DA2 all over again, /v/ goes medieval on Portal 2's metarating

[OliverTwist72]

I'm not sure why people have a problem with it. The things that people are complaining about for Portal 2 are the exact reasons why I was never going to buy it in the first place. Too short for a full priced game. The user reviews are just proving my position.

Also, it's user reviews not professional reviews. People want to put a stop to the stupid day 1 DLC and they're taking a stand. If making poor reviews of a game that makes people upset means lower sales, maybe game companies won't do these shady practices in the future. I don't have a problem with it.

Yes, selling hats, skins, and emotes is incredibly shady. I don't think you read your post before submitting.

I'm not talking specifically about Portal, the skins I don't give a crap about. I'm talking about day one DLC in general. Please stop trying to incite a flame war.

Edit: The topic on hand is are you ok with people metabombing it. And I said I am because people are upset over things and they are taking it out on review scores. They are not professional review scores they are user review scores. I don't have a problem with people not liking the game and giving it a bad score (it's not like they're getting paid to review it).

 

[Katana314]

I suppose I can't take much issue with this, seeing as how the Killing Floor devs did the exact same thing; and tried to avoid letting the DLC interfere with the gameplay. I'm just surprised this stuff would be available RIGHT on release day.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Many of those hats can be crafted, and lest we forget, one of them was purchasable for charity purposes, not for just the cash. The difference is which do you have more of - Cash or Time.

There are far better comparisons to draw in regards to poor DLC choices, like Capcom keeping unfinished characters on the disks of MvC 3 instead of lowering the price to compensate for them.

Not to mention locking the VS Multiplayer in RE5 unless you paid extra.

EA to me seem to be the worst... Activision might charge insane amounts for map packs but at least they're straight up, shameless douches about it. With lots of little DLCs released constantly, EA seem to be more sneaky about it.

 

[Ickorus]

I for one am glad that people are taking a stand against DLC.

This may be the wrong way to go about it, but at least they are letting the companies know we're sick and tired of getting shafted by their ridiculous day one DLC bullshit.

This is the issue:

There is no day 1 DLC.

It's an item shop for cosmetic items that have absolutely no bearing on actual gameplay.

 

[Netrigan]

Yep, doesn't change whether it's Day 1 DLC or not.

Who cares? It's pointless DLC. It's fluff. Buy it if you have disposable income and want it, and if you don't you move on with your life.

Now excuse me, I'm going to go enjoy Portal 2 while everyone whines about how the DLC is inexcusable and what-not.

It's the video game equivalent of buying a t-shirt at a concert or buying a movie poster. Bit of over-priced (albeit cheap) fluff for the fans. Same as buying a Halo shirt for your X-Box avatar.

Figure we'll see a lot more of this as people do enjoy customizing their games and consoles.

 

[linwolf]

People have a problem with the game so they give it a bad vote, seems fine to me. There really isn't more to the issue, you might say that you don't think there is a problem well instead of dismissing their vote, give it a good voting.

 

[Bromazepam]

It's the video game equivalent of buying a t-shirt at a concert or buying a movie poster. Bit of over-priced (albeit cheap) fluff for the fans.

It isn't.
T-shirts and posters have production costs per unit. No company could give out "unilimited" t-shirts for free.
A 3D model of a hat has a very low development cost once, then the company can sell an "unlimited" amount with no extra expenses.

 

[The Lunatic]

I'm glad it's being made an example of.

Is it excessive? Yes.

Is it a big deal over something stupid? Yes.

But, at the end of the day, it's people taking a stand over being nickled and dimed for small niceties in games.

 

[LoganN]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/04/19/lets-address-some-portal-2-nonsense/

Link discusses the following assertions:

1) Portal 2 is 4 hours long
2) Day 1 DLC
3) Console port
4) The Potato Sack ARG was a con

Regarding Day 1 DLC, it says:

There is no ?Day 1 DLC?. There is the daft store, with all the overpriced guff that aesthetically augments your co-op character for the enjoyment of the one other person you?re playing with. I?m very happy to be disparaging about such silly expense, but it absolutely isn?t missing content for the game being charged for on top of the box price. That is something that gets me really riled, and something that I think openly mocks the customer ? discovering that even though they?ve paid for the game, if they want to full version with all the missions/levels/weapons, then they need to pay more. But that?s in no way the case here. You?re not missing out on anything, but for some pointless skins and hats for the co-op character that make no difference at all to the game.

Gee, I wonder why they would defend it. Oh wow, look at that FULLPAGE background ad for Portal 2.

 

[Levi93]

I fucking hate /v/ right now, they've spoiled the story on portal 2 for me already, I won't give spoilers here but the OPs post in the thread was like this.

"Hey anon.

*SPOILERS* in portal 2"

not sure whether what was said was true or not but it's pissed me off to no end, and they did a similar thing with red dead last year, so yeah, fuck /v/, fuck 4chan, I'm never going there again.

 

[Netrigan]

It's the video game equivalent of buying a t-shirt at a concert or buying a movie poster. Bit of over-priced (albeit cheap) fluff for the fans.

It isn't.
T-shirts and posters have production costs per unit. No company could give out "unilimited" t-shirts for free.
A 3D model of a hat has a very low development cost once, then the company can sell an "unlimited" amount with no extra expenses.

A concert T-shirt is a very high profit margin item.

Virtual goods have a lower price point for the reason you cite. They know it's pretty much pure profit and price it accordingly. They charge you a dollar for a virtual costume, not $30.

 

[Bromazepam]

A concert T-shirt is a very high profit margin item.

Virtual goods have a lower price point for the reason you cite. They know it's pretty much pure profit and price it accordingly. They charge you a dollar for a virtual costume, not $30.

I don't know about the items in Portal 2, since I don't have it, but in TF2's store the prices were significally higher than 1 dollar. Some of them peaked at 15. That's half the price of an expensive concert t-shirt.

 

[Gorb]

I'm not bothered about portal 2. 1 was great, dark comedy, I only paid a few quid for it (£12 for my copy of orange box) and stuck with me.
This one's almost 10 times the price, the dark comedy's at least diluted with stephen merchant's slapstick act and there's this PAY X TO USE CONTENT shite that I don't want to encourage.
I'll save my money for a game I think's worth it.

So, will you be buying the game when it comes down in price, as the DLC is completely unnecessary to completing the game (thus meaning you don't have to "PAY X", ever, at all, at any point, because you don't need "CONTENT" to complete or enjoy the game)?

Oh, but you're biased against the game because of Stephen Merchant. Well, fair's fair.

 

[FarleShadow]

But to me it looks like they're creeping towards more. They're doing it slowly, to keep all the "it's just optional stuff it doesn't change the game stfu" fanbois on their side.

[/quote]

Wow, so you're saying that people who see paint and gestures as pointless are just fanbois 'guarding' their beloved Franchise/company rather than sensible people who aren't getting worked up over pointless shit.

But eventually they will reach the point where they will end up selling stuff that actually affects gameplay.

At which point all those 'fanbois' will be complaining. This pointless DLC stuff is fine, because ultimately you never need to own it, its just for those who want to look like they have waaaaay too much additional income. The second they start carving up a full game or giving advantages to micropayment subscribers, you're going to see alot less happy bunnies.

Then again, its like spam advertising, if people don't buy the shit, they'll stop making it.

 

[Avaloner]

I'm honestly sick of those "I haven't played the game, but I will complain about it anyway", seriously all this "omg first day DLC*", look at it geez, its a bunch of gestures, skins and hats, nothing else, its purely to dress up your character to show them to the one person, who you play co-op with.

I actually think this is valves way to see if anyone is stupid enough to buy these.
There would be a huge difference, if you had Mappacks or half the game removed, but it is not, so stop whining, seeing how you can just equip one item per slot and most are a few euros anyway, its just like someone already said, like a concert t-shirt..you don't need it unless you want to show off.

But, at the end of the day, it's people taking a stand over being nickled and dimed for small niceties in games.

Why would Valve not try to make money out of this anyway, there are already alot of games with Ingame stores, many MmoRPG have it, alot of browsergames have it. I think TF is notorious for their items.
As long as this content is simply cosmetically and/or so minimalin gamechanging its next to ignorable, there is no problem in getting some money out of people, who obviously have enough.