an issue? It probably wouldn't be there at all if you weren't receiving it for free on launch. Yes the Portal 2 store is stupid, but why do people have to go to so much trouble to complain about it if it's easier to simply ignore it? Perhaps deep down, they actually want all that DLC, but complain when they can't get it for free or not at all.

I'll agree with complaining about the people complaining about the Portal 2 DLC, but I'm really not sure why Seamus thinks that beating on Blizzard's DLC is any better than beating on Valve's. The only DLC for Blizzard games that I am aware of are cosmetic items - minipets and a new skin for a mount. Nothing game changing - just like Portal 2 DLC. Please correct me if I'm somehow missing something.

Therumancer:
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.

Not really. To both those things.

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.

Wait, so which is it, buying it or playing it? "Didn't buy it" would be a totally different kind of thing. Not playing it is absolutely an important piece to be missing.

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.

That is not a problem. That is your problem. So we don't have our own time machines, big whoop. You'd request your money back for seeing a crappy movie? Only douchebags with feelings of entitlement do that. It very much transfers over to video games as well. There is no guarantee of making you like the game so that the store can keep your money. You buy the game so that you can have the game. That is the way shit works.

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.

Yes. I agree with your fabricated exposition about why things are the way they are. Your reading into the events totally makes sense and must be right because you seem to really know what you're talking about. Tell me, is there a class or something you've taken that I can try to get into to become as knowledgeable as yourself about Internet goings-on?

I think the refusal to face reality is largely because by acknowleging that what happened here and with "Dragon Age 2",

You're just insulting Portal 2 by lumping it together with that other game. Although, I haven't played Dragon Age 2, so I guess you can ignore that remark on the grounds of it being baseless conjecture.

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.

You're right. And that lesson? "Don't listen to random driveling idiots online."

Kyprioth:
I stopped reading this when I came across the word "idiot." Name-calling makes your post seem extremely unprofessional. I could go to a hundred different sites on the internet and get content like this; I come to the Escapist because I thought its contributors were a bit more mature than this article has demonstrated.

Just because I disagree with you, does not make me an idiot. It doesn't make you an idiot either.

Several people have posted this sentiment, that Shamus is being rude here, but I disagree. I think when people behave like this, they're being idiots. I don't care if the poster has a Ph.D, if they're going to behave so childishly then they're being an idiot. I don't think it's "name-calling" to call someone out for a bad decision.

And, if no one has posted this, I was looking through the negative reviews on Metacritic and I found one that began like this:

bound4earth:

Valve disappointed on this one. The game is good, but not groundbreaking in anyway. It costs about $30-35 too much money and should have stayed in Orange Box 2.

Let's play a little game here. If a game is "good" but "not groundbreaking", what sort of score do you give it? I think a 6 is probably a little low, I could see a 7 or even an 8, I mean, that's a B or a C, on an alphabetic scale.

The score from this reviewer: 0. That's right, a "good" game gets a 0. This isn't about "You don't agree with me, you're an idiot", this is "You're not even agreeing with yourself".

It's a shame, because its great to see gamers standing up to the plague of DLC.
But for some reason this lot chose Portal 2, which as Shamus said, is relatively innocent, making anyone else who stands against the DLC business model look just as daft.

millertime059:
Sturgeon's law is the unfortunate explanation here. When he said 90% of everything is crap, he wasn't excluding sentient beings. Fortunately the fact that things tend to group with others of their kind protects us here. In this case it is within the dregs of our gene pool known as 4chan. Every now and again they escape their biological wasteland to pollute some other aspect of the Internet. Their opinion is irrelevant, as it is the sad product of a twisted, and malfunctioning mind. Do not care for them, care only for those who may be unwittingly influenced by their verbal vomit. Those who find the overall score, and do not see the twisted machinations that produced it. For while they are yet weak, they are still not without hope. For we can teach them critical thinking. They may learn that REVIEW SCORES DON'T F*@&ING MATTER. Rather more important is the analysis behind the score.

This is why I hate metacritic... people care only for the numbers.

Amen to that.

I completely agree with you about this article.

2. Ideally, DLC should be multiplayer-only.

Remember the mess a couple of weeks ago when the servers went down at BioWare and suddenly all non-pirates were locked out of their game of Dragon Age? That sucked. Servers going down should not impact a single-player game. Being unable to reach the internet should not impact a single-player game.

But if the DLC is part of the multiplayer portion of the game, no problem. If you can't reach the servers then you can't play anyway.

Hell even in Team Fortress 2 when the serves wouldn't connect with Steam it still allowed everyone to play it, just without all the gear they had gotten.

Therumancer:

Arcticflame:

Therumancer:

I'm not parroting anyone's opinions though, all I'm doing is pointing out that there is a negative reception. The point here being that rather than acting like there is something wrong with the people for making the complaints, perhaps when you have this strong of a negative reaction, you should simply accept that there is something wrong with the game.

The point here being that just because a game is getting a bad user review, does not mean it's being "metabombed" for some trivial reason. Especially seeing as the whole "metabombing" concern has been recent, due to a couple of high profile games getting tanked in user reception, despite the groups that are considered to be responsible for it having been out there for a long time, and having never gotten this kind of noticible reaction.

There isn't though, it was metabombed, if you followed the user scores like I did, as soon as the game was unlocked for user reviewing, it went straight to a user score of 3-5, fluctuating around wildly. It stayed like this before people could possible have finished the game, and people who certainly had never played the game were jumping on the bandwagon with the reviews, as none of it made any sense, page on page of people prattling on about day one dlc when they clearly had no idea what was going on.

Yesterday it's score was 7.2, now it's score is 7.9, this is because the actual people who have played and finished the game are finishing around now, reviewing it, and bringing the score up to what people actually think, I think if you take out the day one troll bombs, the user score would be around a 9.

If you note, the user score for Dragon age 2 started low, and has stayed low
There was certainly some bombing going on there, but there were legitimate grievances for it. As much as I liked Dragon Age 2, I certainly see the flaws that the lowest common denominator are whining about on that one.

.

Well, we'll see where the ratings even out as. I think the first "portal" was more of a phenomena than "Dragon Age" was, and as such I think the rating has become a user warzone of sorts, because there are doubtlessly people flocking to the metaratings just to give it perfect reviews to offset the alleged "bombing".

I don't doubt that plenty of people did have the day 1 DLC figure into their rating, and were quite blunt about it (and let's be honest, when something annoys you, it's wise to make that clear). However arguements about how the ratings were too fast for people to finish the game are rather ridiculous, after all you can tell pretty quick if you like a game or not, and if you don't like a game your not going to finish it. The guy who plays for an hour or two and decides "wow, I really don't like this, and am not going to finish it, this sucks" has every right to rate the game accordingly, that is after all the whole point of the ratings.

It will be interesting to see how things turn out in the end, but right now I do tend to think that as shocking as it is, Valve has finally made a game that isn't being well received.

*points to critics' score of 95* That's not well-recieved?
I understand the point you're trying to make, and it's a very good, legitimate one, but I wouldn't apply it to this particular game. Using your Dragon Age 2 example, let's comapre the two games. Dragon Age started low and STAYED low; at time of writing this post, it sits at a user score of 4.5. Portal 2, on the other hand, started low, sure, but then slowly climbed up as people who actually played through the entire game finished it and came on to make their statements. It is currently sitting at an 8.0 user score, clearly indicating that the intital wave of trolls with their 0 scores was a minority that quickly settled down. If there really was a fundamental problem with the game that users wanted to make a statement about, the score would have stayed low, similar to the statement made by the Dragon Age 2 reviews. As it stands, the users seem to like it quite a bit- an 8 is nothing to take lightly. Your point about the blind fanboys stands, but there are clearly enough people liking and enjoying the game enough that the metascore has jumped almost 4 whole points since Day 1- blind fanboyism is not enough to attribute for such a jump. People must really enjoy it. Regarding your statement that it is not well recieved- do critics simply not count, then, too? Anyone who says that all critics are "bought off" by the game industry is simply spouting nonsense. A lot of game critics are people who have jobs that don't pay fantastically, but do what they do because they are people just like you and me who love what they do and want to share news and opinions about video games and what they can do for society. Critics don't just LIKE Portal 2- they ADORE it. A 95 is nearly impossible for a game to get, so for a game to be so univerally adored, it clearly had to have been positively recieved in some way. Moving away from Metacritic, we find more positive user reception- the GameInformer.com User Score is currently sitting at a 9.5, and the IGN readers' score is a 9.2. Yet more positive reception- only Metacritc got the bombing. I smell trolls!

Also, if you take some time to actually read the user reviews, the zero reviews make points that are simply fundamentally wrong. Some gripes are legitimate, and I can understand that not everyone would like the game, but some statements, like the idea that it is a rushed console port, are simply inaccurate and are misinformation that might decieve someone into having the wrong opinion of a game that deserves to be played and experienced. Other points might be debatable, so here are my positions. Regarding the DLC issue, I honestly didn't even notice that the DLC existed in the game until this firestorm happened. The DLC does not affect your experience whatsoever, and you can play through the entire game without ever even noticing that it's there, let alone being prompted to buy it. Make a stand about DLC if you want, but Portal 2 is not the game to do it on. Pick something else.

Regarding the length, I find it very hard to believe that the game can be finished in 4-5 hours- When I hit the 4.5 hour mark, I was nowhere near done with the game (I had been on Chapter 6 and hadn't played a second of co-op yet). Plus, to those who say that it's only 5 hours- would you rather have a stuffed, overpadded experience drawn out to 20 hours with a bunch of filler that wastes time? One of the things I love about this game is that so far, there has not been one second of wasted time. Everything in the game is honed to a point of perfection and is there for a purpose or as part of the immersive world that the game creates- nothing is wasted or superficial. I'd take 5 hours of perfection over 20 hours of boring padding any day of the week, thank you.

I know not all of this pertains to your post, but the point that I'm trying to make to you is that Portal 2 is not a game that deserves the Metabashing that it's getting in any way. Since you haven't tried the game yet, I don't want your opinion of it to be colored by this, as what I have played is an absolutely fantastic experience that I would recommend to almost anyone. Don't let firestorms like this color your opinion of a game- Pick it up for yourself and get the experience firsthand. I know I'm just one humble person in the vast seas of the interwebs, but in my personal opinion, Portal 2 is great, great, GREAT game and deserves to be remembered for the wonderful experience that it brings to players, not some stupid DLC-based firestorming.

You know...

There is ONE thing worse than complaining about meaningless DLC, or indeed, any DLC at all.

Making ones self seem like a "too hip for the room", well informed, yet still douchey champion for all the "easy" issues in gaming.

I cant honestly claim to have read all of Shamus's articles, and I certaintly have enjoyed my fair share of his comics, but it just seems to be that you spend too much time emulating Blizzard's own Greg Street, aka Ghostcrawler. (And Im sure the comparison rankles you to no end.)

Both of you stand on soap boxes, appearing on the surface to be some sort of kindly father figure, berating us silly gamers for our latest silly antics.

But in reality, you are both simply using your positions to quote platitudes on easy subjects, and of course, berate gamers.

People bitching about nonsensical things, like DLC? That took what... 30 minutes to write? "Empowering" female gamers? How many times have I read THAT old chestnut? Gamers in general retreading and retreading all the unfortunate aspects of human nature online? Is this the best you can do?

Try tackling something truly difficult, Id say. Choose a topic that isnt guarenteed to generate a ton of "You tell em, Bro!!" replies. Tackle a subject that people DONT like to talk about, or flame about like the day is long, Shamus. The articles you choose to do your pieces on feel mostly cheap, because theyre all safe, while being guarenteed flame-bait, and ANYONE could write that. Youre better then that, arent you?

Because if you arent, that would make you just another complainining attention seeker... like all those youve previously lambasted.

Whiskey Echo!!
Mythgraven

I agree entirely basically, although I'd argue the DLC is a tad rough around the edges on its implimentation. You see, it's sitting there in the menu as something that I simply cannot understand and lacks any documentation to assist me with understanding. For example, I beat the single player and seemed to unlock a little beanie or something. Does that mean customers are paying to receive in-game unlocks, or was it a random gift for beating the game once, or are the rest of the items store exclusive?

If I, say, wanted Hypothetical Hat #32 I'd be disappointed if I paid for it to find out later it could be unlocked in game, not so much from the loss of real funds, but because I'd feel I cheated myself out of a game reward. I really doubt I'll pay for any such items anyway, and I agree that this is the best non-intrusive DLC type seen to date, but it's imperfect. I'm not sure if from a strictly design point of view a player should be left with such questions.

Regardless, it's refreshing to read a post on this topic with logical reasoning.

I think DLC in general (with the exception of full games, or cheap and/or free expansions) are basically ruining gaming.

I know other people have put this forward already, but the problem is that companies are now charging for all kinds of things that used to be free in games. Not only that, but being able to just buy a new costume or what-have-you for your character removes the sense of excitement and/or achievement that gaining such an item through gameplay, as was previously the case, would bestow. We see this happening in this most recent controversy, where Valve is charging for trinkets, costumes and extras. Game altering or not, in the past, even these extras were something you had to achieve, and they were a bragging right in themselves. And we also see it in the pre-orders and special additions that come with exclusive weapons or items.

And even in the case of fairly significant DLC, like an expansion, the price for these is rapidly inflating as the size and scope of the actual content shrinks. I think the most notorious example was the first MW2 map pack, which cost an unholy 15$ and, more nefariously, set the absolute bottom line for all similar DLC to come.

Now companies are more and more frequently turning to this nickel-and-dime tactic of charging for trinkets and small chunks of extra content, because the numbers prove it's very lucrative. But it's without a doubt changing, for the worse, the way games are played. And do we as gamers really deserve that?

Got probation cause I called someone on here an idiot for complaining about DLC in one day old games. And BTW they had not even played the game. I stand by my comment that said person and all like him/her are swell guys and gals.

Shamus Young love your work.

So I take it Mr Portal in four hours wouldn't be a massive fan of horse armour then?

I'm against all day one DLC however, Valve has done DLC right in this case. I view it more as a visual achievement system. Other games like Fallout New Vegas should of made their unlockable items able to be able to be reward to non-pre-ordering player through quest or alike.

Now about those idiots on Meta-score.... that one guy as quoted probably spent 4 hours trying to figure out how to use the screen menu then through random clicking found the online store.

Well I did get a cute little beanie with a companion cube box on it for my coop bot for completing the single player campaign, something I am sure those wags also missed noticing. That alone is enough cosmetic for me. TotalBiscuit did a short playthrough of the first few levels(not chapters) of the game and gave his two cents about the DLC shop. He voiced his objection to it but not very loudly. He also pointed out that it isn't DLC at all, as all the items offered in the shop are already downloaded as part of the game. They are actually unlockables. You just need to use your credit/debit card/steam wallet to unlock them(or complete stuff ingame as well).
Frankly I prefer the coop bots just as GlaDOS designed them.

Now if we could get turrets in Table or Improv....

Anyway, thanks for what you put here Shamus. If this shows me one thing it definitely teaches me to not trust Metacritic like one should not trust the Better Business Bureau's scores. Both can be skewed by morons.
And it took me a little over 6 hours to complete it(Steam's time, but my clock agrees. Hopefully Valve fixes that for everyone else having issues), and that was with as much rushing as I could do. I figured I could save the easter eggs for the second time around. They do not disappoint.

she's a pretty latina, don't see why that's ever a problem :]

I told those complainers that they were being unreasonable and now Shamus has made an article that can properly articulate my thoughts on this...it's all pretty silly.

Note though that this is just another way for Valve to get money off of silly people who will regret it later but Mann Co. did that and no body has complained and it's kind the exact same thing since you can actually get the Portal items for free

Honestly who cares

Flipao:

If somebody sold me a house and when I moved in the toilet had a sign asking me to pay an extra 20% to unlock it I'd be pretty upset. It shouldn't be different for a game.

If the toilet's at the bottom of the garden, and there's a functional one already in place, I really wouldn't mind that much. I mean you still have a working toilet inside the house.

Shamus Young:
Experienced Points: DLC for Dummies

Shamus skewers the Portal 2 DLC backlash

Read Full Article

DLC is inherently dishonest in several ways:

...it doesn't "tell you" what the full price for a product is going to be from the start (e.g. no one knew about the Portal 2 shop till it was released, it was apparently also missing from review copies, same thing with other DLC). I enjoyed the game a lot, took about 10 hours and happily paid for it (twice...kinda) but I was kind of miffed by the shop.

...it tricks people psychologically into spending a lot of money because it is only "minor amounts".

...the asking price rarely fits the actual labor that went into creating a product, 5-20$ for modeling a hat or a horse, really? In the "real world" the asking price is usually tied more in line to the physical production costs of an actual material product (and brand name)

... there is huge potential for abuse (and it has been done already) e.g. see Assassin's Creed 2, which "skips" over a Chapter of story if you don't buy DLC or Dragon Age 2 that lacks story-relevant quests and characters if you didn't Pre-Order 1 month ahead/didn't buy things, same might be pointed out for Mass Effect 2's "Arrival", which is supposed to be a plot point leading to the beginning of Mass Effect 3. Or Street Fighter and several other games that already have all the content (like several costumes) on the disc and you just pay them to "unlock" it (I guess that could also be said for several of these shops)

Team Fortress 2 went over a few of your "guidelines" with its "Mann Co." Update, one of them would be balance, while you still have an about equal chance to kill people you would constantly have to adjust to new weapons and there is set boni on hats and equipping a complete set for the more "privileged".

It also had more pervasive ways in which it changed the game, mainly by actually changing the community and the way it was played, before getting some items was just a thing a few people did while playing the game, after the update for a lot of people collecting the items, crafting and whatever metagame components they also added became the game... In a lot of situations you would join a server and there would be people idling in the base trading, talking about what items they'd like to trade or talking about the newest hats instead of actually playing the game and in TF2 all that is hardly "optional". I basically stopped playing it after that because I just didn't want to deal with it/have anything to do with it and it stopped being fun, a few people I know and I've played with reacted in a similar way and if any discussion where it is being brought up is to be believed we're not the only ones... Now I'm sure Valve won't cry itself to sleep over that and they will probably make a lot more money with their shop than they lose by uninterested customers.

Me personally I thought they would be above that. I remember Gabe's rather "unique" way of looking at piracy: http://www.teleread.com/drm/gabe-newells-keynote-from-dice-2009/ and the often repeated phrase that they are "in touch" with their customer base. Or their philosophy on not becoming a publicly traded company: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/09/03/valve-software%E2%80%99s-philosophy-becoming-publicly-traded-company (because they didn't want to be about the money and they want to have full creative control over their products and platforms, also that they make so much money with Steam by now that that isn't really a concern when they're going into a new project), why then are they lately engaging in a lot of these obvious "money" moves? If they want to be held to a higher standard they also have to continuously earn that privilege.

I wouldn't complain about Portal 2, because I liked it and I will probably only play the Multiplayer for 2-3 times and that'll be it... but the people that do (or did) were probably not as much raging against the item shop itself as integrated in Portal 2 but as a whole against its continued existence in Valve games and (likely) future implementations of it... heck they've already said that Team Fortress 2 was only a "test bed" for what is to come.

In the end, they "rage" or praise something because they care either way... they take those few minutes out of their personal time to write a however worded reply and that is a positive thing for most products, they're saying what they don't like loud and clear. The worst thing that could happen to a game is general indifference (towards it or its existence).

What is there to add except that I completely agree with the entire article, it's pretty much exactly what I have been saying in the discussion threads about it.

Azdron:
Honestly, Id actually be pretty keen to get more single-player experience out of dlc (like fallout three's broken steel, wherein I can buy more game for money)because.. well because dlc comes out quicker than sequels and tends not to run the risk of sucking ass.

Also? I totally support the idea of rewarding me with unbalanced and/or cheat items/powers for preorders and dlc downloads. But thats just because Im an egomaniac with a hard on for explosive overkill (though not appropriate in multiplayer for obvious reasons).

Otherwise? yeah I agree with the dude. Though.. seems poor form to have day one dlc. Kinda like going to a restaurant and getting served dinner and desert at the same time or asking if I want to reserve a table next week before Ive even started eating.

Yeah. I love games that have a "Pay 99 cents for 9 million money". Sometimes I get bored of a game and would rather spend a dollar to make it exciting for another week than run out and spend 60 bucks for a new game :P.

Dexter111:

Shamus Young:
Experienced Points: DLC for Dummies

Shamus skewers the Portal 2 DLC backlash

Read Full Article

DLC is inherently dishonest in several ways:

Master Snip.

DLC is not dishonest, because you have the option not to buy it. That's pretty much the long and the short of it.

Do people really not understand the difference between DLC and microtransactions?

StriderShinryu:
I think there is a slightly valid complaint about the DLC, that being the amount of it available on day 1. Sure it doesn't impact the game at all, but having these little things planned to be launched in a sideline store along with the game does grate a little for someone who grew up playing games in the days where things like what they are selling used to be in game unlockables. Like I said, not a big deal at all, just irritating.

The problem is that people that gripe about day one DLC, don't understand what goes on when a game is being made. John Funk, in the Portal 2 Backlash thread, used this link to a post by Virgil. Please educate yourself.. Virgil's explanation of how the process of making games works, deflates all the madness people seem to have over day one DLC.

Day one DLC is perfectly understandable.

John Funk:
Do people really not understand the difference between DLC and microtransactions?

Sadly, this is the case...

Idk the first portal was only 20 bucks. Im not really ready to pay 50 bucks for the sequal, even if its got improved mechanics.

Sonic Doctor:

StriderShinryu:
I think there is a slightly valid complaint about the DLC, that being the amount of it available on day 1. Sure it doesn't impact the game at all, but having these little things planned to be launched in a sideline store along with the game does grate a little for someone who grew up playing games in the days where things like what they are selling used to be in game unlockables. Like I said, not a big deal at all, just irritating.

The problem is that people that gripe about day one DLC, don't understand what goes on when a game is being made. John Funk, in the Portal 2 Backlash thread, used this link to a post by Virgil. Please educate yourself.. Virgil's explanation of how the process of making games works, deflates all the madness people seem to have over day one DLC.

Day one DLC is perfectly understandable.

Oh, of course. But this isn't the full fledged DLC that Funk is describing. This is literally stuff that a generation ago would have been included in the game with no extra cost... and, yes, it would have been developed and added to the game during the regular development cycle.

Therumancer:

I'm not parroting anyone's opinions though, all I'm doing is pointing out that there is a negative reception. The point here being that rather than acting like there is something wrong with the people for making the complaints, perhaps when you have this strong of a negative reaction, you should simply accept that there is something wrong with the game.

The point here being that just because a game is getting a bad user review, does not mean it's being "metabombed" for some trivial reason. Especially seeing as the whole "metabombing" concern has been recent, due to a couple of high profile games getting tanked in user reception, despite the groups that are considered to be responsible for it having been out there for a long time, and having never gotten this kind of noticible reaction.

The bit about the DLC is a side point, I think it upset people, especially coming from Valve of all people, but people have been complaining about day 1 DLC for a long time, and nobody has gotten "metabombed" to this extent for something like this before.... bsides which, a "bombing" isn't likely to do what we're seeing. We're looking at a ton of dissatisfied people as opposed to say upsetting a bunch of people on /V/ exclusively.

What's more I don't think anyone can rationally defend things like these outfits, or "Horse Armor" as being GOOD things. Trying to do so is just as ridiculous as trying to saying that an issue like this that has been around for so long, is going to inspire a massive reaction all on it's own all of a sudden.

Like it or not, Valve released a game that wasn't well received despite massive hype. That seems to be the bottom line, and trying to deny it or make excuses doesn't change it. It seems like the defenses are kind of pointless which is why I'm bothering to respond. Let things stand on their own, instead of trying to make excuses for companies like Valve or Bioware, and hope they can adapt and recover.

It didn't get de-rated soley because of the DLC, even if it upset a lot of people, it's not going to have any more effect here than it did for other games with DLC that POed people. It got de-rated because apparently a lot of people who bought the game were less than thrilled with the product they received. While it wasn't my analogy, I again think back to the whole "Blair Witch" vs. "Blair Witch 2" analogy. A game that is loved because it was the little "also ran" that could from "The Orange Box" that gets expanded into a full fledged "AAA" type ultra-hip title with massive marketing and specific exposure, and then crashes because not many people like it despite the fact that it should be "perfect" going by what people say made the first one great.... we've seen it before, within video gaming even, it shouldn't be shocking anyone, or need people to come up with excuses to explain what happened.

Okay, now I get where you're coming from a little better, I think.

I stand by my point that if Valve had simply decided not to include the features currently offered as DLC at all, we wouldn't be having this discussion (especially since Shamus was addressing the issue of people getting butt-hurt over the DLC; that's the whole point of this article), but if people genuinely feel that Portal 2 was a disappointment, well, then they are entitled to their opinion. Trying to arbitrarily reduce Portal 2's Metascore by giving it a 0 rating (essentially saying, "Portal 2 is so bad it is as though I were sold an empty box") is kind of immature, but if you feel the need to redress the issue of the corporate whore-ish-ness of professional game reviewers that badly then zero away.

Frankly, I don't think there's any way Portal 2 could have avoided some disappointment. It's the successor to one of the best games ever made, and part of the charm of the original was that it was new and excitingly different and an indie title. It was special in so many ways that you just can't replicate in a sequel.

 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