DLC for Dummies

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

AldeBaron:
The only time Valve ever pissed me off was with the Mann Co. Store.

Yes, some of that money goes to the creators, but $5 hats are insane whatever way you swing it. But the really infuriating thing was that you could just straight up buy weapon sets and get them before anyone else had the chance to get them in game.

Then there were the crates where you paid money to have a chance of getting a random item (which could also be another crate).

But cream on top the shit sundae was when specific hats became part of weapon sets. Some of the bonuses of those sets had no negatives. If you were using the same weapons with no hat, you could lose an extra 10% max health. Meanwhile the assholes who can afford to pay $50 for a fake hat and its matching guns can tromp around with that fancy buff on Day 1. Now, to their credit, Valve has removed the hat limitations from all future weapon sets, although that hasn't applied retroactively to the first 5.

Why do I bring this up? Because that's what screwed up in-game stores look like. It's not purely cosmetic hats and emotes, it's being able to buy an advantage, no matter how slight. Last I checked, there's no hat in Portal 2 that lets me shoot 3 portals or something.

So don't buy $5 hats then, simple as that. Let people buy $5 hats if they think they're worth it,same goes for the crates i have a couple just sitting there that will never be opened. But you're saying that this shop shouldn't even exist because you would never use it?

I can almost see your argument about buying weapons holding weight. Except that the new weapons simply re-balance the game giving advantages but at a price (not monetary), allowing the class to preform a slightly different (or completely different) role. I still feel that the game is balanced despite the new weapons for each class. I honestly use the standard weapons just as often as i use newer ones. And in the end, you can still find all the weapons by playing the game, or trade your doubles for it.

timeadept:

ZiggyE:
Valve is one of the worst offenders when it comes to DLC.

That's with Team Fortress 2. About Portal 2, I agree with Shamus entirely.

What's wrong with TF2 DLC? I never paid for any of it and i still feel that the game is fun and balanced. Or is there something i'm missing?

The problem is the prices are insanely high, for the price of a TF2 hat you can go to the Android or Apple app stores and buy 4-5 pretty decent games. Angry Birds and Dungeon Defenders may not be AAA titles, but they can keep you entertained for days, unlike a shitty hat that costs 5 times as much.

Pricing of PC software is a joke.

Frostbite3789:

Therumancer:
Unprofessional and uncool Shamus, calling people idiots for not agreeing with you is pretty much what your accusing them of. I like your column, but I think you went overboard here.

I'll also be honest in saying that I disagree with you about how big a deal the DLC for "Portal 2" is. There is a reason for that, and one you didn't seem to consider. The problem is that nowadays the game industry is trying to charge extra money for the kinds of things that have traditionally been included in games as part of the overall product.

This is the part I took offense to the most in this reply. Aside from the fanboy comment. Are you saying League of Legends (a F2P game) should not be allowed to charge for skins? And how long have alternate costumes been a part of a game, where you don't have to jump through stupid hoops to get them?

Evidently you can unlock them by getting achievements, but can also pay money for them with Portal 2. It's just like with the Be a Pro Mode in the NHL games, you go online and pay real money to buy the boost equipment, or you can man the hell up and earn it by meeting certain requirements and playing the game well.

And Shamus is right, out of all the DLC this is what we as a gaming community have evidently decided we won't stand for? Not Bioware withholding basic quests in both Dragon Age and Mass Effect games? Not $15 map packs that provide 1/50th of the content at 1/4th of the price? The gaming community has decided to be outraged about this and take a stand? This is our line the sand?

I'm ashamed to be a part of such a community right now.

Ultimatly, noone should be charging for things like "skins" if you want my opinion. I think DLC should only be used for signfigant additions after the fact to an otherwise complete game, rather than pretty much anything that could be considered an "extra" being stripped away and charged for seperatly. This is my opinion though, and has little to do with this debate overall.

Your correct that there is plenty of trivial content out there, and ALL of it garners complaints. Horse Armor, Map Packs, Skins and Costumes, Color Palette extensions. The whole racket has been causing a lot of people to get upset for a while, and it's hard to really say if any of this garbage is more worthy than any other.

However, I don't think there has really been a "line in the sand" drawn here. If there was I supposed it would be as good a place as any other, I mean anyplace it would be drawn would result in the same criticism. I think in the final equasion the DLC might have upset some people, but I don't think it was responsible for the ratings "Portal 2" has been getting, at most it, and resulting disappointment with Valve, was a contributing factor.

See, to really damage the meta-rating of a product you have to see a *LOT* of traffic comparitively thinking. Most of the "usual suspects" that head out to crash ratings have been out there for many years now, and are expected. They already figure into most ratings, or are weeded out from the ratings rather easily. Boards like /V/ might be vocal, and do some annoying things, but they aren't going to be able to massively influance professionally gathered statistics when people have been onto them this long. To see what your looking at here, and with "Dragon Age 2" (another game where the same thing happened) you have to have a lot of dissatisfied customers. I think in the end a lot of people were simply not content with the way "Portal 2" turned out after they purchused it, enough to tank the rating to the extent we're looking at.

You talk about Bioware's trivial DLC and such, but let's not forget, they got hammered too with their last release. The differance is that it seems like a lot of people are trying to use people being upset with Valve's DLC as a way to to say that's what it's all about, rather than problems with the game itself causing customer dissatisfaction.

The game's good.

Day 1 DLC, stuff so small that should just be given out, makes valve look greedy.

It's not even DLC it's just taunts and other stupid things.

Add expansion packs after, not in the release. At least try to make it seem you're making new stuff, unlike just dictatorially locking stuff out on the day of release

Therumancer:
Ultimatly, noone should be charging for things like "skins" if you want my opinion. I think DLC should only be used for signfigant additions after the fact to an otherwise complete game, rather than pretty much anything that could be considered an "extra" being stripped away and charged for seperatly. This is my opinion though, and has little to do with this debate overall.

Your correct that there is plenty of trivial content out there, and ALL of it garners complaints. Horse Armor, Map Packs, Skins and Costumes, Color Palette extensions. The whole racket has been causing a lot of people to get upset for a while, and it's hard to really say if any of this garbage is more worthy than any other.

However, I don't think there has really been a "line in the sand" drawn here. If there was I supposed it would be as good a place as any other, I mean anyplace it would be drawn would result in the same criticism. I think in the final equasion the DLC might have upset some people, but I don't think it was responsible for the ratings "Portal 2" has been getting, at most it, and resulting disappointment with Valve, was a contributing factor.

See, to really damage the meta-rating of a product you have to see a *LOT* of traffic comparitively thinking. Most of the "usual suspects" that head out to crash ratings have been out there for many years now, and are expected. They already figure into most ratings, or are weeded out from the ratings rather easily. Boards like /V/ might be vocal, and do some annoying things, but they aren't going to be able to massively influance professionally gathered statistics when people have been onto them this long. To see what your looking at here, and with "Dragon Age 2" (another game where the same thing happened) you have to have a lot of dissatisfied customers. I think in the end a lot of people were simply not content with the way "Portal 2" turned out after they purchused it, enough to tank the rating to the extent we're looking at.

You talk about Bioware's trivial DLC and such, but let's not forget, they got hammered too with their last release. The differance is that it seems like a lot of people are trying to use people being upset with Valve's DLC as a way to to say that's what it's all about, rather than problems with the game itself causing customer dissatisfaction.

I think we just fundamentally disagree here. With LoL, a F2P game, where money is only brought in from skins/champs. Although champs can be purchased with a currency earned just by playing the game. All other content, updates, maps, everything else is completely free. I'm perfectly ok with this. Everything core to the game can either be earned by playing, or earned by doing nothing at all.

Only the things that aren't required and are for people that want to drop money on the game cost money. I've dropped money on some RP for skins, just because I want to support Riot. I love that game.

And yeah, DA2 was bombed, but not for DLC. For streamlining and simplifying. People aren't hating it for the quality, they are saying specifically in their reviews (the ones that actually write anything) that they're zero-ing for the DLC. They aren't complaining about the gameplay or the story. You know, the things that really matter. Costumes, they can't even see on themselves because it's a first person came really honest to god lowers their opinion of the game that much. Or they're just being dickheads.

I really hope it's the second. Because if it's the first, I have nothing to do other than sigh and shake my head.

(Random aside: The reCAPTCHA thing definitely does not always use...letters. It's kind of odd and off-putting.)

Therumancer:
The problem is that nowadays the game industry is trying to charge extra money for the kinds of things that have traditionally been included in games as part of the overall product. Alternate costumes have been a standby for games for a very long time, one of the incentives to replay games a second time with the new look, or something part of the experience revolved around as you tried to figure out how to unlock them.

A lot of people talk about an attitude of entitlement among gamers when it comes to these kidns of things, but I don't think that's really the case.

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.

This is silly. This entire article was equally silly but commited the sin of ignorance. People DID complain about the DLC, people complain when a company does DLC wrong. Where are you living that you don't see the backlash as soon as it is announced?

ZiggyE:

timeadept:

ZiggyE:
Valve is one of the worst offenders when it comes to DLC.

That's with Team Fortress 2. About Portal 2, I agree with Shamus entirely.

What's wrong with TF2 DLC? I never paid for any of it and i still feel that the game is fun and balanced. Or is there something i'm missing?

This guy said it better than I could have.

AldeBaron:
The only time Valve ever pissed me off was with the Mann Co. Store.

Yes, some of that money goes to the creators, but $5 hats are insane whatever way you swing it. But the really infuriating thing was that you could just straight up buy weapon sets and get them before anyone else had the chance to get them in game.

Then there were the crates where you paid money to have a chance of getting a random item (which could also be another crate).

But cream on top the shit sundae was when specific hats became part of weapon sets. Some of the bonuses of those sets had no negatives. If you were using the same weapons with no hat, you could lose an extra 10% max health. Meanwhile the assholes who can afford to pay $50 for a fake hat and its matching guns can tromp around with that fancy buff on Day 1. Now, to their credit, Valve has removed the hat limitations from all future weapon sets, although that hasn't applied retroactively to the first 5.

Why do I bring this up? Because that's what screwed up in-game stores look like. It's not purely cosmetic hats and emotes, it's being able to buy an advantage, no matter how slight. Last I checked, there's no hat in Portal 2 that lets me shoot 3 portals or something.

Not to mention the fact that there a certain hats and weapons that the only way you can get is by buying or preordering a completely different game that you probably would have had no interest in to begin with.

Ah, just responded to him actually. The advantages come at a price, and i usually find that price to be fair. I still use the standard weapons and find them to be extremely useful. The new weapons simply allow a class to preform a different role. I can understand being annoyed about needing a hat for an entire set to get a bonus, but it only applies to new sets right? They're not releasing hats that give bonuses for older weapons right? You can be just as competitive if you want to use a completely different set.

When i look at it your way i can see how it's stupid, but honestly it's not that bad. There are worse offenders than TF2 and the game still functions fine, just don't use that set until you find that hat, there are plenty of other just as plausible ways to use a class. I think you might be able to craft them as well (but i could be wrong).

*edit* managed to write my response inside a quote /facepalm

LCP:
The game's good.

Day 1 DLC, stuff so small that should just be given out, makes valve look greedy.

It's not even DLC it's just taunts and other stupid things.

Add expansion packs after, not in the release. At least try to make it seem you're making new stuff, unlike just dictatorially locking stuff out on the day of release

So you are saying
A: You are entitled to free hats because you say so.

B: Hats are stupid anyways.

and
C: They should release hats/gestures weeks or months after the game, so that most people, especially the ones that care the most, have already beaten the Co-op and have no reason to buy the optional items anymore? It's not Team Fortress. There's not a lot of replay value in a puzzle game. Holding off on the DLC would probably be the sign of the worst business sense for any video game company, ever.

CAPTCHA: ofmentr LnYt

sirtommygunn:

Therumancer:
The problem is that nowadays the game industry is trying to charge extra money for the kinds of things that have traditionally been included in games as part of the overall product. Alternate costumes have been a standby for games for a very long time, one of the incentives to replay games a second time with the new look, or something part of the experience revolved around as you tried to figure out how to unlock them.

A lot of people talk about an attitude of entitlement among gamers when it comes to these kidns of things, but I don't think that's really the case.

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.

Flipao:

timeadept:

ZiggyE:
Valve is one of the worst offenders when it comes to DLC.

That's with Team Fortress 2. About Portal 2, I agree with Shamus entirely.

What's wrong with TF2 DLC? I never paid for any of it and i still feel that the game is fun and balanced. Or is there something i'm missing?

The problem is the prices are insanely high, for the price of a TF2 hat you can go to the Android or Apple app stores and buy 4-5 pretty decent games. Angry Birds and Dungeon Defenders may not be AAA titles, but they can keep you entertained for days, unlike a shitty hat that costs 5 times as much.

Pricing of PC software is a joke.

So go do that then. If no one buys from the store then they stop supporting it. Obviously some people find it to be a good deal. No one is forcing you to buy a $5 hat. It's almost as if you're trying to argue that just because you refuse to use the store that it shouldn't exist at all.

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.

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.

Yes, it upset people to the point that they lost rationality, they saw day one DLC, and immediatly went OMG HORSE ARMOUR AGAIN without looking at it for what it actually was, useless cosmetics.

I don't see that as a way to apologise for their idiocy, if you are stupid enough to make decisions like that without first researching and actually working out what the exact effect is. You are an brainless follower of the tantrum brigade. You are metabombing because you are doing it without proper knowledge of what you are talking about.

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.

I think you very easily can defend it as good. Valve get more money out of people who aren't me. I dont buy this type of DLC, I dont care if I wear a funny hat in a game, if I get one for free that's cool, but I won't purchase it.

But valve get more money out of people who do, and valve are a company I want to have more and more money, and I would love for them to get tooooons of cash as they already do, because they deserve it in my books.
Purely selfishly for me? I don't think it's good, but I similarly don't think it's bad, it's entirely ignorable.

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.

I sure as hell can deny it, people like to buy cosmetic items like that, and they make money out of it. Valve isn't a saint, they saw what people did with hats in TF2 and went wahoo, more money.
I would do the exact same thing with my game, I draw the line at DLC locking you out of the game. Games like league of legends model for DLC is the way to go,cosmetic changes are $ only, gameplay changes can be got either not by money, or by both.
Valve have done this. The DLC changes no gameplay, you purchase it or can ignore it. If the DLC had never existed, nothing would effectively have changed. That is I think more of a teller about how important this DLC is.

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.

I think it did. Every single one of my friends who bought portal 2 (Over 20) have told me they thought it was at least a 90+ game, alf of these are not valve fanboys at all, they play call of duty as their multiplayer game of choice, they prefer xbox usually, etc etc. Only 2-3 have even noticed the DLC, because I think the majority of people, or at least a huge portion haven't even finished singleplayer yet.

restoshammyman:

mcnally86:

Irridium:

snip

snip

snip

you understand that there is nothing compelling you to buy the silly hat right?
its just a bloody hat!

if you dont want it dont buy it, it changes nothing about that game what so ever.

and trust me when i tell you. no one is "fooled" into buying a hat.

Seconded. Where are all of these poor souls who were deceived into buying a hat? Who is both savvy enough to have a partner lined up for co-op without playing through the single-player game first, as well as inept enough to drop five clams on a cosmetic accessory that they wouldn't have bought if they'd known it could be unlocked?

ZiggyE:
Not to mention the fact that there a certain hats and weapons that the only way you can get is by buying or preordering a completely different game that you probably would have had no interest in to begin with.

Nope, all gameplay-affecting items(weapons) are randomly dropped and craftable. There are some hats that you can get by buying, preordering, or simply trading your own crafted hats for. These are completely inconsequential and purely aesthetic, but if you really want a promotional hat, just craft some hats of your own and find someone to trade with.

So Shamus basically called everyone bitching about the Portal 2 DLC a bunch of morons... no big surprise...

Damn, I'm happy you got to this, Shamus. I saw that comment on Metacritic myself, and it nearly gave me a fucking seizure - from laughing so hard :P

constantcompile:
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.

This isn't about toilets. Portal 2 has several toilets in it. It's about hats. If you bought a house and it did not come with a hat, would you have been swindled?

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.

Except with Portal 2, they're not locking you out of the toilet, they're giving you wallpaper that's completely functional, yet a little bland, and then saying, "We're selling new and exciting wallpaper if you're interested."

timeadept:

Flipao:

timeadept:

What's wrong with TF2 DLC? I never paid for any of it and i still feel that the game is fun and balanced. Or is there something i'm missing?

The problem is the prices are insanely high, for the price of a TF2 hat you can go to the Android or Apple app stores and buy 4-5 pretty decent games. Angry Birds and Dungeon Defenders may not be AAA titles, but they can keep you entertained for days, unlike a shitty hat that costs 5 times as much.

Pricing of PC software is a joke.

So go do that then. If no one buys from the store then they stop supporting it. Obviously some people find it to be a good deal. No one is forcing you to buy a $5 hat. It's almost as if you're trying to argue that just because you refuse to use the store that it shouldn't exist at all.

I agree 100%, dumb gamers are just as guilty as greedy developers.

Podunk:

timeadept:

Not to mention the fact that there a certain hats and weapons that the only way you can get is by buying or preordering a completely different game that you probably would have had no interest in to begin with.

Nope, all gameplay-affecting items(weapons) are randomly dropped and craftable. There are some hats that you can get by buying, preordering, or simply trading your own crafted hats for. These are completely inconsequential and purely aesthetic, but if you really want a promotional hat, just craft some hats of your own and find someone to trade with.

I never said that... i must have managed to write my response inside a quote again...

timeadept:
I never said that... i must have managed to write my response inside a quote again...

It was at the end of your post, so I got confused. Fixed my previous post now, though.

Flipao:

sirtommygunn:

Therumancer:
The problem is that nowadays the game industry is trying to charge extra money for the kinds of things that have traditionally been included in games as part of the overall product. Alternate costumes have been a standby for games for a very long time, one of the incentives to replay games a second time with the new look, or something part of the experience revolved around as you tried to figure out how to unlock them.

A lot of people talk about an attitude of entitlement among gamers when it comes to these kidns of things, but I don't think that's really the case.

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.
EDIT: podunk said it way better than I could.

Podunk:

timeadept:
I never said that... i must have managed to write my response inside a quote again...

It was at the end of your post, so I got confused. Fixed my previous post now, though.

Yeah, like i said, i managed to write my response inside a quote (and then promptly fixed it). No harm done, but thanks for pointing it out.

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.

Be angry more often, Shamus. I will like you when you're angry.

And yeah, my reaction to Portal 2's scorebombers was at first LOLWAT and then just LOL.

LCP:
The game's good.

Day 1 DLC, stuff so small that should just be given out, makes valve look greedy.

It's not even DLC it's just taunts and other stupid things.

Add expansion packs after, not in the release. At least try to make it seem you're making new stuff, unlike just dictatorially locking stuff out on the day of release

Are you suggesting that there should be new levels available for DLC on day 1 instead of something meaningless like hats and skins?

And are you honestly complaining that these extra skins that don't change the gameplay at all have to be paid for to use?

You've got it completely ass backwards. Shamus was arguing that DLC that doesn't change the gameplay is the type that doesn't matter.

Besides "so small that it should have just been given out" is completely subjective. You can't make money by giving stuff out (not directly) in any case. And again, this stuff has a whopping 0 affect on gameplay. You are no worse off for not buying it.

sirtommygunn:

Therumancer:
The problem is that nowadays the game industry is trying to charge extra money for the kinds of things that have traditionally been included in games as part of the overall product. Alternate costumes have been a standby for games for a very long time, one of the incentives to replay games a second time with the new look, or something part of the experience revolved around as you tried to figure out how to unlock them.

A lot of people talk about an attitude of entitlement among gamers when it comes to these kidns of things, but I don't think that's really the case.

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.

I see it as less a sense of entitlement as much as being upset over being gouged. While the bathroom example someone using is rather extreme, it's sort of like how if someone was to stop putting erasers on #2 pencils so you had to buy erasers seperatly. The eraser has always been there, but they decided to seperate the two permanantly specifically because they realized they could make more money by doing so.

It might not be a god given entitlement where I believe it was declared from on high that all pencils have erasers on them, but I'm still going to be pissed that someone is trying to gouge money out of me.

See, if it was a sense of entitlement you'd be seeing more insanity in people claiming that the goverment should get involved because alternative outfits in video games are a fundemental human right or something ridiculous. Right now it's mostly just people being POed because they are breaking things off of the products in order to make more money.

Honestly, I don't think gamers would really care that much if the gaming industry wasn't a multi-billion dollar industry at the moment. These guys are making huge profits, and yet they aren't content with them, and want to nickel and dime people for even more money.

If the gaming industry was actually in trouble as a whole, and we were on the verge of seeing a situation where there were going to be no games at all if they didn't find some way of making more money to literally keep their heads above water. A situation where instead of the occasional company going under (like in any business) and a lot of big boys looking down from giant castles made out of money, we had guys like Bobby Kotick living out of the back of their cars instead of flying private jets, and similar things, then if they were to start charging for these extra skins and such I think you'd see a differant attitude.

I look towards some of the crazy things people have done to support small press PnP RPG companies occasionally as an example. Or in the arena of video games, how there are people who will buy the absolute dumbest DLC for JRPGs put out by companies like NISA because they operate on such a small scale at least within the US.

The thing is that even with the DLC there is a matter of context. I mean if NISA wants to support "Hyperdimension Neptunia" with $100 of potential DLC, people care less about that due to the nature of the company and it's releases (as they understand it) than say Valve which is making masssive swag off of things like STEAM. I mean does Valve really need to charge you for a couple of extra outfits? That's greed at it's most base. The same thing can be said about companies like EA, or Activision/Blizzard...

I won't get into a huge run down on it, but the point is that I think when it comes to rage over DLC, there is usually some context to it. Some companies wind up getting a lot more flak for it than others based on their situation and how it's perceived. "Horse Armor" being noteworthy for example because it was unleashed by Bethesda, in connection to what was a hugely successful game, making tons of money.

Therumancer:

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.

But that's the thing, a user review of 8 as it currently is, is well received.

The user review scores are currently saying portal 2 is a solid game. The disparity between critics and users, purely according to metacritic user score, is now that critics believe the game is a masterpiece, and users believe the game is a decent one.

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.

I don't know from where you are getting this "poorly recieved" idea; Metacritic lists all critic responses as positive and the overwhelming majority of user reviews positive. In addition, all sources from which I have heard have praised the game. Have you considered the possibility you stumbled upon a vocal minority and mistook it for the majority?

Therumancer:

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.

Yes, but even if people flocking to portal 2 to offset the bombing, why is that it didn't happen to dragon age 2? Bioware has a nearly as large PC fan brigade as valve, and yet it didn't help them a bit.
I think it's because portal 2's bombers really didn't have a leg to stand on, where as biowares the angry people really were a huge section of biowares fan base, so many of them hated it.

The fact is, the game is universally applauded now, the vast majority of user reviews and professional reviews love the game. Shamus isn't pointing his thread at that, he is pointing it at people who bombed the game in a raid, and flamed in comments about the dlc.

Therumancer:

warfjm:

Therumancer:
Now to be fair, I have not played "Portal 2".

This sentence takes away any credit away from the previous wall of text paragraph. If you haven't played it, then why bother writing an essay on the subject? Stick to the DLC argument not the game itself.

Two things:

For starters your wrong, since we're talking about how the game is received overall, and metacritic ratings and such at this point. What any one person thinks is more or less irrelevent in the scope of that point. I was pointing out that even if it's a wonderful game, it's getting bombed, and that takes a LOT of people, far more than can be mustered by trolls who go after just about any game out there.

Secondly, the attitude of "if you haven't played it, you can't have an opinion" is one of the most dangerous ones out there right now, and at the root of a lot of problems. Even if I was talking about the game content, as opposed to reception, the opinion of someone who didn't buy the game should be pretty well valued for the reasons on why they didn't buy it, as opposed to attacked.

Right now a big problem with the gaming industry is that when someone buys a game, and doesn't like it, the industry already has their money. With digital downloads, or purchused PC software, you can't decide "gee, this sucks" and bring it back, your stuck with it. It's quite a racket when you get down to it, and probably screws dissatistifed, legitimate purchusers worse than the pirates they are trying to crack down on screw the companies. Even with console games, they can be tricky to return. While Gamestop tends to be decent with people returning new games for full value within a couple of days, there are retail places that will give people major issues with returning any kind of opened software, including console games. Some game shops also force you to return any opened product as a "trade in" meaning you lose half or more of the value of the game just to try it and see if you like it.

Like it or not, with the price of games, the economy, and the leap of faith required, playing a game should hardly be a requirement to have an opinion. Especially seeing as by buying a game, even if you hate it, the industry gets to consider you a satisfied customer and you get put into that entire "we've sold X number of copies" speil.

To be honest even with the pre-order incentives, I'm rapidly becoming far less willing to go right out and buy games on release, since it's becoming a bigger and bigger racket.

In the case of this discussion though, understand that I have said nothing bad about Portal 2 itself, other than it's not being well received. The user ratings speak for themselves. The point is that all this talk about "metabombing" and how it's all over "trolls upset about day #1 DLC" are just excuses from those not wanting to face reality. Deserved or not, and loved by some or not, "Portal 2" is not being received as well as it has sold.

I think the refusal to face reality is largely because by acknowleging that what happened here and with "Dragon Age 2", it means the industry is going to have to change some things it really doesn't want to, since it will mean cutting down on their profit margins in one way or another. It's better for a lot of bean counters to try and deny reality and say "it's those blasted trolls" rather than accept that "damn, I guess our audience is smarter and has better standards than we assumed". Give it time though, I suspect this is a trend and it will get hammered into skulls eventually.... or it will contribute to an industry collapse.

I think it should be taken as a warning sign when two beloved companies like this get hammered the same way, right in a row. If a darling like Valve can suffer in the user ratings like that, it's important to walk away from it with the right lesson learned.

Listen, the game is good
The metacritic bombing is being done by retards, who think that somehow this DLC will ruin the game
I didn't even know it had any until after I finished the game for christs sake, its hidden at the bottom of the screen and i thought it was a fricking logo.
Suprise, suprise, I had unlocked a piece of DLC just by getting a acheievement and apparentlly all of them can be unlocked like that.
Its a similar system to TF2, if you want the stuff now you can get them, but you can get them by working hard at it and trust me someof the acheivements are incredibly difficult to complete

It does not hamper the game in any way, shape or form
But you have no experience with the game, you can't possibly make the judgement on whether it affects the quality, because guess what? You haven't played the game!
Neither have the users on metacritics website

Biowares issues were clear as day, but this?
This came as a result of that, making people think that user bombs would give them some sort of power over companies and so instead of using it on games which deserve it, they do it on anything because it can't cure cancer
Thats all this is, its just retarded idiots, thinking they have power and trying to throw it around with half assed excuses

I took around 7 hours to finish it, 6 if you take away the hour I spent when I forgot a certain game mechanic that my brain wasn't prepared to learn about after the previous 5 hours of work. (for the record, it was using the excursion tube to touch the roof, then fall into a portal with launches at 45 degrees for maximum distance speed)

I don't usually read Experienced Points, but I'm glad you pointed out that there are people hating on the most innocent DLC and microtransaction system ever. TF2 does this, and it kinda sucks because its hard to get the weapon you want for free, then buy it, and find it for free *facepalm*. Or that other thing where you're at your wits end, finally treat yourself to a pyro hat, then find a BETTER hat that only works on, you guessed it, the Pyro.

But Portal 2's stuff is cosmetic, and cosmetic ONLY. There is a market for people who want a little more out of their game, and developers have been playing to that market for yonks (see ANY special edition of a game that cost an extra $20 but gets you a poster of the main character or something). WHY are you upset with Portal 2 now?!

It's as Shamus says, because you're entitled little shits.

The following is a short list of items I would buy and not expect a free hat for:

Therumancer:
I see it as less a sense of entitlement as much as being upset over being gouged. While the bathroom example someone using is rather extreme, it's sort of like how if someone was to stop putting erasers on #2 pencils so you had to buy erasers seperatly. The eraser has always been there, but they decided to seperate the two permanantly specifically because they realized they could make more money by doing so.

It might not be a god given entitlement where I believe it was declared from on high that all pencils have erasers on them, but I'm still going to be pissed that someone is trying to gouge money out of me.

We seem to be discussing different kinds of DLC at this point, because an eraser is something that is useful to a pencil. Demanding a different costume for free is like demanding that the pencil can change its color at any time.

Therumancer:
See, if it was a sense of entitlement you'd be seeing more insanity in people claiming that the goverment should get involved because alternative outfits in video games are a fundemental human right or something ridiculous. Right now it's mostly just people being POed because they are breaking things off of the products in order to make more money.

But you aren't losing anything in the product that is important to the game, you are just losing the ability to make your avatar look different, which has no actual effect on the gameplay.

Therumancer:
Honestly, I don't think gamers would really care that much if the gaming industry wasn't a multi-billion dollar industry at the moment. These guys are making huge profits, and yet they aren't content with them, and want to nickel and dime people for even more money.

What's wrong with a company giving players the option to buy extra things for their game? As stated before, the things being offered add nothing of value to the game beyond a paint job, so you really aren't missing out on any content if you choose not to buy it.

Therumancer:
If the gaming industry was actually in trouble as a whole, and we were on the verge of seeing a situation where there were going to be no games at all if they didn't find some way of making more money to literally keep their heads above water. A situation where instead of the occasional company going under (like in any business) and a lot of big boys looking down from giant castles made out of money, we had guys like Bobby Kotick living out of the back of their cars instead of flying private jets, and similar things, then if they were to start charging for these extra skins and such I think you'd see a differant attitude.

The entire goal of a company is to make money, so I don't see why they need to be in dire straits before they're allowed to pursue that goal.

Therumancer:
I look towards some of the crazy things people have done to support small press PnP RPG companies occasionally as an example. Or in the arena of video games, how there are people who will buy the absolute dumbest DLC for JRPGs put out by companies like NISA because they operate on such a small scale at least within the US.

The thing is that even with the DLC there is a matter of context. I mean if NISA wants to support "Hyperdimension Neptunia" with $100 of potential DLC, people care less about that due to the nature of the company and it's releases (as they understand it) than say Valve which is making masssive swag off of things like STEAM. I mean does Valve really need to charge you for a couple of extra outfits? That's greed at it's most base. The same thing can be said about companies like EA, or Activision/Blizzard...

Again, a company's goal is to make money and if they're doing it in a totally nonintrusive way (which they are, in my opinion) then they shouldn't be criticized based on that fact alone.

(Last post for the night, so I won't be able to respond again in a timely manner.)

i wonder where the DLC for Assassin Creed 2(or brotherhood...can't remember) falls there
it was in no stretch integral to the game but it still felt like something was missing since the DLC was already integrated in the menu

 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