But...all of Steam IS downloadable content. Does this mean I'm getting HL2:E2 for free?

(I kid...I'd pay for it even if I didn't have to.)

Hear hear.

Two words.
Black. Box.

Im down for that.

The only bad thing is I have to reinstall steam now *shudders*

but what if i want... horse armor on my terrorist in cs!

Until M$ forces them to charge for DLC over Live when they release the HL2/Ep2 package for the 360.

GIVE EM HELL VALVE!

Meh. Most DLC is custom content anyway. HL1 was revitalized by the release of CS - prior to it being a retail stand-alone release. They are just doing what's right - for the popularity of their product.

It's only on XBOX Live where people are accustomed to paying for things others get for free.

I would rather have a $5 map pack that I own, and let the advertisers pay for their bandwidth instead of leeching mine.

Totally agree, Valve are the masters within this and online games how-to. Everyone should listen to Valve.

"I would much rather have free extra content that is supported by advertising than a $5 map pack any day of the week."

Tell that to the people who crapped all over The Discovery Channel's "Future Weapons" sponsoring the first Gears map pack.

is this PC only? Because I know Epic was beating the "we'll keep all our DLC free" drum before they released the latest Gears maps.

Not like it matters.

With STEAM's security hackers will have your CC# anyways.

Hey as long as Valve itself is cool with that. DLC is a great way of extending a game's life but what justifies the development costs for a mother company?

Valve continues to earn my respect and love. Yay Valve!

i totally agree, all DLC should be free!!!!!

I appreciate the distinction between Episodic Content and Downloadable Content enough to understand why I see one thing after hearing another.

Oh wait, I don't.

I would much rather have free extra content that is supported by advertising than a $5 map pack any day of the week.

Depends on the ads, I guess. I prefer ad-free content, even if I have to pay for it.

Ads are generally annoying as a rule, and when I want to game, I don't want to be annoyed.

By 'custom content' I should clarify I mean 'user-created content'. It's only on Microsoft's closed network that you need to pay for something as petty as a custom weapon.

Free would be nice.. but then you'd get a flood of uninspired doo doo thrown at you.. like my visits to the assisted living center.

Keep an eye on M$ if they start charging for anything from Valve then you know that major nelson has been lying ever time he says it's not m$ that decides to put a price on download content.

I grew up with Valve's games, and when I started seing Microsoft charging for downloads, that was absolutely insane. And same thing when MMORPG's came. When they started charging a monthly fee, ever after you have payed mone for the game, that completely made me feel like a dark era of gaming was coming.

It depends on what a company (and users) defines as DLC. I don't like buying upgrades either, but it happends all the time. People buy Yu-Gi-Oh and Magic cards to upgrade their game, per se. D&D fans buy news books to expand their games. I don't see how selling DLC is all that different.

I feel like 360 is the way to go for orange box, even though I've got the PS3 and a decent PC, just seems like a good fit. But ya little worried about microsoft charging for all the cool downloadable stuff. I did buy the gears maps, which I felt was worth it, but mostly I won't buy that stuff..$65 for the game and then $10 for maps that could have been included in the damn game a month later..freakin sucks.

@Marius: MASSIVELY multiplayer online RPGs (not pseudo-MMOs like Guild Wars) *must* use monthly fees because that's the only way for them to make money.

MMOs don't belong in this discussion.

While we are on the topic.

I would prefer free, ad-free, user created content. Since a lot of the time user maps, mods, models etc are just as good if not better than a lot of developer created DLC. Also free user created content is not so heavily bound by copyright law.

Im all for free content like everyone else, so if valve and anyone else keeps giving free content then im on board. Im not against paying for dlc on consoles though because at first when you bought a game, you had that game and that was it, nothing else, ever. As long as the content price is affordable and justified both free and paying content is c00l with me. Just don't get out of hand.

@Qwizatblah: Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 stuff comes close, but it still technically belongs to Bioware. They argue that it's necessary to maintain their ownership over user-created maps and mods so that people can't sell (or otherwise charge people for) stuff that was made with their intellectual property.

Well, they're perfectly welcome to charge for DLC they produce, it's just that since they don't offer us any mod tools, that is all you get - paid content. If mod kits for console (xbox) games were released as they are for PC games there would be a far more diverse selection of content for players to enjoy.

Of course, it'll never happen.

This seems a little strange coming from valve, the company that mastered the tiered FU pricing structure, "Oh, you want to play that mode?, that'll be another 10$ or you could just buy our overpriced super pack that will unlock everything, or buy the slightly less overpriced mega pack that will unlock some modes but not others", ugh.

Yeah, Epic was saying the same thing before MS accountants got their hooks into them. We'll see how this goes...

Some of my only good experiences with extra content has been paid extra content. So I totally disagree with Fahey.

There are a number of games that I would be glad to shell out 5$ for extra content in. MS has given DLC a bad PR makeover because they haven't exerted quality control over Live Marketplace and there have been bad deals galore.

But a good deal? I'm willing to pay for it, so long as it doesn't split the multiplayer community in half. I love extending the life of games that I already like and I vastly prefer professionally made content over user generated.

That sentiment might be heresy on a message board, but user generated content tends to suck. A mechanism for flooding my game with semi-sucky maps is OK, but I'm fine with paying for quality too.

We all love free content, and I'm not going to complain if more companies continue to give it to me. That said, if the original game is worth the price I pay for it than I am fine with paying a nominal fee for extra content. We have gotten spoiled with extra content.

It used to be that when you bought a game you got what you got. No patches, bug fixes or extra content. If the extra content is worth the price I'm fine with it. I'm all for my favorite developers making more money if they do extra work to bring me more product. They just have to be fair about it and cant't try to rip me off.

Marius the dark age of gaming is already upon us. As much as I like my 360 I have to say M$ is the driving force behind the butt fucking of gamers right now.

I have a feeling we will look back on this generation of consoles and have some serious regrets for what we let the game industry get away with.

This guy should work for EA.

@RedRedSuit:
I partly disagree with that. If they would charge full price for the retail games, which they don't, they would earn alot of that money back in. However, I do understand that the servers are such heaveyduty servers that it requires alot of money to be run.

But anyway, the shock was still the same, and Valve is still right about their own philosophy. You buy the game you get the content. Charging money for content later should be a crim. I mean, is it right in any ones minds that you have to purchase new maps for a game you've bought?

And don't coming saying that since it's free, it's not quality. When Valve makes new maps for Counter Strike, it's always unbelievable fun. I remember when De_dust2 came, that was sure one of the best multiplayer maps any fps game has ever had.

@WantedCreative:
I've told you people all along. The day I heard MS were entering the console market, I thought "now we're fucked too". They are greedy and have nothing left for a gamer. If you can't get money for a game, then it's not worth making.

Valve didnt get money for their new maps. They probably had great fun making new maps at their office.

@Marius: So what company do you fell isnt greedy, or simply out there for the well being of the consumer 100%?

err, feel*

@Marius:

Since when the hell do they force you to buy any of the extras?

They force you by splitting the community into two - those who say, have new Gears of War maps, and those who will get kicked out of the game because the map that's about to load wasn't purchased by them.

That's how they're forcing you.

@BlackDove: Host your own game, lol. I have to deal with it until/if I purchase the new pack, then again that pack has not changed the game, we simply cant play those maps. Like Ive said before, last generation you bought the game and that was it... forever.

P.S. And Ever

This is how ALL developers should think. There have been many games I didn't buy because I knew I would also have to buy the DLC for it. GRAW, Rainbow Six: 3come to mind.

As it stand now DLC is smoething that tends to lower the value of games in my mind. Heck look at Gears, since I didn't buy that $10 map pack I sometimes have problems finding people to play with.

@BlackDove:

Again, how is that forcing you to do anything? If you want to play on that map, you'll buy it.

@DeadPlasmaCell: Its not forcing you to do anything assuming you dont mind no longer playing with friends...

Valve talks too much shit. finish HL2: EP 2 and shut the fuck up.

You guys forget that valve is raping us with the episodic format. 20$ per episode with a 2-3 year turn a round time? give me a full on finished game for 50$ with a 3-4 year build time.

Episodes are taking just as long as if they were making a full on game.

@NitrousO: You're kidding right?

@SlayerOfMuffins: Black box was cancelled... Only orange box will be available.

@heretrix: It's not just EP2 they are working on, they are also working on TF2 and Portal at the same time. All of this takes time to develop...

For those complaining about being charged for Gears of War content, don't forget that that was Microsoft's decision because they were the *publisher* of GoW, not because they run Live.

That brings up an interesting point though. Here Valve is saying they want all their downloadable content to be free, but they're not publishing the Orange Box collection. EA is. EA also happens to have one of the worst reputations when it comes to nickel and diming consumers with downloadable content so it should be interesting to see who wins out between the two of them.

My bet is either there are going to charge for the xbox live content or either there won't be any content at all.

Except for patches of course.

@TheGamer:

Given how superior Episode 1 was to HL2 I'd rather pay the extra cash over time. Also, people seem to forget just how much free shit Valve has given out over the lifetime of both games.

Wow, was that nice to read. And Walker's probably onto something, as Valve just hit the top of my list and will be the company I will be most eager to purchase games from.

The main problem with DLC is that in no other industry would this be possible.

Let me give you an example. Let's say I work as a producer at a TV studio making documentaries. I have a deadline, so I work to get it done on time. Then two months down the line I go to my boss and say "Hey, remember that doc I sold you? Yeah, well, I felt that I didn't have enough time to meet the deadline, so I shot some more stuff that can be added into the final product. But, I feel that only the people who really want to see my updated show can view it, so they better pay me extra. Oh? You say that it's been two months since it aired and only a few people care? Oh. Wait, I was supposed to be working on a whole new project? Why would I do that? I don't feel I've reaped all the benefits of this one yet".

Let's just say, in that scenario, I'd be looking for a new job.

Yet for gamers, they eat DLC up. I remember when user generated content was huge in games like Jedi Knight and Half-Life and all my friends were downloading it like crazy, making them incompatible with so many servers in the process. I never understood that.

I think as gamers/consumers we should enforce that when a game's released, it's done. If the company wants to make more money and give us new content, make a new game. It's not like they can't make a sequel. It's akin to George Lucas making the "Special Editions" and that blew up in his face. So why do we allow game companies to do this to us?