Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't see what the big deal is. Don't want it? Don't buy it!

The fact that Shamus is spending this much time and energy on this topic boggles my mind. It's kind of like having an 11-part documentary series presenting the fact that The Sky is Blue. WTF?

Basically, Metal Brother, check my initial post. The critical mass of people buying this stuff, in order to get companies to continue and expand this behavior, is very low. Thus, it only takes a relative few in order to screw the rest of us that don't want an unfinished game speckled with moneygrabs as our only option.

Completely free DLC coming out this summer...just thought you guys should know.

One key issue with the mod argument is that fewer and fewer games ship with modding tools, even if they're based on the Unreal Engine and would only need one switch flipped to enable modding. This is seen as a result of companies wanting to prevent competition when it comes to DLC, it's much easier to charge 15$ for three and a half maps if there are no fan sites offering dozens of maps for free.

Still a stupid idea to charge more for a cosmetic trinket than a game costs on Apple's app store.

AndyFromMonday:
Yes, my copy of World of Warcraft DOES contain the celestial steed mount but it's not an integral part to the game. World of Warcraft is also an MMORPG, which is different from say a single player game. Look at Mass Effect 2. The DLC that links the gap between ME2 and ME3 is absolutely needed if you want to make any sense of what the fuck is going on.

Would it have been better if they had released the last ME2 DLC as Mass Effect 3, and released ME3 as Mass Effect 4 then? That way it wouldn't be a DLC. They could also have called it an expansion if they would have made you feel better.

See my point?

Complaining that you need to buy the ME2 DLC to make sense of what is going on in ME3 is like complaining that you can't make out the entire Star Wars universe from the 6 movies made, and have to go buy all the books/games/comics to make sense of it all. It's CONTENT, and content typically costs money. The last Mass Effect 2 DLC isn't just some piece of armor, it's actual gameplay content that extends the length of the game, and therefore gives you more gameplay and entertainment.

If it was Day 1 DLC then i could understand your complaint of feeling cheated out of content, but given that it wasn't and it was created later to give you MORE content after the release of the game i sadly cannot symphatize.

RanceJustice:
Even as a late 20s male, I've watched how the equilibrium has balanced for years - There was a time when your game came with engine/mod tools for the $30-50 entry fee, and ALL the content on the disc or available at day one was available for you for the entire price. You even expected not only bug fixes but some actual FREE content in each patch, as a "Thank You for buying our game. Please think of us when our next project comes out". Bigger blocks of content were sold as complete expansion packs, for $20-40 and often DOUBLED the content of the original game. Look at the Doom 2 Expansions and Jedi Knight's Mysteries of the Sith - it was basically a whole other game as long as the original campaign, with completely new art assets, powers, etc.. Now...compared Mysteries of the Sith.. to Modern Warfare 2's Map Pack. Seriously. Is that Modern Warfare 2 Map Pack literally HALF the amount of content as Mysteries of the Sith? THAT is what we're upset about today. (Don't mention inflation or whatnot, it isn't even a third of a quarter of MotS)

You're right to an extent, but the problem with this particular backlash is that Valve is possibly the one major developer that still sticks to the old-school philosophy you're describing. Bugfixes, tons of free content updates, whole new campaigns, extra games, all of this is still free, and they do it because they recognise that their customers are gamers, not mindless automatons. They might have included a cash shop for tacky merchandise, but the real Portal 2 DLC is going to be free. Valve still do exactly what it is you're being so nostalgic about. The only thing they'v ever charged separately for is merchandise, albeit in-game merchandise - and even then, the TF2 shop system came about because of the trading system, which came about because a lot of people said "giving out new items for hitting achievements is cool and all, but I don't want to do all of those, so give me a way to trade stuff with my friends instead." I personally choose to pretend the Robot Enrichment button does not exist, and as such my copy of Portal 2 does not come with any merchandising. This situation does not bother me.

The allegation that Kotick wants cutscenes to be sold separately implies that they wouldn't be in the actual game unless bought. This is not at all what he said. He simply wants to sell them as a contiguous movie to enthusiasts in addition to having them in the game.

Athinira:

AndyFromMonday:
Yes, my copy of World of Warcraft DOES contain the celestial steed mount but it's not an integral part to the game. World of Warcraft is also an MMORPG, which is different from say a single player game. Look at Mass Effect 2. The DLC that links the gap between ME2 and ME3 is absolutely needed if you want to make any sense of what the fuck is going on.

Would it have been better if they had released the last ME2 DLC as Mass Effect 3, and released ME3 as Mass Effect 4 then? That way it wouldn't be a DLC. They could also have called it an expansion if they would have made you feel better.

See my point?

Complaining that you need to buy the ME2 DLC to make sense of what is going on in ME3 is like complaining that you can't make out the entire Star Wars universe from the 6 movies made, and have to go buy all the books/games/comics to make sense of it all. It's CONTENT, and content typically costs money. The last Mass Effect 2 DLC isn't just some piece of armor, it's actual gameplay content that extends the length of the game, and therefore gives you more gameplay and entertainment.

If it was Day 1 DLC then i could understand your complaint of feeling cheated out of content, but given that it wasn't and it was created later to give you MORE content after the release of the game i sadly cannot symphatize.

No, it's more like saying, Hey, we're making a sequel to ammovie you really like, but many of the eventd of the film will revolve around the events of a short film that we made that you can only see if you go out and buy the special edition DVD.

restoshammyman:

you use the term "game" in a very broad sense.
all of the zynga stuff should be named "skinners boxvile"

Indeed, but then what are hats apart from Skinner's Fashion Accessory?

And crates are almost purely Skinner's Box...in fact, I can't really think of a way to differentiate them.

I'm not criticising Valve for going in a different direction; if anything I'm criticising the consumer for jumping on this bandwagon so that it'd be mad of Valve NOT to carry on with such a profitable enterprise.

subtlefuge:

ionveau:
good for them i finally understand that people are sheep willing to buy anything with a price tag, or is it that most gamers are spoiled kids who dont know the value of money?

I resent that. Some people are living comfortable lives with a fairly high paying job, and spend part of their entertainment money on games that they love. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

more money then mind, got you.

ionveau:

subtlefuge:

ionveau:
good for them i finally understand that people are sheep willing to buy anything with a price tag, or is it that most gamers are spoiled kids who dont know the value of money?

I resent that. Some people are living comfortable lives with a fairly high paying job, and spend part of their entertainment money on games that they love. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

more money then mind, got you.

Translation: People enjoy different things than i do, and are willing to pay for them, therefore they are stupid.

I'm with you Shamus. I've nothing against this kind of DLC. It doesn't affect the finished product itself, it's only a little flavour item that most players will hardly notice. If you like it, buy it. The portal gun works the same, the game plays the same. You don't even see your own hat (unless you make a portal line and stare at yourself span over infinity.) It's just an item to show off to other people. So screw it. Let them charge whatever they like for that kind of stuff. I haven't heard such a bad response to the TF2 hats, and what's the difference? Just that they launched on the first day? OH, and for the people saying there's content on their computer that they have to pay AGAIN for, here's a thought: how about you go and pay for every bit of spy-ware, cookies, viruses, trojans and so on you have on your computer. You haven't payed for them, but they are there. It's only fair, right?

Dexter111:
1) 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 think you misunderstand the point. The fact we didn't know about the shop actually HELPS the point.

Every preview, review, tidbit, tech demo, whatever we heard about the game was about the Single Player, the Co Op, the writing and the dialogue.

Every pre order, first day buy, rental, whatever was done based on the Single Player, the Co Op, the writing and the dialogue.

Every penny spent on the game by the consumers was done in order to get the Single Player, the Co Op, the writing and the dialogue.

Every consumer GOT the Single Player, the Co Op, the writing and the dialogue.

That's as much truth in advertisement as you will ever get.

Sutter Cane:

ionveau:

subtlefuge:

I resent that. Some people are living comfortable lives with a fairly high paying job, and spend part of their entertainment money on games that they love. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

more money then mind, got you.

Translation: People enjoy different things than i do, and are willing to pay for them, therefore they are stupid.

I think gambling is dumb
I think smoking crack is dumb
I think buying MMO bots is dumb

So im wrong and those people are right, thank you for showing me the light i will no longer stop people from buying over priced products.

DustyDrB:
The trend I'm very much against is retailer exclusive content like with LA Noire, where missions are given to retailers (Gamestop and Wal-Mart in this case) as preorder bonuses. This just ensures that even the most dedicated fan who preorders a collector's edition from either retailer will still be missing content. I see a slippery slope here. I'm not foolish to enough to say that the retailer exclusive content will get to the point where it's even 25% of the game, but I do think it will get more substantial as long as the trend is supported.

You think retailer specific DLC is bad? wait until a company gets the bright idea to have multiplayer be sold separately from the game itself.

I mean, we are a step away from it, with Project $10 and the like.

But then again, that would be a serious price decrease if we could buy the multiplayer separately in games like Halo, CoD, or Homefront [namely Homefront, I beat the campaign, and the only reason I still have the game is for the multiplayer, great game if it was sold for $20-35 instead of a full $60], so there could be some good in that after all.

OT: I dont get the arguments with DLC, its a simple matter of "if you want it, buy it, if not, then dont buy it."

I mean, it even goes for DLC that adds on to the game, example being Oblivion's Vile Lair.

I never made an evil character, or one that was outright evil, but Vile Lair was made with the evil player in mind.

Since I don't play evil characters, I didn't buy it. [okay, that is a lie, I did buy every DLC for it later on, but initially I didn't buy it for that reason. I had a case of "I have money, I might as well get everything for the game!" syndrome]

What is more annoying is people complaining over virtual hats.

Hats, people.

Hats that at most, one other person is going to see.

Hats that DO NOTHING TO CHANGE THE GAME OR ADD ON TO IT IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM OTHER THAN A SMALL VISUAL CHANGE.

Now, if maybe a hat decreased gravity, or increased the rate in which you travel through portals, or even made it so you could fly, then yes, there would be an argument against said hats. But arguing that the $5 hat should be free, even though you dont want it, just makes the person sound like an idiot

Shamus Young:
Shamus examines some of the arguments against Portal 2's DLC. For science, of course.

Bit off subject for this article, but in the last one you said "Portal 2 is the first game in years to actually handle DLC properly." I was thinking about that statement earlier this week and it seems like you may have jumped the gun a bit. I'm not saying you're wrong, just to early to tell. If I remember right, they have more DLC coming out later this year, but how are they going to handle that? Are they going to charge for more map packs or just charge for the unless stuff? And before anyone quotes this saying "they haven't charge before, why would they start now?". Map packs for CoD4 and WaW were free, but MW2 and BLops had a price tag. Crytek focused on PC development then... well... Crysis 2. Same case with Epic.

As I said in the other thread, I still think Killing Floor is the perfect example of how to do DLC. Map packs, new weapons, new enemies, etc., all free. Character packs that you don't need to enjoy the game and won't leave you left out without them, small price tag. About $.50 USD per character.

I'm going to respond to various odds and sods here, so excuse me if this post is a bit disjointed.

Onyx Oblivion:
Let's look at Blazblue.

http://www.ps3attitude.com/new/2010/08/blazblues-makoto-dlc-worth-8/

It's another fighting game, you may have heard of it.

To expand on the Blazblue point, as I understand it Arc Systemworks actually planned to include the characters as DLC. The fact that at least the two released characters are also fairly large minor characters in the story mode throughout the series also helped. Doesn't mean that they haven't made any effort in it, and should be pretty much be 0% disc-based content.[1] (Incidentally, a third character and an SSF4 Arcade Edition style balance patch is coming soon[2]. Thankfully the balance patch should be free, unlike aforementioned SSF4 Arcade Edition. This is good practice, since it should mean that the balance changes should be observed, unlike potentially in aforementioned SSF4 AE, where the balance changes are optional.)

I suppose the point I want to raise is that if there's a similar counter-argument to be made about pre-announcing DLC and/or expansion packs. For example, Starcraft 2. There will be two expansion packs made for it, and we know this before the game's launch. People are still complaining about how it's still one third of a game. Then again, I suppose there isn't much of the way of a counter-argument largely because this argument is rarely used: Mass Effect got away with doing pretty much the same thing.

Ultimately, the bottom line on the Portal 2 anti-DLC arguments is a question of entitlement. You can argue until you're blue in the face, there's still people (particularly PC gamers[3]) who expect all DLC to be free, and since this type of DLC is the sort that you can't just torrent (due to it being intrinsically tied to Steam). I suppose the steep price is also another problem, but then again this is fairly common[4].

And now for something completely different: On to debating the differences between DLC and expansion packs: My definition is that if the content pack can be sold on a disc on its own, then it's an expansion pack. Otherwise, it's DLC. To use an example from ArmA 2, Operation Arrowhead is an expansion pack, while British Armed Forces and Private Military Contractors are both DLC packs, since the two of them are parts of a compilation, Reinforcements. Another example: Oblivion. Shivering Isles is an expansion pack, while Knights of the Nine is DLC, since the disc version comes with seven other bits of DLC.

Ahem. Excuse the wall of text. Before we come to a smaller wall of text known as the footnotes, here's a random song I was listening to while I was making this post.

Shamus, I respect the points you brought and I'll answer your question:

The content is something that could easily be in the full game, the prices are just unreasonable, it adds nothing and the people who are paying for it are only encouraging a bad habit from the industry. Oh, and I completely disagree that Valve did the DLC thing the most sensible way possible. It was far from the worst, but that was still way too pointless and unjustifiable to exist.

Another point I'd like to make is about the review bombers. Before I was completely against their actions of giving 0 to a game just because of a DLC but then I realized something: They're not hating on the game or trying to "equalize" the high reviews (or at least most aren't), they're protesting against a corporate decision. In this case "holding the wallets" wouldn't work, because the money made from DLCs are considered "extras" anyway.

And think about it: This form of protest WORKS! Didn't EA tune their DRM policies down a notch after the effect it had on Spore's reviews? (and I remember you HATED Spore's DRM and was happy to not see it in EA games anymore) Didn't that writer took back the comments she made on Mass Effect for Fox News because the ratings of her books were plummeting to the earth (and some comments were very valid in an ironic way, like "I've never read the book or even heard someone who've read it talk about it, but I'll give it a 0 because, hey, I don't need to know anything at all about it to give my opinion about it and claim it is informed and professional, right?")

So, yeah. Review Bombers, keep up the good work. If even Valve can eventually come to feel the dent of this kind of protest maybe the Day 1 DLC thing will go away.

Ephraim J. Witchwood:

Glademaster:

Ephraim J. Witchwood:

Even though they've actually come down in price?

I've actually read that article just there and while it tries to say games have come down in price it doesn't really say that. Given the costs of production of the hard physical product have gone down and the consumer base has expanded companies are also making more money. One thing the article does do which I really don't agree with is you can't just slap inflation on the price of games and expect it to boom. Yes inflation should drive the price up a little to compensate for the devs money being overall worth less but games don't really affect inflation like petrol and the general cost of living does as they are not required for it.

This means that games are a luxury good as a luxury good they tend to have quite an elastic demand. This means that a high price will result in a higher loss of demand. Just to take a quick look back at inflation just because inflation is at 5% doesn't mean all good's prices increase by 5%. The general price of goods does. So say if petrol again cause inflation to rise from 4%-5% someone who cycles or walks everywhere is not affected by this. So inflation is not the be all and end all of determining the price of goods.

Well shit. Looks like I'm not pulling that out again.

Well it is not that it is entirely a bad article it is just that it tries to rigidly apply Economics which is not something you can do. Economics is very flexible and you can't just go this is how it is like the article tries to do that is the main problem with it. It isn't Physics where can without a doubt say the Acceleration is X.

ionveau:

Glademaster:

Ephraim J. Witchwood:

Even though they've actually come down in price?

I've actually read that article just there and while it tries to say games have come down in price it doesn't really say that. Given the costs of production of the hard physical product have gone down and the consumer base has expanded companies are also making more money. One thing the article does do which I really don't agree with is you can't just slap inflation on the price of games and expect it to boom. Yes inflation should drive the price up a little to compensate for the devs money being overall worth less but games don't really affect inflation like petrol and the general cost of living does as they are not required for it.

This means that games are a luxury good as a luxury good they tend to have quite an elastic demand. This means that a high price will result in a higher loss of demand. Just to take a quick look back at inflation just because inflation is at 5% doesn't mean all good's prices increase by 5%. The general price of goods does. So say if petrol again cause inflation to rise from 4%-5% someone who cycles or walks everywhere is not affected by this. So inflation is not the be all and end all of determining the price of goods.

OT: Anyway I am fairly in agreement on all the points except for the mod one. While I don't care about cosmetic mod like DLC I have no problem with that but I don't agree with DLC you have to pay for that gives weapons in a multiplayer setting. Thankfully I can't think of anyone that does this. Before anyone says TF2 you can buy them or unlock them. I mean cases where you have to buy.

So TF is balanced?
The sets in the game make the game unplayable its just pathetic, im looking for a server that has those cash shop items disabled, Yes your right i can grind my face off for these items but its not an MMO and i dont play that game more then 1 hour a week, well used to now i dont, but good for them i finally understand that people are sheep willing to buy anything with a price tag, or is it that most gamers are spoiled kids who dont know the value of money?

Yes TF2 is balanced. All the weapon sets give you something but take something away. Lets look at the Croc one for Sniper. Yes you can't be headshot but you also can't get headshots. In nearly all cases the vanilla weapons are better than any added weapons. No you don't have to grind your face. It isn't like they have some massive advantage you don't have. For everything you get with a new weapon something is taken away.

I already know you hate grinding so if you don't like a game and feel it is unbalanced play a different game no one is making you play the god damn game or pay for weapons that will really add nothing to you. I can't think of a single weapon I would say is 100% more versatile than the vanilla weapons. The only one that comes close is the Degreaser or Black box.

mmm if the DLC just contains hats it is a bad thing because there are a lot of fans that will buy every thing Valve is selling. But again Mass Effect do the same thing and nobody is trashing that out, Sims3 for console charge 10 dollars for 3 sofas

I refuse to call something that doesnt affect gameplay of the game in any way, a DLC.

in answer to your question I DON'T... YOU DO!

also how can you call it dlc! but the hats and gestures will become unlock able in the future just like in tf2 just watch.

The term used in some MMOs is "Account Entitlements", which is probably a fairly accurate way to phrase it.

As for why people get upset over it trivial things like hats... Reasons may vary.

On the one hand, if the hats are also the reward for some particular in-game achievement, then some players will feel that their achievement is lessened by the fact that people can simply buy that particular item. Some of these people will ragequit games if the difficulty curve is ever lessened by a later patch.

On the other hand, some people are just jerks with a massive sense of entitlement, and they feel that they should get everything for free. Some of these people will pirate the game and then get upset when they get banned for doing so.

And on the gripping hand, some people don't feel like the items are worth it, but aren't really that confident in their opinions, or in their sense of self-worth. They get the sneaking suspicion that people who have the items are looking down on them in some fashion. Some of these people will decry the existence of such DLC items, and then buy them on the sly later.

fix-the-spade:
Well, I'm not going to answer you Shamus, just ask yet more questions!

I am playing a game, the DLC/add on/whatever is there, I've had to download it onto my hard drive because the game won't let me play it without the latest version.
So my hard drive contains vast amounts of conent that should be playable, it's there, it's installed. But I am not allowed to touch it due arbitrary imposed constraints.

Does that mean the developer should pay me when it comes to replace my hard disk because of all the crap they've put on it for me?

Since they've already put it on there, is there any moral/ethical reason I shouldn't just hack the game until I can use it?
Hunting down illicit downloads is one thing, but is it reasonable for a dev to forcibly* install content on my machine and then not let me use it? If I buy a DVD and it won't play I either take it back or start look at work arounds until it does, surely this is no different?

What about discs with content already on them that has to be unlocked? Resident Evil 5's minor infamy for the multiplayer 'download' sticks out in my mind. Would it be unethical to just copy the UI/front end for multiplayer from somewhere and patch it in myself rather than paying for it? It's on the disc, I paid for the disc, the law says I own it regardless of what the EULA might tell me.

Downloaded and online content seems like a massive moral/legal grey void to me. More specifically a void with no botom and no guard rail to stop customers falling in.
The ever increasing amounts of paid DLC and heavy DRM is going to hurt us as players (even more than it does now). I don't particularly fancy the idea of resorting to piracy to actually be able to play/back up/modify/enjoy games, but it is increasingly looking like the future.

_{*whilst not literally forced game updates are still a Hobson's choice, you can either take the update and all that implies, or junk the game you just spent $60 on.}

So by that logic, I should be able to use the full functionality of Visual Studio 2010 because I downloaded it off their website for free. Or since I bought windows 7 home premium I should be able to install ultimate because its on the disc. Yes its there, but that doesn't mean you paid for it. It is cheaper for Microsoft to press one disc and sell it. Realistically what they are doing is developing ultimate then selling pared down editions for less. If you don't need the garbage that comes with ultimate, then you win. If we go by your model, Microsoft only develops one edition of windows and we all have to pay 700 bucks for it, instead of buying one that suits us. Or they press 4 different discs, probably wasting some resources for really no good reason at all.

All the data in the world is essentially available to me over the internet, and I pay an internet bill, so therefore I have rights to that data. That is about as logical as saying just because it is on a disc you bought you have a right to it. The actual software is what you are buying, the disc is just a vessel.

Shamus Young:
Experienced Points: DLC, Again

Shamus examines some of the arguments against Portal 2's DLC. For science, of course.

Read Full Article

Well beside name calling which wasn't out of line from a fanboys way this still isn't different. Nothing wrong with defending Valve but on the same way there shouldn't be nothing wrong calling out on them for the prices they use for the so called DLC.

Sure DLC is a loose term used nowadays and a fashion item is a fashion item no matter if it's a SP or MP game. So my question remains:Why would the same people bash on something like Horse armor(what was it 2 dollars?)for beeing the evil in the games today(sure Bethesda was pretty big publisher/developer even when Oblivion came out but they did bring great stuff after)and in the same time have an "of course they need that money to make more games" attitude towards Valve for putting out game content for 100 dollars on day 1. Not saying both are right or both are wrong(the only thing right you said that in the end it's the customers choice to buy them anyway)but that's the point,they're in the same boat,there is no difference except in the eye of the beholder(fanboy).

What's the point in arguing about this? Those who refuse to agree will... refuse to agree till the end anyway. Anyhow, I agree with Shamus for word for word. The hats are purely optional anyway. I let my wallet speak for my opinion, just like how voting is for election & politics.

Besides, people will most likely quiet down and shout "We love you Valve!!1 LOLOLOL!!1!11" once the free DLC comes out in summer....

Video Games are one of those things that are hard to put a value on, in some cases for me. Usually I go by how much actual enjoyment I got out of a game, and for what length of time. I guess what I'm trying to segue into is, at the end of the day, did you get the amount of enjoyment out of a product as you could by spending that 60 dollars elsewhere?

People who call DLC greedy are in an entitled stance from the get-go. How much is enough to justify your 60 dollars? If a game has lived up to the 60 dollars you spend, is it okay to start charging for additional content? Should you get Half Life 2 because you bought Half Life 1?

Video games are sometimes a trick thing to quantify. Games that cost the same price can be worth massively different amounts of enjoyment to a player. I spent 10 bucks on Magicka, and have played it for longer than several of my $60 games. Obviously game developers can't start quantifying their product's value and charging you accordingly, so its up to you as players to make informed decisions. If you feel a game has cut out content to try to get more money out of it, vote with your dollar. If you feel strongly that a game is wronging you, don't buy it. If you do, you're validating the developer. Its up to the consumers to read reviews and determine if a product is worth their money.

The Deadpool:

Dexter111:
1) 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 think you misunderstand the point. The fact we didn't know about the shop actually HELPS the point.

Every preview, review, tidbit, tech demo, whatever we heard about the game was about the Single Player, the Co Op, the writing and the dialogue.

Every pre order, first day buy, rental, whatever was done based on the Single Player, the Co Op, the writing and the dialogue.

Every penny spent on the game by the consumers was done in order to get the Single Player, the Co Op, the writing and the dialogue.

Every consumer GOT the Single Player, the Co Op, the writing and the dialogue.

That's as much truth in advertisement as you will ever get.

Sorry but how is not knowing what product you are going to get exactly a "good" thing? In what possible way or world is that? I might be interested in the newest Lexus, drive it around and like it a lot but if the car salesman takes a dump on the back seat and says that I'm contractually obligated to keep that there at all times I'm not going to enjoy myself am I? Even worse is if they decide to take a dump in it 3-4 years after I bought it and had fun with it since with such a massive diarrhea that I'm never going to drive that car again (TF2) xD

Now you're telling me, "but you've got the seats, you've got the wheels and you got the stereo as per brochure, who cares what's in the back seat".
(I know it's somewhat of a bad analogy, every single one where you compare something "material" to something "virtual" is but it is somewhat similar. You could compare it with say DRM though, on Assassin's Creed 2 which is a game I really wanted I just chose not to get it after finding out about UbiDRM... the game might be good but if I have such a strong opinion about a given feature that it is a "no-buy" argument despite how good the game might be I think I should be informed about it... and maybe before the first "Reviews" roll in.)

Maybe People will quite down about the stupid Hat DLC that Valve is selling Since well we are getting the free DLC in the summer that i personally probably would have thrown down 15 bucks to get. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109682-Valve-Announces-Free-DLC-for-Portal-2

Personally i don't get the point of the hats. In-fact i actually want to take off the stupid Roll-cage that came with my pre-order. I mean if you want to personalize your bot i guess go ahead and buy it but to me it just seems kinda pointless.

Cenequus:
Sure DLC is a loose term used nowadays and a fashion item is a fashion item no matter if it's a SP or MP game. So my question remains:Why would the same people bash on something like Horse armor(what was it 2 dollars?)for beeing the evil in the games today(sure Bethesda was pretty big publisher/developer even when Oblivion came out but they did bring great stuff after)and in the same time have an "of course they need that money to make more games" attitude towards Valve for putting out game content for 100 dollars on day 1. Not saying both are right or both are wrong(the only thing right you said that in the end it's the customers choice to buy them anyway)but that's the point,they're in the same boat,there is no difference except in the eye of the beholder(fanboy).

Fallacy. Little known fact: the Horse Armour actually did something. It made any horses that were equipped with it a bit more durable. Portal 2 items are entirely useless and entirely cosmetic. Team Fortress 2 would be a more valid comparison, and there's at least three ways of getting all of the weapons without paying a cent.

Delusibeta:

Cenequus:
Sure DLC is a loose term used nowadays and a fashion item is a fashion item no matter if it's a SP or MP game. So my question remains:Why would the same people bash on something like Horse armor(what was it 2 dollars?)for beeing the evil in the games today(sure Bethesda was pretty big publisher/developer even when Oblivion came out but they did bring great stuff after)and in the same time have an "of course they need that money to make more games" attitude towards Valve for putting out game content for 100 dollars on day 1. Not saying both are right or both are wrong(the only thing right you said that in the end it's the customers choice to buy them anyway)but that's the point,they're in the same boat,there is no difference except in the eye of the beholder(fanboy).

Fallacy. Little known fact: the Horse Armour actually did something. It made any horses that were equipped with it a bit more durable. Portal 2 items are entirely useless and entirely cosmetic. Team Fortress 2 would be a more valid comparison, and there's at least three ways of getting all of the weapons without paying a cent.

You totally missed the point. DLC or whatever you want to call it(be it fashion/quest packs/items)are the same. Something you choose to pay if you think who made the game deserves the extra money for the effort. Just as Shamus thinks valve deserves 100+ dollars for a game like Portal because they made games like HL,TF etc same goes for any developer. It's your choice to buy it or not,while even commentating on how people spend their money is just plain retarded.