Your disagrees simply feed my Bubble Count
CRank: 14Score: 0

Cliffy B is right: don't like it? Don't buy it.

For those who haven't read Cliffy B's firestarter of a blog post, you can find it here: http://dudehugespeaks.tumbl...

To sum, Cliffy B defends micro-transactions, he defends DLC, and he says that if you aren't interested in extra content, then you should simply not buy it and then shut up.

And gamers everywhere are pissed.

There are a few things he says that I truly disagree with. Chiefly, I don't agree with his assessment that game companies NEED to charge more because the cost of living in large cities is more. They don't HAVE to live in those cities. Games can be (and have often been) developed in a garage or a basement. You don't need to work in a San Fran high-rise for your game to turn out well.

However, I think we're all over-reacting just a little bit, and we're all being just a wee bit bratty.

To start off, he is correct when he says that videogames (and even videogame consoles, to a degree) are cheaper now than they've ever been. I remember paying $60 for Phantasy Star III on my Genesis...and that was 20 years ago. I couldn't afford Street Fighter II when it came out. My next-door neighbor got it for his birthday. It was a $75 cartridge.

There are problems with the industry, no doubt. It DOES feel cheap when you buy a brand-new game and the instant you pop it in, something is prompting you to spend $15 more on some extra maps or some extra weapons. That irks me, too. Personally, I'm a big fan of fighting games, and the modern fighting genre (Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, BlazBlue, etc) is by far one of the WORST when it comes to DLC and "Super" editions. It definitely ticks me off when I buy a new fighting game and three of the fighters are locked away behind a $3.99-each price tag.

But you know what? I wasn't lied to. It typically says on the back of the case how many fighters there are. If I really wanted to know, I could have looked it up online. Companies have always been faithful to let gamers know before launch if such-and-such character is going to be DLC. Sure, I do feel a bit taken advantage of, but whose fault is that?

It's mine.

Why is it my fault?

I'll tell you why, but you might hate the answer. It's my fault because I didn't have self control. Let's not be silly: videogames are 100% toys. They aren't essential for life. You don't HAVE to buy a videogame, let alone all the DLC for it. It's not like the price of gasoline going up, or the price of fresh produce, or something like that. Videogames are toys. They're fun, but they're not essential for life. We don't HAVE to buy them. We CHOOSE to buy them. And if we CHOOSE to spend money on a videogame that doesn't meet our expectations, well, we goofed up, didn't we? If it pisses us off and we scream "I'll never buy a game from you guys again" and then we turn around and buy the next game, well, we're hypocrites and cry-babies, aren't we? I haven't bought a CAPCOM game since Ultimate MvC3. I have no sympathy for people who buy CAPCOM games and then turn around and complain about the DLC. Are you kidding me? Where have you been for the last 5-or-so years. CAPCOM has been doing this for a while. It's your own fault that you couldn't say "no" to the game if it really bothers you so much.

I'm a huge fan of the Disgaea series. I've played Disgaea 1, then 2 on PS2, then Disgaea 1 and 2 again on PSP, then Disgaea 3 on PS3, then Disgaea 4, and now I'm playing through Disgaea 3 on Vita. All I'm trying to emphasize is that I - obviously - am a fan of the series. However, Disgaea is HORRIBLE when it comes to DLC. In order to buy all of the extras in Disgaea 3 for PS3, I would have to pay $49.99 for the Complete DLC Pack. And that's actually CHEAPER than it used to be when each individual item was sold for a few bucks each. So, you know what I did? I rented Disgaea 3 on PS3 to see if I liked it, and then I waited. I waited for years until it came out on PS Vita. Why? Because it came with all the PS3 DLC and a few extras. I rented Disgaea 4 before starting D3:Vita, and while I do like D4, I'm a bit sore about the $100+ worth of DLC that wasn't included with the price of the game. But you know what? I'll just wait until the eventual remake. Problem solved by the virtue of self-control. I didn't write any angry letters to Nippon Ichi. I didn't throw away the game in disgust. I simply am going to wait until later.

And this is what Cliffy B's blog is about. We don't HAVE to own all the content. If we could simply say "no", or perhaps just "I'll go ahead and wait", the problem would be solved one way or another. DLC-whoring would likely diminish, and we wouldn't feel so angry about DLC, anyway. We only get angry because we have this sense of entitlement that every single scrap of code made for the game should be included with the base price. How about the alternative: no extra content and bare-bones games. Besides, DLC is nothing new at all. It's just a faster, more accessible version of expansion packs from back in the day, and instead of paying $40+ for an expansion pack like we had to do for games like Starcraft or Wing Commander, you pay $2.99 for that one EXACT item you want without being forced to pay for anything else.

And as Cliffy B said, if you don't like it, don't buy it. If you don't want all the DLC characters for Marvel vs CAPCOM 3, well, don't buy them. It isn't as if CAPCOM promised you 40 characters in the base game but then only gave you 20, forcing you to pay for the rest. No! The extra characters are just that, extra. You're mad at CAPCOM for charging for...let's say...different "color packs" for your characters? Um, then don't buy it! How many colors does a fellow need, anyway? If it makes you angry that the content exists, well, then don't buy the game! Or, if you're clever, just have some self control and wait until CAPCOM (or whoever, depending on the game) releases an Ultimate Edition like they always do.

Cliffy B makes another very good point, a point that a lot of gamers are flaming him for. He says it's a double-standard that we should rag on EA but praise Valve. He's right. Valve is just as bad at DLC-whoring. Heck, one could argue that Valve is WORSE. They don't just DLC-whore. They mod-whore, by taking fan-made mods and turning them into full games, charging you for the "upgrade" in the process. Valve's library is full of such games.

I'm not advocating for a DLC-filled world. But there's another point he brings up that people forget: DLC keeps the game in a lot of people's library. It's true! Bethesda is incredibly good at this particular aspect of DLC. No way, José, are you going to trade in a Bethesda game when you know two, or three, or more 30-hour-sized DLC packs will be coming out within the next 18-24 months. No way are you going to trade in Halo, or Call of Duty, or Mass Effect when you know that new maps, new weapons, new character skins, and even new chapters are coming out in the near future. A DLC pack that I'm really excited about is the extra content for Dark Souls, Artorias of the Abyss. Granted, I haven't dropped the money yet to buy it, but I'm glad FROM Software took the time to expand a game that the fans obviously enjoy. And if the money from the DLC helps them make yet another Souls game? Heck yeah. If there's a market for DLC, why shouldn't companies make more content for the game?

Now, let me backpedal a little bit. It's easy to shout and complain when we're fans. That's because we're fans! We love videogames and we like it when we get to play really good ones. We don't like being tricked, and we don't like getting scammed. I'll admit that those feelings are going around, especially during this last console generation (The DLC Generation, it will one day be called). People don't like getting taken for a ride. However, we need to realize that if we showed a bit of self control, if we didn't insist on owning 100% of every scrap of content for a game, then perhaps we wouldn't get so upset when the DLC inevitably comes out. The videogame industry is an entertainment business. And DLC entertains a lot of people. If DLC was unprofitable, then companies wouldn't make it, so clearly it works. I would be happy if companies...hmmm, shall we say "adjusted" some of their practices with DLC (like, if you're going to obviously slice something out of a game, please at least TRY to trick us by releasing it in a few months instead of Day One), but as a whole, DLC is really nothing new, and we really shouldn't be so up-in-arms against it.

The story is too old to be commented.
Godmars2901875d ago

The issue is if such practices are allowed to become standard, more so than they currently are anyway, there will be no choice in the matter. You'll either have to pay full for half a game, or as someone who puts time into a title and earns skills be regularly be outclassed by someone else who only spent more on the same game.

This is exactly what's going on with P2P and MMOs, but EA is planning on doing this with EVERYTHING they make. Which will effect everything they make. End SP gaming with them for one thing.

Captain Tuttle1875d ago

Then follow Cliff's advice and don't buy the stuff, any of it. If enough people think the same way companies will lose money and change their ways. If the most likely thing happens and you're in the tiny minority who actually backs up what they believe with their wallet and you don't buy these games or DLC then you're SOL unfortunately.
The marketplace has spoken.

isa_scout1875d ago

I don't think DLC is the problem, I think it is when they remove parts of the game and sell it for 5 bucks and call it day one DLC. Skyrim for instance is the perfect example of a game doing DLC right. You can put well over 100 hours into Skyrim, and never even need the DLC. However, games like Assassins Creed 2 that held back sequence 11 and released it a week later calling it the missing link is just bullshit. It wasn't missing they pulled it from the game just to have us pay an extra $10.00 for something that clearly should have been in the full game.
I remember thinking when I was playing the game and it went from sequence 10 to sequence 12 I was like, "What the hell is going on?" I actually thought my game glitched or something. Horrid business practices like those is what I'm against, but if the game is good, doesn't feel rushed, and their just adding some extra incentive to bring me back in a couple of months I'm all for that.

Godmars2901875d ago

But that logic fails because the people this is targeted towards aren't the ones complain about it. Casual gamers, people who don't have the time time to play and outright cheats with money see this as good thing.

KwietStorm1874d ago (Edited 1874d ago )

And that's always the go to answer. Don't like it don't buy it. Speak with your wallet. Blah blah. So basically I'm supposed to stand my ground and *wait* for everyone else to hopefully get on board, in order for change to come. I'm just supposed to deal with being nickel and dimed until everyone sees it for what it is. I have no problem with DLC. Its short changing the gamers and selling main components of the game later that concerns me. Its hard enough getting people on your team in a multiplayer match on the same page. Getting an entire market on the same page is not as simple as "Don't like it don't buy it," and this guy who has already made millions and left the industry, Couldn't be less relevant to my perspective.

zerocrossing1874d ago (Edited 1874d ago )

My problem with DLC and microinstructions is, If I don't feel like Im getting the full game even though Im paying the FULL retail price for it something is wrong.

We're buying a 75% finished game and they're often full of bugs, we put up with constant patches because the pubs push them out too early and then we pay with micro transactions to eventually get a finished product and yes Im saying it again we've already paid full retail price for it, but no, more often than not that was an unfinished product.

Constantly we're getting content held back and Im talking proper endings and portions of games here (not just extra weapons and new skins which I don't really have a problem with if their aren't balancing issues ) the point is if you buy a game you should feel content with it and not feel like you must buy purchase the DLC to be getting the full intended experience, which all to often is the case and that for the most part is why people are fed up with EA and their nickel & diming methods, it's one thing to give casual gamers a helping hand but not at the detriment of the core gamers who prefer to use skill instead of paying to win.

Cliffy B can go to hell for all I care, EA have been awful publishers for years now even disregarding their current pay to play and pay again approach, If he knows anything about the industry then he's damn well aware the last publishers he should defend are EA unless he's soon to be in their pocket.

dedicatedtogamers1875d ago

The pendulum won't swing that far, because all it takes is one company to advertise their games as "all content included" and boom, market adjusts itself. I'll take optional DLC instead of mandatory $80 retail price for all games. Believe me, because gamers keep demanding more content and better graphics, DLC is the only thing keeping the retail cost of games down.

SilentNegotiator1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

Ideologies such as those of EA and Activision are spreading among the AAA titles. The main part of the VG audience will buy no matter what. We still want to play some of those big titles.

More has to be done than sitting back and letting the oppressive majority "vote" on games. Like real life, voters are misinformed, disinterested in specifics, etc. And furthermore, there is no weight to voting "no" if the masses still buy.

Look at all of good done by community action. EA has attempted to give more interesting weight to ME3's terrible ending, War Z was removed from Steam while they made adjustments and made a more truthful description, Hitman:A ADDED content to the final product because people felt there was a lack of context to that scene (To which they agreed needed more context ), etc.

Community "whining" matters. "Voting" (a terrible analogy, btw) does not due to the passive masses.

They can still sell millions and also make happy, long term hard/core fans.

ZombieNinjaPanda1875d ago (Edited 1875d ago )

The Pendulum won't swing that far? Have you noticed the "COD-Effect" occurring in many first person shooters? Essentially, many FPS games are eerily similar to COD's annoyingly generic control type. Why? Because people buy it, thus the other developers think they can get people to buy their game too if they make it similar.

DLC, can be viewed in the same. Once it starts taking off, there's no stopping it. It will only get worse and worse. Developers will see that certain companies are getting away with nickel and diming their customers, and they'll follow. The only way to stop this is to stop it before it grows.

Did you not read EA's response to DLC? They think that their consumers enjoy microtransactions. You may think the pendulum won't swing that far, but the weight on the bottom is getting heavier and heavier.

Also, I see you used the word entitlement. Yes, we are entitled to a good game for the money we're paying. We're also entitled to not being screwed over by the people making our game or the people selling it to us.

sjaakiejj1874d ago

"They think that their consumers enjoy microtransactions. "

That's a statement based on statistics generated by The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3, so whilst a vocal minority may hate microtransactions with all their heart, there are a lot of people out there buying new outfits for their Old Republic characters, and a lot of people buying item packs for Mass Effect 3, something they could've easily gotten by just playing the game.

The thing here is that Microtransactions generally appeal to people who have very little time on their hands. They don't mind paying a bit extra to get a bit more out of the little time they spend on the game.

Ducky1875d ago

"Heck, one could argue that Valve is WORSE. They don't just DLC-whore. They mod-whore, by taking fan-made mods and turning them into full games, charging you for the "upgrade" in the process."

I don't see how anyone could argue that what Valve does is worse.
Most of Valve's multiplayer games might be from mods, but they've done a lot of development on those games. They have kept supporting their games through free updates years after their launch, while also letting the community make their own mods.

... that isn't in any way comparable to day-1 DLC, microtransactions in paid games, and DLC abusing (like Sims)

porkChop1874d ago

"that isn't in any way comparable to day-1 DLC, microtransactions in paid games"

Valve has taken part in both of those. They completely ruined TF2 with their hats and all that crap. Then they put the same microtransactions in Portal 2. They're the company that charges $100 for hats because they say they're "researching and experimenting". Bullshit, they're not experimenting, they're knowingly ripping off customers with extremely overpriced digital items because Valve KNOW people will buy it. They've said themselves that the 2 most sold items every month are the cheapest hat in the store, and the most expensive hat in the store.

Just look at ANY interview with Gabe, or with other Valve employees. They're nearly ALL about how to make more money off of consumers, and about how to grow a successful business. About how "if you lower prices by 75%, profits increase by more than 5000%". You never see them talking about their design philosophies, or their ideas behind narrative and character development, none of that. It's always just money, money, money.

Everyone is so fucking blind these days. Valve is the WORST company for DLC. Then look at what they did with L4D 1&2. $60 games with hardly any content. Why? Because Valve expected the community to make it's own content and mods. Sorry, but if you expect me to make my own content to play then don't charge me 60 fucking dollars for such an empty game.

Godmars2901874d ago

The difference between Valve and EA, DLC and L4D?

When Valuve promised additional DLC for L4D1 that DLC did not exist. That happened early in the era of DLC. It was still a dick move on their part to essentially take time and effort, if not actual levels, and make L4D2, but at least all of that was post production.

What's going on with DLC now, and its not only EA, is that its happening in tandem with the full making of the game. Either developers during the active process are choosing potential content, removing it from the full game's story to offer it later, or publishers are doing it, ordering devs to do it messing up the story in the process.

Ducky1874d ago (Edited 1874d ago )

"They completely ruined TF2 with their hats and all that crap. Then they put the same microtransactions in Portal 2."

TF2 is as popular as ever, both on its casual side, and on its competitive side. So I don't see how it got completely ruined.
It's also a FreeToPlay game, so microtransactions are par for the course, but normal players can be competitive without buying anything.

Portal2's microtransactions are just cosmetic, and don't impact my own experience whether I buy them or not. Whereas in a game like BF3, my experience is impacted because other players can use their bought weapons against me.

"You never see them talking about their design philosophies, or their ideas behind narrative and character development, none of that. It's always just money, money, money."

That is simply false.
When Valve is interviewed about their games, they talk about the development.
When Valve is interviewed about Steam, they talk about their business philosophy.

... but hey, since you are looking at their business philosophy, why not compare them against EA's?
They're the ones that thinks having sales is bad because it devalues their IP. Yet another reason why they're seen as the bad guys.

"Everyone is so fucking blind these days. Valve is the WORST company for DLC. "

Come on now, really? Worse than Capcom that re-releases StreetFighter4 three times? Worse than Ubisoft that removes sequences from AC2 then sells them as DLC?
There's so many examples of publishers abusing DLC, but you think Valve, the company that supports its games for years with free content support, is the worst?

I can agree that Valve aren't saints, but you need your eyes checked if you think they're the worst.

L4D1 had encounters that were dynamic, so you could replay the levels and get a different experience. Not to mention that being a co-op game added to the replay value. I got my $60 of enjoyment out of it by playing with friends and strangers, but that's just me.
L4D2 was a blunder on their part, but they recovered by adding a fair amount of content to it afterwards (for free too).

... and I think it's unfair to say that a company offering mod tools is bad thing by assuming that they're expecting you to make the content, when they're really just giving you the freedom.
If they wanted, they could've taken the mod tools away and then sold you DLC packs instead of making them free. You know which company does do that? Look at EA with Battlefield3.

Nate-Dog1875d ago

Good blog, although there are a few things I'd disagree with you on. But before I mention those first I will say well done for pointing out the fact that gamers are in general bad consumers, and that as a group we bring what we have gotten on ourselves. If we didn't constantly ask for more of the same and weren't nostalgic all the time, we wouldn't keep getting rehashes or HD collections or DLC that doesn't add anything. Also as you say Cliffy B is also right in saying that people ought not to hate on EA so much all the while unendingly sucking up to Valve.

Onto the things I disagree with, first I think labelling games as "100% toys" isn't right. They're not a necessity, there's no doubt about that. But the way you talk about them in this light is as if to say that everything that isn't a necessity in life is a toy. Music and/or music instruments aren't toys. Movies aren't toys. Practising a certain sport isn't always just relaxing or just playing - exercise is beneficial to the body and mind, as is socialising with other people. Movies and games can transport us to other worlds and engage us with other people and stories. They can help put our minds at ease for a time where we can become very stressed. They can encourage our imagination and can encourage creativity. Music can do all of these things too. (I see your point about them not being necessary in order to live life day to day of course, just I think labelling them as merely toys is rash.)

"It isn't as if CAPCOM promised you 40 characters in the base game but then only gave you 20, forcing you to pay for the rest. No! The extra characters are just that, extra."

The thing with this is that it's often the case where these other 20 characters aren't "extra", they're taken from the game. They were developed and made for the game at the same time as the 20 that were included in the game were, but were taken out in order to make a profit. If this is the case then we're not getting extra, we're getting less. Again I see your point and you make a good one, that if a company tells you they're giving you 20 then you should either accept it and buy it or not accept it and not buy it, but I don't think it's wrong for people to be angry and have an issue with this practice.

"Bethesda is incredibly good at this particular aspect of DLC. No way, José, are you going to trade in a Bethesda game when you know two, or three, or more 30-hour-sized DLC packs will be coming out within the next 18-24 months."

I'm being nitpicky here but I don't recall Bethesda ever making a 30-hour DLC pack, certainly not two or three of them. I mean a 30-hour DLC pack is effectively enough for a full game isn't it?

But good blog nonetheless, you raise some good points about the DLC practice. I think in general people need to be more aware of what they're buying into, and they need to have more backbone and say "no, I don't like this so I won't buy your game or your DLC", but instead the majority of gamers just tend to end up getting both all the while still complaining. We certainly are hypocrites.

isa_scout1874d ago

Skyrims DLC like Dragonborn you can put well into 30 or more hours if you so choose.Same with the DLC for Oblivion. I'm not saying all DLC needs to be this long, but it's never a bad thing. For instance think about the DLC for Infamous 2, Festival of Blood was only about 2-3 hours long but it was reasonabley priced at $10.00, and it gave you a cool little side story about vampires. It wasn't neccesary to the main story at all, and you could tell that it wasn't cut from the main campaign to sell later. I'm fine with DLC that's only 1-2-3 hours long. What I'm not fine with is when that DLC is the "true" ending or a missing chapter that they just pulled from the middle of the game. I don't know how I got 1 disagree at the top of the page, but feel free to respond and tell me why I'm wrong.

wishingW3L1875d ago

I don't buy stuff that I don't like but giving my opinion is free. ;)

Show all comments (39)
The story is too old to be commented.