Poll: Was it a mistake to include DLC in Portal 2?

[Outright Villainy]

In terms of cost to produce vs cost recouped ratio, it's definitely profitable. Even if not that many people buy it, it's a tiny addition of a few skins, it probably didn't take that long to make. However, I think Valve should have realised this kind of backlash was inevitable. Not because it's justified (it's not), but because gamers are by and large morons, and this kind of "They're out to get me, charging too much for useless crap" (as opposed to you know, useful things, which they don't seem to realise would be an actual problem) attitude is extremely prevalent amongst gamers, or just people in general. People have huge feelings of entitlement, and it's already spreading unwarranted badwill, what with the bombings of metacritic and the whining everywhere. It'll probably cost them in the long run with that I think.

To re-iterate: I have nothing against it. It's optional DLC done right, it's easily ignored, and takes nothing from the game. But they should have realised that plenty of entitled morons would kick up a fuss about it, and from that kind of business perspective, it was probably overall unwise, because, as stated by others, for a 5-6 hour campaign, most people won't see the point. Or perhaps I'm overestimating the amount of dissent over it. The squeakiest wheel gets the most oil, and all that.

 

[rje5]

There is a difference between selling skins and selling more of the game they decided not to include. I don't have a problem with developers trying to sell skins because whoever buys them are retarded and retarded people don't deserve their money. I have an issue with developers who slowly sell you more of the game over time because they didn't want to include it at launch.

 

[Dr. HeatSync]

I think it's a brilliant business decision; this kind of cosmetic content is fairly easy and inexpensive to make, which means they can make a ton of them with varied themes to appeal to different tastes. Obviously, no one can or even should buy all of them, thats insanity. Instead the mentality of their ideal consumer in this case is this: browsers in the store that go 'oh that one looks awesome' and bought it because it was the only they were interested in. The mentality of their least ideal customer is of course someone who expects their house painted for free, i.e. an idiot.

I don't know exactly the costs of the items or anything, but if all of the people who bought Portal 2 then bought the one hat that they wanted, its a massive sum of pure and easy profit just for a small piece of content. Its also a very good alternative of out of retail profiting and their effective counter to used copies (for console versions, or maybe just the 360 version).

So yes, its the most friendly and yet the most profitable approach to gaining profit outside of retail. I know that most people would have bought it on steam and therefore there's no retailer to deal with, but I can guarantee you there will be a surge of games with suspicious cosmetic gear, as opposed to making it unlockable via achievements as preferred by the self entitled among us. I have a hunch this is related to them hinting that they won't be making single player games as this setup doesn't work so well outside of multiplayer.

Tl;dr efficient and freindly way to make money. Although this has existed in the form of Xbox Live Avatars and other things, expect a massive surge of game specific closets of cosmetic gear.

 

[Ranorak]

Seeing as how textures and emotes only need to be made once, and can be sold indefinitely without production cost. It doesn't take a genius to know it'll probably be profitable.
Especially if you look at TF2's hat craze.

 

[Ranorak]

sorry for the double post.

There is a difference between selling skins and selling more of the game they decided not to include. I don't have a problem with developers trying to sell skins because whoever buys them are retarded and retarded people don't deserve their money. I have an issue with developers who slowly sell you more of the game over time because they didn't want to include it at launch.

Yes, because anyone that pays a few euro's for a fun skin is obviously mentally retarded.
And not, you know, well enough that they don't need to worry about such small prices.
And hey, I happen to like funny hats on robots.

 

[Atheist.]

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but I have two words for you. Horse armor. It sold a ridiculous amount for a purely cosmetic item. Portal 2 will do the same. Except on a larger scale, I'd assume.

 

[Bretty]

That found that with TF2 they could create a store for fans who like cosmetic differences. Not just did they like them, they were willing to pay for them. The Portal store is just the continuation of this trend.

But TF2 has a lot of replay value, and a lot of people to potentially admire your hats. Portal 2 doesn't have that, so surely that must mean that there is less incentive to buy stuff like that in this game.

Shame about the emo bastards metacritic bombing it.

Do you think it will cost them sales?

Valve have created a revenue stream with the portal store. This is a good thing in terms of a business trying to succeed, so regardless of usage - It probably isn't costing them much of anything to keep it up and the design cost of the items have probably already been paid for.

As far as the emo's metacritic bombing, I think you missed my point. I am saying that it is sad that people out there will thrash a fantastic game because you can buy hats..... nothing to do with costing Valve sales.

 

[droessler]

I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but I have two words for you. Horse armor. It sold a ridiculous amount for a purely cosmetic item. Portal 2 will do the same. Except on a larger scale, I'd assume.

Not only did it sell successfully, it also caused something along the lines of this "PORTAL HATS?! WTF VALVE?" fiasco. People raged so hard about the horse armor having a real-world monetary value yet no actual in-game functionality, just the wow-factor of "My horse has armor now. That's cool I guess".

Did Microsoft or Bethesda ever get their comeuppance outraged fans thought was deserved? No, not at all. The majority of people forgot about it. I can only assume the same will happen now. Rage-fueled flames will die down, people will forget and move on, and Valve will sell loads of purely cosmetic hats and skins.

In the end, like it or not, a constant stream of DLC is here to stay. Sure, some insignificant amount of DLC won't sell very well, but most of it, including the widely criticized, will. We all know businesses aren't going to willingly abandon a virtual-based market that increases revenue.

 

[badgersprite]

You can get most of it for free just by playing the game. Besides which, anyone who cares that much about having or not having funny little hats for their in game characters that thinks it is worth RAEGing over has serious issues and could probably use some counseling. I can't even believe we're still having this discussion.

 

[Longsight]

It's not DLC, it's merchandising, but that aside: it's an absolutely brilliant business move.

Very, very few people will refuse to buy Portal 2 because of the inclusion of bot skins and hats. Gamers are famously fickle as it is, and when it comes to something like Portal 2, the complaints are considerably minor. It's not a game-changing move, and even the most incensed and bitter still tended to buy it the moment it came out.

Look at the Modern Warfare 2 boycott and how well that went down: even for a game that was so incredibly broken in terms of what gamers actually wanted, it sold ridiculously well, and the vast majority of people that were publicly boycotting it before release went and bought it straight off anyway. The number of people worldwide who decided not to buy Portal 2 because it has an item store probably number in the hundreds; the number who'll pay for those skins will be far, far higher.

 

[Mute52]

If you've ever seen TF2 discussed, you'll understand it's not DLC.
This is completely cosmetic, and the hats offer no new content or gameplay for you to experience, therefore it isn't DLC.

 

[smeghead25]

Wait, so it's okay to sell hats in Team Fortress 2, but not in Portal 2...?

Why do I get the feeling that people are just whinging about this because they want attention?