Moderator: Forum Moderators
Portal 2 PC metacritic score sabotaged
How though? It doesn't affect the gameplay at all, it doesn't affect the quality of what's there. I get that this idea of selling you more shit all the time can be really annoying, but it doesn't intrude at all into the game. This is not like Dragon Age without the Warden's Keep DLC where the game bugs you to buy something while you're playing, it's just there if you give a shit about it, off on the side, minding its own business.WereRabbit wrote:There's a fundamental difference between a micro-transaction store and major DLC. Putting off including the store for 3 months would make no sense.
However there is one bad thing about it: it sets a precedent. It makes no sense being there. Unlike TF2 or an MMO you can't really show off in a 2 player co-op. I'd actually be happy for Valve if they put it in just to have a laugh, but if this shows where every game is going to end up, whether you can ignore it or not, I feel the integrity of gaming will continue to decrease.
For this game, no, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.deject wrote:
How though? It doesn't affect the gameplay at all, it doesn't affect the quality of what's there. I get that this idea of selling you more shit all the time can be really annoying, but it doesn't intrude at all into the game. This is not like Dragon Age without the Warden's Keep DLC where the game bugs you to buy something while you're playing, it's just there if you give a shit about it, off on the side, minding its own business.
) here do not. It's probably 13 yo kids which too much of their parents' money and rate Portal 2 as 0 on Metacritc. It's a bit sad to think that delvelopers/publishers, even Valve, will cater to that. The cynical point is, they're just in it for the money.
deject wrote:I totally disagree. It's purely cosmetic BS, there is no need to even open the store at all.
My point is, ifwhen that happens, then just don't buy that game. I'm not seeing what that would have to do with what Valve is doing? Using a sort of slippery slope kind of argument makes no sense whatsoever. If it offends you, then don't buy the game. It's pretty straight forward market economics. If the market doesn't want it, they won't pay for it and it won't get made. This trend towards micropayments and in-game storefronts is still developing and devs and publishers are still working out what is acceptable and what isn't.Dog Pants wrote:No, no, you've got a point. Valve are doing it without pushing it. You don't need hats, you can never buy a hat and it will not affect your game adversely. However not everyone is so scrupulous. Activision might decide that Modern Warfare 3 will cost £45 and require you to buy the best guns for £3 each. It's not outside the realms of possibility, and frustratingly there would still be millions of chimps who would buy it.
Really? The Activision way is the right way? Because they sell millions of copies of every iteration of COD, and I don't buy them, and they keep making them and selling them. I think the slippery slope argument makes sense - I'm not saying it will happen, but I think it's possible. Remember that games are increasingly made for the lowest common denominator, and we are not those people. See also: television.deject wrote:Also, just as a reality check, if millions of people would pay for something, anything, then it's probably worth doing. At that point, if you don't like it, well that's just kinda too bad because it's going to happen either way.
Tele's not a valid comparison because of the high barrier of entry, comp games, as shown by the indie scene, have a low barrier of entry.Dog Pants wrote:Remember that games are increasingly made for the lowest common denominator, and we are not those people. See also: television.
