Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

Valve recently overhauled Steam's review system, putting a larger focus on recent perspectives. The move made sense. Games are no longer static works. They constantly evolve thanks to updates and programs like Early Access. The system is, by and large, very useful, providing percentages that give narrow and wide snapshots of games. But numbers only tell part of the story.

The other part of the story is what people are saying, the broader trends running through reviews inside and outside each game's review "summary" section. Does this new system reflect them accurately? Is it actually useful, especially in cases where recent (posted within the past 30 days) and overall review scores are wildly different? I've been going over Steam with a fine-toothed comb, looking for games with big disparities between their recent and overall review percentages. Here are the most telling ones I've found.

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

DayZ

Overall positivity percentage: 71 per cent

Recent positivity percentage: 38 per cent

Example review:

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

DayZ, once a survival gaming darling and arguably patient zero of the genre, has taken a savage critical beating in recent times. Tellingly, most of the top negative reviewers are from people who have spent tens or hundreds of hours with the game, evading zombies and concocting ruses to steal pants from their fellow man. Their main complaints? After years in development as an Early Access game, DayZ is still buggy, updates are infrequent, and a handful of core systems are still placeholders or non-existent. A year ago, a lot of this stuff was more excusable, thus the more positive overall reviews. Now, it seems that players are running out of patience.

On the upside, a recent update to the game's experimental branch apparently improved server and engine performance pretty nicely. There is some hope for the future, but current player sentiment is pretty bleak. It's an instance of the new review system showing clear change over time, especially as it pertains to expectations. Where once DayZ was beloved despite its quirks, people are starting to wonder what's taking so long.

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

Batman: Arkham Knight

Overall positivity percentage: 53 per cent

Recent positivity percentage: 89 per cent

Example review:

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

This one is an example of the new review system working in the opposite direction. As many of you know, Batman: Arkham Knight's PC launch was an unmitigated bat-tastrophe. It was buggy, and it performed like a batmobile with a thousand bats nesting in its engine. It got so bad that Warner removed it from sale on Steam, only to put it back on sale months later in less-than-ideal form. Ultimately, they took to offering refunds through all of 2015. However, time (and a slow but steady dripfeed of patches) heals all wounds.

Steam reviewers now report that the technical issues are mostly a thing of the past, and they have come around to sharing console players' opinion of the game: it's pretty good! (I still think it would be better with a Nemesis System, but oh well.) This is a perfect example of the new review system working as intended. A game came out. It was shit. The reviews said as much at the time. It's been a little while. The game is no longer shit. The reviews are like, "Fear not, gentle populace. It is no longer shit."

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

Killing Floor 2

Overall positivity percentage: 82 per cent

Recent positivity percentage: 64 per cent

Example review:

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

Killing Floor 2 has a lot going for it. You can bash zombies with a shovel. You can bash zombies with a katana. You can bash zombies with a chainsaw that fires buzzsaws. And that's just one of the game's multiple classes.

When it launched in Early Access, people dug it despite a relative lack of Stuff To Do. More than a year later, though, some feel like developer Tripwire's taken the co-op zombie pulverizer in an unfortunate direction. Pretty much every review cites the crate-based microtransaction system as annoying and paid DLC as premature, and many take issue with balance and difficulty, as well as the slow pace of development. It is, at first glance, an instance of reviews reflecting change over time and players' feelings about it.

However, this is an Early Access game. Balance and difficulty issues are to be expected as the mechanics evolve. I can sympathize with players who've poured money and time into the game, but this is also just how alpha/beta testing works. But then, Tripwire is charging money for DLC and microtransactions, so they're not exactly treating this like a test themselves. It's a muddled situation that a flood of recent negative reviews doesn't do a great job of getting to the bottom of.

Additionally, there's another chorus of voices complaining that they're being "censored" (read: moderated, something every developer has the right to do — how are we still talking about this) on Killing Floor 2's Steam forums. Finally, there are other players saying everybody's blowing this out of proportion and that the game's not bad at all. Rather, it's just not what they expected out of a sequel to the original Killing Floor, but they still think it's fun. There's a lot to untangle, and in this case the new review section looks more like a forum: just a lot of people arguing.

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

Mortal Kombat X

Overall positivity percentage: 53 per cent

Recent positivity percentage: 40 per cent

Example review:

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

Mortal Kombat X's PC version is not fundamentally broken, but it's been getting flooded with increasingly negative reviews ever since January of this year. The reason? Warner Bros and NetherRealm essentially abandoned it. They stopped porting DLC that was coming to consoles, and they stopped updating things like netcode and balance. Players are understandably pissed.

In this case, recent reviews serve as a useful warning: unless you're OK with playing the least up-to-date version of the game, stay away. In the past, people might've encountered a game like this, only to base their purchase on outdated reviews. This is an instance where the new system shines. Warner performed a fatality on the game's future prospects, and potential players deserve to know.

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

Grand Theft Auto IV

Overall positivity percentage: 67 per cent

Recent positivity percentage: 51 per cent

Example review:

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

This one's been accruing a fat stack of negative reviews for years thanks to issues with Microsoft's now-discontinued (but still built into GTA IV) Games for Windows Live system. According to a stickied thread on the game's Steam forums, manually installing Games for Windows Live often helps. Rockstar's Social Club apparently also poses serious start-up issues, again requiring a manual update. Usually doing those things solves the problem, but Rockstar has not provided that information in any obvious place. The sentiment across the board is pretty similar: GTA IV is a great game, but the Steam version is a hassle to get up and running, if you can get it up and running at all. Even then, it suffers from performance issues on Windows 10.

Somewhere beneath all the side effects, which include rampant neck and arse pain, is a playable port of a great game. But accessing it is so difficult that many people believe it's broken. That's clear from the reviews, with the percentage of positive takes rapidly dwindling. It sucks that developers like Rockstar aren't stepping in to solve the problem, but this happens more and more with older games. Recent reviews, sadly, don't reflect the full scope of what's going on here, nor do they reflect what can be done.

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition

Overall positivity percentage: 83 per cent

Recent positivity percentage: 55 per cent

Example review:

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

I've already written about the controversies surrounding Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition's new Siege of Dragonspear expansion in depth, but you'll be unhappy to know that they still persist. Despite the fact that Siege of Dragonspear has its own page with its own review section, some recent reviews of Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition cite the expansion's writing and trans character as issues. Others are more focused on technical issues that arose from update 2.0, which changed the game's interface and, for some, introduced a host of technical issues, especially in regards to multiplayer. Beamdog is working to fix those issues, but the last major update dropped a month ago. On the upside, it seems to have cleared up some of the technical problems, as BG:EE's most recent reviews are largely positive.

When Siege of Dragonspear first came out, both BG:EE and Siege of Dragonspear had a review bomb detonated on their doorsteps. It's pretty clear that it's still having an effect, with only a fraction of reviews referencing the most recent major update (version 2.1) and many expressing outrage about "culture wars" and all that. As time passes (it's only been about a month) and Beamdog hopefully takes care of the remaining technical issues, it will be interesting to see how BG:EE's Steam score shakes out.

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

Reign of Kings

Overall positivity percentage: 63 per cent

Recent positivity percentage: 43 per cent

Example review:

Seven Steam Games Whose Review Scores Have Changed A Lot

This one's puzzling. The "recent" portion of the review section is dotted with more red than a person wearing an ironic "bite me" shirt at a vampire convention. Many of the negative reviews allege that the game's been abandoned by its developer… despite the fact that they continue to update it. The most recent major update to the medieval survival game, which landed on April 5, took aim at a number of bugs and exploits, and, most crucially, continued efforts to catch and ban hackers — an issue many angry players claim developer Code}{atch isn't addressing. The developers continue to respond on the game's forums, as well — albeit infrequently. Reign of Kings is clearly far from finished, and it's not updating quickly, but it's also not "abandoned."

The game's developer also has one of the most reviled games on Steam, a sci-fi survival sandbox called Starforge whose recent positive review percentage is at 0 per cent. Code}{atch took Starforge out of Early Access in a less-than-ideal state after spending years trying to overcome technical hurdles and implement promised features. According to Code}{atch, some of those plans turned out to not be feasible or fun. Unfortunately, the result was an uneven game that didn't entirely deliver. It's an unfortunate truth of Early Access: you can't always see what's coming in game development, even with the best of intentions. Despite Code}{atch's explanation, people say they unceremoniously left the game to rot, and they have decided that obviously Code}{atch intends to pull a bait and switch with Reign of Kings — or that they already have, even though they clearly haven't.

This line of thinking persists in part due to its Steam reviews. It's always good to be sceptical of games in Early Access, but perpetuating information that's demonstrably untrue? That can't be good for the health of a game, especially when said game's player count is already flagging.


Steam's new review system tells the stories of games' progression more accurately than the old one, but not all of those stories are 100 per cent on the mark. It still falters when things get exceedingly complicated or contentious. And of course, while Steam might seem monolithic, it is still only one community, or one collection of similarly minded communities. Steam reviews do not necessarily represent all or even most viewpoints surrounding some games.

I still recommend doing more than a little research outside it before busting open that piggy bank you somehow lodged a bunch of Steam gift cards inside. Better safe than sorry. Better happy with a hidden gem than missing out because a vocal minority got pissed about something (again).


Comments

    Just like that, Kotaku itself proves exactly how useful numbers in reviews still are, in a modern and contemporary fashion. Hours after claiming they are not in another post. I've got whiplash.

    It's an entirely different philosophy at work, and Grayson is absolutely right - games are not static works.

    However, this has a lot to do with Steam as a platform and service. There's an added layer of stress (perhaps not the right word) on myself as the end user, I not only have to gauge whether a game is right for me, but I have to take some sort of chance the game is also perhaps about to take an unexpected turn in a direction I may not like.

    This means we venture into $ discussion and what impact a game's price has on the overall discussion of whether or not the game is worth playing or not. And that sucks.

    I'm glad Arkham Knight's a better game (now) on PC, I can certainly attest to that. This is the beauty of the PC platform, you don't especially need to buy AAA games at launch, as it's no longer in your best interest.

    DayZ however, has absolutely broken my heart. I've taken to installing ARMA 2 and its relevant expansion again to get the original mod for DayZ. Who knows when I'll find the time to try getting it all work.

    This has all to do with diminishing returns. Video games used to be ala-carte and you could play the ones you wanted when you wanted - buy a console nearing its end and choose from a veritable buffet of insta-classics.

    Not so anymore, and the industry knows it - you get on the train when everybody else does else you miss out on the experience at its best. That sucks.

      Not sure how the problems you outline are due to "Steam as a platform and service."

      Having to weigh your interest in a game and take a chance on a purchase, or games being patched to behave differently, etc, is very much not unique to Steam; Or even PC anymore. Digital distribution is everywhere now. I know it's an article about Steam, but still.

      Personally, I think Steam's review system goes further than they ever needed to, making it the most helpful in any marketplace of it's kind.

      It has its issues sure, trolls or such, but the average company wouldn't ever want a system in place that could actually STOP sales on their service simply from providing access to existing product owners that might be warning people not to buy said product.

        The nice thing about seeing perhaps too much information in reviews is that I'm basically crowd-sourcing a customized review. People are complaining about linux issues? Ignore. Kickstarter pledges not met? Ignore (unless I was a backer)... but maybe keep an eye on any 'promised' updates. High number of reports of campaign being completed within an hour and a half, ignoring the SP in favour of MP? Hmmm. Might pay more attention to that, and start examining the price-per-hour value. Someone who places more emphasis on MP, however, is probably going to ignore those reviews that I'm paying attention to.

        I find it to be a very useful system.

        It's almost a shame that the score does kind of affect whether the title is presented to you in the 'recommended' algorithm, though. Still. Having seen what happens when I turn the 'popular' filter off the latest release category... losing a few diamonds in the rough is a small price to pay. Man there's some appropriately low-rated stuff out there.

          I'll admit being completely confused by Steam's UI these days. I didn't know you could turn off filters. I'm not dying to scour the latest releases like it's Netflix but more power to you if you do!

          You do find it to be very useful system because you're in there, tied to that system, as am I. It's diametrically opposed to the traditional models whereby the game on the shelf or virtual shopfront is something you could always choose to wait on and then later pick up on a whim to try. Take Mortal Kombat X, or most any modern fighting game - what was once the poster child for local play (that evolved into esports anyway) is now beholden to the mood of the online player base. I used to be a Street Fighter fiend and now I'm literally forbidden from being so - nobody I know with a PS4 would want to play 5 with me, and there's nobody online to play my fave version anymore.

          It's a fantastic system to have access to, and absolutely saved me quite a bit of money; And as much as people would like to compare it to something like Metacritic pooling review scores, I'd argue it's actually far superior.

          It's more clear-cut to see through the bullshit, and since Steam reviews are pretty much a "Do you like this game? Yes or No." setup you get to the point immediately. As opposed to a mishmash of numbers from a "What score out of 10 do you give it?" setup which just really begins to muddy the water.

          It's also direct user feedback from paying customers, something far more valuable than any potentially paid for and/or biased 'professional' reviews, etc; And if I'm being honest that is why I really think a number of professional reviewers like to dismiss such systems, because it renders their whole shtick obsolete.

          Last edited 17/05/16 3:46 pm

        It's akin to playing on a team in a sport you enjoy/trained for but your enjoyment and personal fulfilment on a singular level are predicated on that team's overall skill level.

        I don't want to have treat video games like signing up to a sports competition, but that's the way it's starting to go. Look at DayZ, the window of that being a game I enjoy has closed. Due to things both within and out of my control.

        That's actually a seed of a business venture right there.. Steam (or Uber, :D ) for amateur sports. I should get on that.

        EDIT: eek sorry @kasterix dunno what happened here :(

        Last edited 17/05/16 3:13 pm

      The numbers involved here are completely different to game ratings. The other article was about one person assigning an arbitrary score number intended to represent the entire work. This article is about the number of people who either like or dislike a game. The former is useless because it's impossible for the score to properly represent the entire work, while the latter is useful because it doesn't pretend to represent the game, just how many people like or dislike the game.

    Hm. That's actually a teensy bit concerning - the updating of reviews and giving preference to the latest, I mean.

    This could be one of the hazards of the 'games as a service' design philosophies which are intended to hook and retain players rather than serve as a discrete package of entertainment.

    A hardcore veteran rating a game down because they ran out of shit to do after three thousand hours in beta/pre-steam-launch is the kind of review that I've always just mentally discarded as irrelevant. At most, I care about the first 30 hours or so, depending on the genre.

    I kinda think it's pretty important to count the reviews from people who enjoyed their first 30hrs or so, rated it up, then never touched it again.

    Six months later, those peoples' 30hr-mark experience shouldn't necessarily be rendered invalid or overridden by someone who played 3,000hrs and - surprise, surprise - got bored.

    I can see the intention, letting games improve on a disastrous launch by patching and becoming a better game, so that the latest reviews reflect the current state... I'm just not sure this balances well.

      People with tons of hours complaining they have run out of content seem to be pretty rare.

      I have never seen a review like this.

        MMOs have those types coming out of the woodworks.

        As for Steam specifically, I've seen quite a few people giving games negative reviews all the while having like 500+ hours played.

        Last edited 17/05/16 12:55 pm

        Check out the F2P section sometime.
        It really does seem like making a game F2P has a nearly universal effect of guaranteeing a 'mixed' review rating at best.

          I will admit that I have never ever looked at the F2P section as just typing those 3 letters fills me with disgust!

          I will just assume you are right :p

            You should go there! There's some good shit in there.
            Like... it's shit, but it's good for being shit! :D

            (Srsly though. Some great F2P stuff is there. I've bought all the Puzzle Quests, but Gems of War managed to out-puzzle-quest puzzle quest.)

              I have too many paid games that I haven't touched yet to start looking at F2P.

              I sit there and look at the hundreds of games I haven't started trying to pick one then decide I need a break from all this choosing so I will just go play Diablo 3 or BF4 or some other game I have a thousand hours on.

        Scroll up in this article to the Killing Floor 2 review...guy has 494 hours played and says the game lacks depth and takes too long to add new features.

        If he's got 494 hours in it I'd say there was enough depth to keep him interested...as for new features coming out slow...he has 494 friggin hours in it! time to put the game down and maybe check back in 6 months.

        Last edited 17/05/16 3:49 pm

          That conclusion requires making assumptions about the reviewer that I'm not personally willing to make. Plenty of people play games they don't actually enjoy that much because they hope it will improve in the future, or because they don't have anything better to do. In fact, it's a pretty common thread with a lot of DOTA2 and LoL players that they don't really feel like they enjoy the game, but they still play it.

          It sounds counterintuitive but a lot of people are like that, especially in MMOs or games where sunk cost fallacy is at play. It's something to keep in mind but I don't think it's grounds to dismiss their arguments out of hand.

            If it was lacking depth then he would have put it down after 10-20hrs. There was enough depth to take him past that point.

            At some point the lost time fallacy comes to play, yes but well before that point if there's lack of depth people will stop playing. So having 500 hours in a game and saying it lacks depth completely invalidates his argument.

            Last edited 17/05/16 5:30 pm

              I've put about 50 hours into Killing Floor 2.
              The gameplay is fun, but it does lack a bit of depth. However it certainly has enough depth to keep you entertained for a decent while when your first start playing, and if you play it casually.

              If you play 5-10 hours a day, everyday, trying to grind through levels you will get bored, very quickly. If you play every now and then, it has enough depth to be fun.

              I don't believe you can play 500 hours and then claim you 'dislike' the game. 500 hours is certainly a long time. If you didn't find it fun or didn't like the game, you would have put it down a long long time ago. I think people who downvote games when they clearly play it a lot is simply to try push the developers. Over-exaggerate the negative feedback in order to get them to fix the things you don't like about the game. It's akin to throwing a tantrum, and it happens all the time with games. Gamers can be extremely childish and vocal. Look at the new Call of Duty trailer, negged to oblivion and yet I'd bet a large amount of money that a lot of those who downvoted it will still buy it.

          Yer and i have over 200 hours clocked on some titles which i might have played 10 or so. Why? Because i just leave the game running and alt tab - sometimes for a few days at a time. You need to take hours played with a grain of salt.

            Or you know, when you leave a review state your hours played if it's significantly different to what steam has clocked you at. I've seen people do that before.

            I do that clocked 200hours on fall out 4 and haven't finished the second act yet.

          hang on a minute, you're saying the guy who has nearly 500 hours worth of experience in a games's opinion is wrong
          the guy who's had more time than most to determine how well the games systems work?
          I dunno about anyone else but I'd rather trust the guy with 500 hours as opposed to the guy with none

            I'm saying that claiming a game lacks depth yet spending 500 hours in it is contradictory.

            Reminds me of when I was 12 and had friends play Runescape for months then quit and claim it's a crap game not worth touching.

      You reminded me of those types who play something like WoW for years, get bored and quit, then go around screaming, "OMG the game was so shit!"

      All while acting like they're now the greatest human being on the planet just because they quit playing a game.

      Yeah but the first 30 hours from launch and 6 months later can be very different. Especially when bugs are concerned.
      Bf4 is a great example for me.
      I bought it 6 months after release due to news of it being a buggy mess. By then it was mostly fixed and I had a blast in the 40 or 50 hours I played it.

      As long as 6 months later the only people playing and reviewing are not just those 1000 hour veterans, and newcomer reviews with less time played are getting a look in, then it's still a better snapshot of the current state of the game.

    i just long for the day where a company doesnt rush a product onto the market and actually spend the time debugging and testing before they release a pile of shit which could have been better had they spent 6 more months on it.

      Why hire a legion of testers when you can get thousands of suckers to pay you to test it?

        i get the logic and greed of why they do it the way you mention, it may even actually be a smart business model, but call me old fashioned, its not a very honorable way of doing things. and there are a lot of companies that take advantage of the model and screw the customers. it just shits me off.

          Not arguing. These days I'll only buy a game on day one if it's multiplayer focused or I'm super keen to play it.
          Save money and get a better product.

            Doom has been the only release day game I've bought for years now. I usually give them a few weeks to months to release a few patches first.

          It's pretty much the greatest downside to digital distribution.

          Being able to digitally send out patches for a buggy or unfinished game AFTER releasing it has made a lot of developers incredibly shady in my opinion.

            yeah, totally agree on this one.
            "oops, we forgot to fix this game breaking glitch before release. lets just wait till a bunch of people pay for it and then complain about it. ok, we've got some more cash, lets fix it."

    I had GTA 4 in my library from before.. I never did finish it.. and I had a hankering for that type of game over the weekend... omg.. I couldn't even play it because my PC is now "too good" for the game to handle... I had to try all manner of workarounds and did eventually get the game to work for a few hours.. then when I booted it up again after a short break, I was back to constant lock-ups and just gave up.. Apparently it doesn't work too well on GPU cards with more than 2GB ram..

      Odd, I had no issues playing it on Windows 10 recently. I believe my GPU is a 3GB card currently, a GTX780 Ti. I did have one strange issue a few years ago where the game was excessively responsive (eg. tapping right would spin the car 180 degrees) but I had no similar issues a few months ago when I tried it.

        For me it basically forced me into the lowest resolution and lowest graphics settings possible saying that I had 0 video memory. I tried various workarounds to basically "ignore" the video memory, however it wouldn't work for me. In the end I had to manually set all of the graphics options in a text file called "commandline.txt" in the game folder. This worked for the first play.. then after that it just kept locking up after around 30 seconds of gameplay, over and over.

    Killing Floor 2 review: Says game is shallow & lacks depth of play -> user has played 494 hours, though...

      therefore: user lacks depth

      simple.

        I'll never understand the logic, surely they enjoyed some of those 494 hours.. Does he/she expect the game to entertain them infinitely?

        Last edited 18/05/16 7:43 am

          who do you trust then when someone says a game lacks depth?

          the guy who's only played 5 hours, 10? 50? 100?
          then at what point is that person not an expert on the game/someone whos opinion you could trust & why is it the guy who's played 500hrs

    For the score on Reign of Kings I'd suggest you need to look more closely at why people are complaining it's been abandoned. Sure they're fixing bugs, trying to stop hackers...but what about patches feature wise? What about goals they've promised/targeted and haven't delivered on and are showing no signs of doing so?

    I was a backer on IndieGoGo for Starforge. What that horrible experience taught me is that CodeHatch over promises and under delivers. I backed them for what they promised in their campaign. I followed updates infrequently, at one point I checked back and went "oo, they've added some decent stuff now, got a good start...maybe another year of development and they'll be getting close". That point was 3 weeks before they released the game.

    The released game still felt like an alpha...it wasn't even beta worthy and they released the damn thing! Clearly was them cutting their losses and giving up...push it out so they can at least say they'd delivered a "game"

    After that experience I'd never support something from CodeHatch again and it doesn't surprise me that people are complaining about Reign of Kings. Like I said, look closer. I haven't followed that game (why would I?) but check what they've promised, look at where the game is and look at the last time they released anything to push content towards their promises. What you find will likely show why people are slamming the game.

    I have no problem with paid DLC, nor with day one DLC, but paid DLC during early access is a cardinal sin.

      but paid DLC during early access is a cardinal sin

      Now atleast... In two years time you'll be fine with it. I'm sure you felt the same way about DLC or day one DLC even for a brief period of time :D

        I've always been fine with day one DLC, it hasn't been a gradual thing or anything for me. I've worked on game development before so maybe that's the difference, they tend to put teams of people whose main development roles have already ended onto DLC so it's not like devs have been taken off main development roles to do it. But for early access, there's an implicit contract that you finish the fucking game you already sold and people already paid for first, then you expand it later. Early access aren't usually big teams with people whose jobs have already finished and can be put on DLC, they're usually smaller teams where every person counts for getting the next release out.

          for a lot of people it's less to do with the devs not having anything to do so there's no lost dev time & more to do with the fact that there's content in the game, that they're purchasing for the designated price, that is not included in the game on the day of its release

          whether or not the devs have nothing to do at that point is irrelevant, it's still the exact same thing as saying "this this and this, take those maps out & charge another $5 for them"

          I mean it's still always going to be content developed before release that you have to pay additionally for, or isn't included in the release

          Hell the entire argument that 'devs don't have anything to do so they're not wasting time making dlc' is inherently flawed since, clearly there's more content that should be in the game(otherwise there'd be no point to making the dlc in the first place) which then means that the game wasn't actually finished to begin with, not to mention 'finish' can be called arbitrarily after a certain point(which then allows for any arbitrary amount of day1 dlc)
          the studio isn't saying "the games done so we're letting our leftover artists/programmers make some dlc so they have something to do"
          they're saying "we think the game has just enough content to justify someone purchasing it for X amount of money so save all our other ideas that could've made this game better on it's own & demand a higher price or give consumers a sense they got their moneys worth & just throw them out there for $5 a pop"

            I know why other people have issues with it, I just don't agree. Buying the game doesn't entitle you to all the work done by the devs prior to its release, it entitles you to what was offered. The analogies of slicing up the Mona Lisa are colourful but completely wrong in 90% of cases. You said "this this and this, take those maps out & charge another $5 for them", but in the vast majority of cases that is categorically not what happens. It's rare for content intended to be base to be moved to DLC instead. There are a handful of scumbag companies out there that do do that sometimes and I condemn them alongside everyone else. But they're the minority.

            As an exaggerated example, if the guy who made Five Nights at Freddy's made both the first and second game complete before he started selling either of them, we're not entitled to get the second game as well when we buy the first one just because the sequel was also completed before release. DLC is no different, it's not part of the base game to begin with, nobody's entitled to it just because of when it was made.

            Last edited 18/05/16 6:50 pm

    Demonstrates what I've always thought - PC players are heavily motivated by political points in their game ratings.

      What kotaku doesnt mention is that BG:E expansion is also buggy as fuck and barely works.

    interesting read, thank you

    that mortal kombat x, till this day i still hoping that WB will give PC update for kombat pack...
    why boon,,, whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now