Portal 2 - DLC Backlash

[Rooster Cogburn]

Seriously I don't get complaining about DLC especially of Portal 2s variety. When you buy a laptop do they include all those color options for your case?

No you have to BUY them, do you need them? No. It's a product and these are accessories, no one is forcing you to buy it and if you feel the need to customize your robot then clearly the DLC is for you, but you have to pay for it.

Those color options represent added value, which is why you pay for them. People are upset about Day 1 DLC because it gives the appearance of lower value in the final product. Whether it's fair or not, the appearance is like they started selling laptops with the 'M' key missing but for the same price. Then, they allow people the fabulous opportunity of purchasing an 'M' key at a later date for the low-low price of $3. So you are spending a little more to get what you would have gotten anyway. At least, that is the perception.

No, that doesn't stand because the DLC in Portal 2 do not add anything. It's cosmetic like a laptop case, which are made before the product is finished. Do you get a colored case with your ipod? No you have to buy that separately.

They give you what's needed and the rest is optional stuff that doesn't effect the game.

You are begging the question. Custom laptop cases obviously represent added value. Whether Portal 2 DLC represents added value is the point in question. The existence of the custom laptop cases obviously does not decrease the quality of the original laptop in the way that is being proposed for DLC. You can compare them every which way till the cows come home, but you're just dodging the issue.

Let me put it this way, then: suppose we each pay $500 for the same model of laptop. The only difference is mine comes with custom case included while you have to pay $30 for it. I think you would agree I am getting a better deal. The whole package for $500 is what we used to get for games. The exact same package for $530 is what we get now. At least, that is the perception and that perception is what people are upset about.

And the fact that the content is cosmetic is just completely irrelevant. Cosmetic features have value, end of.

 

[Lenny Magic]

I find it odd that people have been complaining about store, fact is if it bothers them so much they should just ignore it. That way if it really is annoying the "We" as they claim then Valve will probably get the message.

Hell people don't complain (at least to my knowledge) that they can buy extra parts for Warhammer figures.

 

[Bill Bread]

Looks like the Valve Defence Force were issued with pretty terrible analogies to wage their internet campaign /o\

 

[Podunk]

You are begging the question. Custom laptop cases obviously represent added value. Whether Portal 2 DLC represents added value is the point in question. The existence of the custom laptop cases obviously does not decrease the quality of the original laptop in the way that is being proposed for DLC. You can compare them every which way till the cows come home, but you're just dodging the issue.

Let me put it this way, then: suppose we each pay $500 for the same model of laptop. The only difference is mine comes with custom case included while you have to pay $30 for it. I think you would agree I am getting a better deal. The whole package for $500 is what we used to get for games. The exact same package for $530 is what we get now. At least, that is the perception and that perception is what people are upset about.

And the fact that the content is cosmetic is just completely irrelevant. Cosmetic features have value, end of.

So, essentially, what you and everyone else is bitching whining somewhat annoyed about is that you do not feel you got 60 dollars worth of game from Portal 2, and these multiplayer hat skins would have increased the value of the game to it's price point.

 

[Nieroshai]

My 2 cents on this: I hear a lot of 'It should have been included with the game.' and I have just one question. Why? Until I get an answer I don't give the complaints any credibility. That said I come from a heavily MMO-based background to gaming so this whole idea of your game and all its associated files being a single-purchase is a little alien to me.

I guess the reasoning is that it isn't additional content, and easily could have been put on the disc...it's not like in buying this DLC you are helping the developer to further develop the game you like, you're paying them extra to not both adding anything new, just taking stuff out of the final product.

That said.

OT: This idea that the DLC should've come with the disk presumes that the game is done right before its release. I'm pretty sure that's not the case, and in between readying the game for its release I don't see why they can't work on a few additional bits and bobs.

Still, why not release it a week after? I don't get day-one DLC 's purpose other than to annoy fans.

My argument on DLC is that 1. Skins should not be sold, or at least should not cost $3, 2. Expansion packs should be at LEAST half the content of the original game, and what I consider to be genuine DLC worth buying is additional characters and game modes not large enough to make an expansion pack. That's just my opinion, but if implemented customers wouldn't complain quite so much. Unlocking new chapters in Assassin's Creed? Worth it, but since they were pre-planned why weren't they already in the game? Unlocking Yoda in the PS3 Soul Calibur 4? Not the slightest bit worth $5, but if it was $1 I wouldn't mind. Unlocking a new skin for a character that doesn't even show up in cutscenes? Even a penny is robbery.

 

[Bobbity]

Seems more like a micro-transaction than actual DLC. I think it was unnecessary and a bit of a money grab, but I'm not going to rage about it, because it's totally optional, and we're not missing out on a crucial part of the game if we pass over it.

 

[Bill Bread]

Seems more like a micro-transaction than actual DLC. I think it was unnecessary and a bit of a money grab, but I'm not going to rage about it, because it's totally optional, and we're not missing out on a crucial part of the game if we pass over it.

Nonetheless don't you want to discourage devs from doing this?
I'd genuinely rather pay more like £2 more on the full title than have this shite. Then again I usually

Spoiler

buy games really late after release anyway.

 

[Brutal Peanut]

I mean,..hats. It's just...I mean....hats? Really guys? Hats?

 

[Bobbity]

Seems more like a micro-transaction than actual DLC. I think it was unnecessary and a bit of a money grab, but I'm not going to rage about it, because it's totally optional, and we're not missing out on a crucial part of the game if we pass over it.

Nonetheless don't you want to discourage devs from doing this?
I'd genuinely rather pay more like £2 more on the full title than have this shite. Then again I usually

Spoiler

buy games really late after release anyway.

True, we should be discouraging it, but by not buying it, rather than bitching about it. Anyway, I much prefer it to Bioware's recent system of making us pay ten bucks for content that should have been in the game in the first place.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

To people that give such scores to games: Zeros are for games that are unplayable because of a fatal glitch, not for making statements about trivial problems about reasonable business practices.

Eh, no. Games like this still get more than a zero.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/big-rigs-over-the-road-racing

I know the good ratings are satirical, but still.

Yeah, but one must expect a few strange people with a quirk to give a game a mediocre or passing score for some weird reason.

But what people have done with Portal 2 isn't like that, it is giving a game a zero to add emphasis for a childish reason. They use a zero as a protest mark, but what it does is possibly steer people away from a game that they might have actually liked or loved, but believed the user scores that made the game look bad. The problem is that there are many people that don't think for themselves when purchasing, and such misuse of scoring systems will mislead these people.

This is why professional reviewers rarely give a game a bottom score or a zero, it has to have a serious flaw. It would be unprofessional to give a game a score like that because of some silly protest against a game maker's business practices.

So, what I'm hearing is that people don't have any idea how software development works? Please educate yourself [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.154083-Dragon-Age-Designer-Says-DLC-Not-Meant-to-Rip-Off-Players#3719305].

(Note: This only really applies to full-fledged Day 1 DLC, as in full characters, extra quests, etc. This is not DLC, this is microtransactions. There is a difference.)

Most definitely this. Thanks, I've been looking for something that gives more insight into what I have been trying to say on the matter of software development practices.

 

[Bill Bread]

iah I think a lot of people would be driven to pirate stuff because of nonsense like this.
I prefer EA's system: VIP codes for people who buy a new copy of the game, they get DLC free, people buying second hand games have to pay.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I really haven't encountered any long lasting businesses that don't use normal business costumer tricking or convincing practices to get more sales. If a business doesn't work on attracting more sales in some fashion, it won't last long.

GSC are still true bros, they've been putting out quality games for ages without any of this type of shit.

Well GSC has a problem, because they apparently aren't very popular, because I don't know what "GSC" is.

Or, I have heard of them and you are using an acronym I haven't seen before.

What have they made?

 

[Bill Bread]

STALKER series, the Cossack series, a few others.

Proper games, not mass popular shit.

 

[Android2137]

Since it's purely cosmetic, I don't see what the problem is. Yeah, I'm a bit miffed hearing about it, but it's just an expanded wardrobe, not expanded gameplay. Such things don't add to the game THAT much.

Off topic:

...What IS that? Is that one letter or two? How am I supposed to type that?

 

[Hiphophippo]

The internet amazes me. I could think all day long and probably not come up with a sillier complaint.

 

[Hiphophippo]

WE DID GET THE WHOLE THING.

No you didn't, you didn't get the £28 of what is likely already on the game disk. Stop crying about how you got a shitty deal.

I got exactly what I wanted when I handed over my money. Sorry to hear you wanted optional fluff hat skins. I didn't. Wouldn't use them even if they were on the disc (which, mind you, I don't have.)

It shouldn't BE DLC.

But it's not DLC. Does anyone on the entire internet call the hats in tf2 DLC? It's optional fluff that I can't imagine why anyone would ever give two shits about.

 

[Zhukov]

Jesus. They're just hats. Hats, coloured skins and gesture animations.

Nobody with a brain cares about this.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

You are begging the question. Custom laptop cases obviously represent added value. Whether Portal 2 DLC represents added value is the point in question. The existence of the custom laptop cases obviously does not decrease the quality of the original laptop in the way that is being proposed for DLC. You can compare them every which way till the cows come home, but you're just dodging the issue.

Let me put it this way, then: suppose we each pay $500 for the same model of laptop. The only difference is mine comes with custom case included while you have to pay $30 for it. I think you would agree I am getting a better deal. The whole package for $500 is what we used to get for games. The exact same package for $530 is what we get now. At least, that is the perception and that perception is what people are upset about.

And the fact that the content is cosmetic is just completely irrelevant. Cosmetic features have value, end of.

So, essentially, what you and everyone else is bitching whining somewhat annoyed about is that you do not feel you got 60 dollars worth of game from Portal 2, and these multiplayer hat skins would have increased the value of the game to it's price point.

There probably are those who feel that way. This particular game's price point is subjective. I will say however that people are probably upset because of the perception of getting less game for your buck. As I've said, it's difficult to know if that perception is a reality.

 

[Zing]

If it's only cosmetic then who cares...also the user reviews on metacritic are a result of 4chan.