Portal 2 DLC #1 Is FreeFreeFree

By Alec Meer on April 29th, 2011 at 7:49 pm.

Yay, and stuff

Well, this perhaps goes some way towards making up for the whole over-priced robot hats thingy. Official word has just arrived in our inbox from Valve that the first full-on DLC for the lovely Portal 2 will be free (on all platforms), and promises “new test chambers for players, leaderboards, challenge mode for single and multiplayer modes, and more.” That news again: free. The list of planned content also suggests there’ll be something a little more challenging than in the main game (the arguable ease and signposting of which we had a slight but affectionate moan about in our verdict yesterday), and a chance to really push Portal 2′s crazy physics as far as they’ll go.

A smart move in terms of goodwill generation, I suspect, and hopefully it’ll be top-notch content too. No exact release date yet, but it’s “this Summer”. Doesn’t Summer start on Monday? Maybe it will be Monday! (It won’t be Monday).

__________________

« | »

, , .

180 Comments »

  1. Crimsoneer says:

    I’m really quite pleased they’re making this free for consoles as well. Just so that next time somebody is about to drop a tenner on the lastest COD map pack, they might just realise just how crappy and monopolistic the console market is DLC wise.

    • whydidyoumakemeregister says:

      This is the first I’ve read of it, and RPS doesn’t have a source. It’ll be free on Xbox? I wonder if doing the PS3/Steam integration made MS realize they shouldn’t have been so strict with Valve in regards to free DLC for the L4Ds.

    • woodsey says:

      Yeah, can’t really see it being free on the 360.

    • Urthman says:

      Remember Valve’s big “surprise announcement” that they would be integrating Steam into the PS3 network somehow? How everyone was disappointed?

      Several commentators at the time thought it was big news because if Valve started pushing free DLC through the Playstation 3, Microsoft might have to cave on their no-free-DLC stance and let them do it on XBoxLive as well. Which might lead to a team like Epic trying again to release maps and stuff for free…

    • dangermouse76 says:

      @ whydidyoumakemeregister
      If it’s wrong gamasutra, kotaku, and many other sites are reporting it wrong as well. I hope it’s true.

    • Rikard Peterson says:

      whydidyoumakemeregister: “doesn’t have a source”, you say. You don’t think “official word… in our mailbox” counts? When RPS don’t link another web site to credit them with a piece of news, that’s because they got it directly from the developers.

      Unlike Wikipedia, in the real world “the horse’s mouth” is as credible a source as you can get.

      (Sorry if this reads a bit too aggressive, but I got a bit annoyed by your attitude. It’s not the first time I’ve seen it in the comments, and I find it both weird and rude to the RPS people.)

    • Delusibeta says:

      I’m going to assume that it’s via press release, or something, since everyone who I’ve checked with says “free for 360″. I’m actually not that surprised, since Microsoft’s policy seems to be “if you’re giving away free DLC to the PS3, you may give it away to 360 players. Otherwise, put a price on it sonny”. See Burnout Paradise before The Ultimate Box.

    • shoptroll says:

      @Urthman

      Infinity Blade on iOS has received two massive free updates which are ripe with new content for the game. Epic/Chair apparently aren’t going to stop with the updates, so hope is not lost for them.

    • pepper says:

      Yes, Valve said it will be free for all consoles. I cant find it on their website but the mail indeed said so. Havent seen and correction of it either.

    • wryterra says:

      @whydidyoumakemeregister

      “RPS doesn’t have a source” you say?

      “Official word has just arrived in our inbox from Valve” they say.

      What source, mr cynic, do you want that’s more credible for a story about Valve’s intent than Valve? I’d say Valve are probably the leading authority on Valve’s plans. If Valve aren’t good enough a source for a story about Valve and what Valve might do, I fear for journalism.

    • Bilbo says:

      Bear in mind it’s not so much about what Valve do as it is about craaaazy microsoft do, and that’s where the cynics are coming from. Ultimately MS have the final word on what goes onto their network and for how much. But as has been said, contrary to popular belief it wouldn’t actually be the first free DLC on the 360, so with that in mind and the word from Valve being so, it does seem pretty likely.

    • Saul says:

      I can confirm that it’s an email direct from Valve. We got the same at Beefjack.

    • royaltyinexile says:

      C’mon guys, don’t be so hard on him.

      He was just trying to make a Source joke.. right?!

  2. ColOfNature says:

    Oh goody. I’ve yet to even play the two-player stuff, but this news fills me with glee.

  3. Miker says:

    Is there a link for this information?

  4. Bodminzer says:

    This is great news. It seems a bit mean to say releasing free DLC is “goodwill generation” though, as if it was in some way a cynical move. I was fine with RPS’s negative reception of the game, despite my own liking of it, because balanced criticism is always good, but I think most people would say that the general public/gaming press received the game pretty well, negating the need to release free stuff to recover lost love. Huge run on sentence over.

    • Rii says:

      I dunno about releasing it, but it’s difficult to see what other purpose is served by announcing it months in advance.

    • Serenegoose says:

      I disagree that it’s ‘goodwill generation’ because they’ve never charged for content yet and so to say this following of their standard practice is somehow different as opposed to -their standard practice- is a bit silly.

    • Petethegoat says:

      I would hardly say that RPS received it negatively. Just critically- It’s plain they all loved it. (Except John, who can’t love.)

    • Eightball says:

      (Or heal.)

    • shoptroll says:

      I agree it’s a bit cynical, but I don’t think it’s been negatively received here. They’ve been critical, maybe even overly so, but nothing more than one would be in terms of wanting to something near and dear to them succeed.

      That said, was poking around the Internets and found this old statement from 2007. Good to see they’re sticking to their convictions after all this time.

    • Teddy Leach says:

      I’d hardly say overly critical.

    • Bodminzer says:

      Argh, damn my inability to make myself clear. The point of my comment wasn’t that I minded RPS disliking the game, it was that since from Valves point of view most other sites, for good or for ill, wrote completely positive review, there isn’t so much of a need for them to “make it up to people” as there would be if the game had been universally poorly received. Hope that makes more sense. If I minded bad reviews of things I like then I’d just base all my game buying decisions on product descriptions.

    • Harlander says:

      It still reads like you think the RPS P2 verdict was overwhelmingly negative, though. Odd.

  5. arghstupid says:

    Splendid. Hats off to them.

  6. skinlo says:

    Valve has always released free DLC on the PC, this is nothing new. It will generate goodwill of course, but its not as though they’ve done anything different.

    • Wulf says:

      Yep. You know what amuses me the most?

      Valve releases free DLC funded by cosmetic stuff. They’ve been doing this forever. The reaction of some? HATE VALVE.

      TOR takes a single player game (Knights of the Old Republic III), pads it out with grind, and adds a subscription. The reaction of some? LOVE BIOWARE.

      My reactions are the opposite on both counts. Am I from bizarro world or something?

    • Eightball says:

      The beancounters said you couldn’t ship free DLC but I did it anyway!

    • Ryz says:

      No, Wulf, you’re right on this one.

      You’re still from bizarro world though, don’t worry!

    • shoptroll says:

      Wulf hit it on the head. The first thing I thought when I saw the hat news was “ok, so it’ like TF2. Woop dee doo”. Seriously, people were surprised by this? Valve’s maintained TF2 is their testbed for new things. Guess which game just got a coaching option like was promised for Dota 2?

    • Wulf says:

      “You’re still from bizarro world though, don’t worry!”

      I can only hope. :p Grant Morrison’s take on Bizarro World was possibly one of the greatest moments of DC history, along with his Batman runs, his Animal Man stuff, and his Doom Patrol arc. He took Bizarro World and made it into something absolutely incredible. But then, he’s Grant Morrison, he does that.

    • WASD says:

      Wulf wrote: “Valve releases free DLC funded by cosmetic stuff. They’ve been doing this forever.”

      Wulf, you do know that Valve released dlc for free before they created the shat stores right?
      How did Valve fund that dlc?

    • Josh04 says:

      Sales of Blue Shift, which of course included the high def texture pack, natch.

    • Wulf says:

      Are you still angry about the ARG, WASD? Let it go, man. Let it go.

      Anyway, game development costs are higher now than they were then. When you consider the opening of Portal 2 and compare it with the opening of Half-Life 1, this should be obvious, all these shiny themepark rides aren’t cheap to develop.

      So any extra funding they can pull in will help them to give away a better experience for free.

      I see no problem, here, since the funding comes from cosmetic elements which I don’t want.

    • WASD says:

      Wulf wrote: “Anyway, game development costs are higher now than they were then.”

      ???
      Game development costs are higher now than they were then?
      When’s then Wulf?
      When Valve released Left 4 Dead or when Valve released Left 4 Dead 2?
      Both of those games had free dlc you know.

    • Frank says:

      I want to tell the internet what I think: Wulf is right.

      If fools like me want to buy hats to fund everyone’s favorite developer, why would you begrudge us? Trying to get between a man and his hatter…that just ain’t right.

      Then again, if you’re angry about some features of the ARG… Well, personally, I’m still pissed off about GOG’s stunt, so I won’t criticize a little grudgery.

    • Wulf says:

      The ARG and the GoG thing are different, though.

      GoG: Let’s pretend to be shut down because we need to overhaul our service, and then openly admit that we were dishonest with people.

      Valve: Well shit, we’ve got about 3% of the turnout we expected for unlocking the game, it’s a tiny amount, and they’re just going to complain about this. So we’re going to have to design our back-end to consume potatoes and make things go faster just to speed things up. We really weren’t expecting such a small number of people.

      In Valve’s case it was an honest miscalculation bundled with the speculation and self-fuelled hype of some of the Internet (a minority, even, I’d say since the majority seemed to know better). You can’t blame Valve over people being angry over what they thought they were entitled to. That’s no different than blaming Notch for not spending every day of his life creating free content, these groups of people are one and the same, they have the same mindset.

      This was entitlement gone crazy bundled with, as I said, self-fuelled hype, and incorrect expectations to the point of delusion. You can’t blame Valve for the failings of other people, it’s not fair to, they didn’t do anything openly dishonest. They screwed up a bit yeah but expecting more of a turn out on a the countdown part of the ARG, but it seems like they honestly expected more.

      I really want Valve to do a “Try better next time, kids.” post on their blog just to drive people crazy over this so that the whole entitlement element becomes obvious to everyone.

      But yeah, in the case of GoG, they purposefully tried to mislead people by lying about shutting down and then admitted to doing so, and doing so for their own gain. An outright deception and an honest mistake are two very different things.

    • Ryz says:

      Hmm, I don’t know about that Wulf. I’m fairly sure that it was always intended to be a midnight release, with Valve controlling the rate everything was unlocked. There was evidence of them tweaking the rate behind the scenes even before the potato overclock activated.

      Killing Floor only taking 15 minutes off the clock made that kind of obvious, imo.

      So yeah, the unlock wasn’t their best idea. The rest of the ARG was brilliant though, and I got the Valve Complete Pack + an extra Portal 2 just for playing along. Nothing but warm fuzzy feelings about the whole thing here.

    • Zogtee says:

      Right on, Wulf.

      /brofist

    • noom says:

      @Ryz

      “Hmm, I don’t know about that Wulf. I’m fairly sure that it was always intended to be a midnight release, with Valve controlling the rate everything was unlocked. There was evidence of them tweaking the rate behind the scenes even before the potato overclock activated.”

      Why on earth would they do that..?

    • Wilson says:

      @Wulf – I think WASD has a point about TF2 free DLC initially. Maybe Valve fund their free content with the microtransaction stores now (if so, fine by me) but when the first TF2 DLC came out, they didn’t have any micro-transaction stores.

      Has the cost of game development changed that much since the launch of TF2 and now?

    • WASD says:

      @Wilson; He’s sidestepping my questions.
      I don’t think Wulf plays TF2 or the L4D games going by his comments.

      Wulf wrote: “Valve releases free DLC funded by cosmetic stuff. They’ve been doing this forever.”

      No they haven’t Wulf.

      Wulf wrote: “Anyway, game development costs are higher now than they were then.”

      Wulf, did you play TF2 or L4D 1 or 2 before Valve’s item stores? Doesn’t sound like it.

    • Deano2099 says:

      Wait, so now the LFD games are a great example of Valve releasing free DLC rather than a rip-off?

      And the TF2 updates were funded by continuing sales of TF2, and the fact it got a sales bump with each update.

  7. bit_crusherrr says:

    I can’t wait for October. Really looking forward to more co-op Portal 2 missions :D

  8. traches says:

    Sauce?

  9. PanzerVaughn says:

    And with that, my only criticism is no longer applicable.. Now there is Challenge mode, and “more in general”

    I’ve been violently hoping theyd do this, like theyve done with L4D and TF2, ever since i finished Co Op.
    EEE!

    • mpk says:

      The constant loading between chambers did irritate me until I realised “Oh wait, this is perfect for challenge mode”. Then I realised there was no challenge mode and I was cross.

      I am not cross now. All that extra loading is perfect for a challenge mode.

    • kibayasu says:

      Just remember there was constant loading between test chambers in the first Portal as well, they just hid it by freezing the elevator ride while it loaded.

    • KenTWOu says:

      @kibayasu Just remember there was constant loading between test chambers in the first Portal as well, they just hid it by freezing the elevator ride while it loaded.

      No, there wasn’t. Developers always put several small test chambers inside one big map.

    • jalf says:

      Sure, there was loading in Portal 1 as well. But it was less frequent, and *a lot* faster.

      It’s a great game, but the loading times are definitely noticeable, and very unlike Source games from a couple of years ago (HL2, Portal, for example, where loading seemed more like a momentary stutter.)

  10. jalf says:

    So, of curiosity, what exactly is it that makes the “overpriced robot hats” different from Bethesda’s infamous horse armor?

    Why were everyone crying foul at the latter, while the former is treated as “silly, but you don’t have to buy it”?

    Just curious. I can’t say I care much, and I have no intention of buying either horse armor or hats, but I can’t help wondering. Is it just the slippery DLC slope, making us more forgiving of overpriced DLC today than we were a couple of years ago? Or is it because it’s Valve doing it and everyone loves Valve? Or because the hats are purely cosmetic while the horse armor was, as I recall, only 99% cosmetic?

    • Serenegoose says:

      Because we’ve gotten used to it. Horse armour was back before we were desensitised to it all, so our rage glands were full to bursting. Now we’ve all adjusted our perception.

    • ResonanceCascade says:

      I don’t recall crying over the horse armor. I do recall, however, laughing hysterically at everyone who bough it.

    • mechtroid says:

      Or maybe, just maybe… The internets were wrong. We shouldn’t have raged at horse armor at all. It was a little thing they were planning to include, cut, then re-included after the game went gold. That’s the only source of outrage about it I can see. The question of “Why wasn’t this included in the game on release?” By having hats and a hat shop included on release, it’s hard to be mad at portal 2. In fact, I’m going to apologize for every bad thing I said about horse armor. Bethesda, you’re free now. Rise up, and include all the DLC you want, just release content for free.

    • woodsey says:

      Because people actually bought horse armour thinking it was worth something.

      The store in Portal 2 is extortionate, it also adds nothing to the game, and everyone with a brain should be able to understand that by now. The horse armour thing was when all the DLC and texture packs were starting out for the most part.

    • Wulf says:

      Obvious difference is obvious. And obvious troll is obvious.

      Horse armour? Not a cosmetic change.
      Portal 2 bot equipment? A cosmetic change.

      The weakness of horses was something complained about for a long time, and not everyone had access to mods, so they couldn’t fix that. Those that were on consoles had no mods, and if they wanted a beefier horse then their only option was horse armour. I recall most anger being from console people than PC people for this reason, and I can’t blame them.

      For most, it was something that people simply believed should have been patched in, or at the very least they should’ve boosted the horse base health in a patch. Giving the horsies low health and then releasing horse armour as the first DLC did seem a bit cynical.

    • jalf says:

      @Wulf: Yes, obvious troll is indeed obvious. I asked a question, very calmly and neutrally, because I was curious what people’s thought on the matter were. Note that I didn’t say “WE SHOULD BAN VALVE FOREVER BECAUSE THEY CHARGE FOR HATS!”
      And someone else, whose name shall go unmentioned, answers by trying to spark some kind of conflict where none exists (which seems like a pretty good definition of trolling to me), accusing the questioner of trolling.
      Yes, obvious troll is quite obvious. Next time, could you leave that at the door?
      On a tangentially related note, it’s kind of interesting how we apparently prefer when people charge money for something with zero value, over when they charge for something that actually provides a tangible benefit. ;)

    • dangermouse76 says:

      If people think it costs too much people should not buy. It’s that simple. It’s not a rip off if you want it and can afford it I think.

    • kuddles says:

      I think you haven’t been visiting the right sites. There has been plenty of people having a hissyfit over the “hats” DLC, including in the comments section of other Portal 2 articles on this site.

      And I think you answered your own question with that last response you made. Now that DLC is here to stay and tons of companies are charging for content that meaningfully alters gameplay, I think a lot of people regret railing against charging for the inconsequential stuff.

      And internet rage never matches reality, anyways. Bethesda has actually come out and said horse armor was extremely profitable for them.

    • Moonracer says:

      I think the real difference between horse armor and hats is that hats are cosmetics for multiplayer. Horse armor was cosmetics for singleplayer (and $10 if I remember). There is a legitimate human desire to express oneself in public, even anonymously.

    • Deano2099 says:

      Actually it’s all about context.

      Horse armour was some of the first DLC released for anything ever.

      Bethesda had announced they were going to be doing paid DLC, and actually before we’d all got cynical we thought this was quite cool, like episodic expansions. New dungeons, quest and stuff. And we got Horse Armor. It’s a meme and a joke not because it was cosmetic, just because it was a huge disappointment in terms of what we getting at what price.

      Hats are just hats, added in as a bonus and a way to get some extra money from rich people. Horse Armor was seens as us being given that instead of some worthwhile DLC/expansion pack.

  11. makute says:

    I’d gladly pay for a single player chapter, in wich you play the events of the Lab Rat comic as Doug Rattman. A good chance to show that portal-less Portal Valve have spoken.

    • Wulf says:

      What would Rattman’s mechanic be, though?

      Perhaps being able to coat his companion cube in blue/orange gel before flinging it around?

      Also, since Rattman was mentioned, I must link this.

    • makute says:

      Perhaps some more Physics-altering gels? Like a antigravity gel, or a out-of-phase gel, that turns stuff to an intangible state?

    • PanzerVaughn says:

      I could see Rattman as more Stealth Gameplay, with the ability to climb some walls, and modify
      Panels, using backpaths and vents and the offices, alot.

      Parkour, with Turrets and crushers and companion cubes.

  12. ResonanceCascade says:

    I can’t believe people actually thought it wouldn’t be free (They really did. Someone argued with me about it on this very site). It’s Valve, they only charge for the useless updates — the good stuff is free!

    • briktal says:

      I am slightly concerned by this. Like you said, everyone was pretty sure there would be DLC with challenge rooms. It feels a little bit like it was cut out of the game to be released later so they could mark off “release free post-release content” with something that a lot of people felt should’ve been in the game in the first place. I mean, it wouldn’t be a money grab obviously since it is free, but more of a move to cover themselves.

    • Sivart13 says:

      Maybe it was cut out of the game so the game could be “released several months earlier”?

      Though, Valve Time, so even if they’re saying ‘summer’ who knows when it will be for reals.

    • woodsey says:

      @ briktal

      You must be kidding me…

    • ResonanceCascade says:

      I don’t know why they waited. Was it not finished? Were they waiting for fan reactions to the core game so they could design it around the experiences people were having? Did they just think spreading it out was a good idea?

      I don’t know exactly why (though I think it’s probably closest to #2) but I do know that finding a way to turn free DLC into some kind of a negative is some serious straw-grasping.

    • wengart says:

      Or perhaps the challenge levels weren’t finished yet and they didn’t see a need to hold up the game another 3-4 weeks to implement them. Also they could be using cut levels from SP as challenge levels so they might need some reworking

    • shoptroll says:

      I’m with Wengart on this. They probably had to drop some stuff in order to get this out on schedule (remember, it had the shortest delay in Valve history!). We already know they dropped the pneumatic tube mechanics for the puzzles, and fairly late at that since they were in promo videos released mid to late last year.

      They might have been waiting on more telemetry data before deciding how hard the challenge chambers should be too. As recently found out, only 50% of PC/Mac Steam users have actually finished the game. I could easily see Valve focusing on getting the core content polished to a shine for the SP and MP campaigns and waiting for feedback before deciding on where to go with bonus things.

    • Hatsworth says:

      To add some more cynicism:
      Free post-release DLC helps curb used game sales on consoles.

    • ResonanceCascade says:

      Do we know that this won’t be available for those who’ve purchased the game used? I’m still a little fuzzy on how Steam works for the PS3, but since the 360 doesn’t have it, I would think if you have the disc you get the DLC.

    • Hatsworth says:

      @ResonanceCascade Yes, that’s very likely, but it still discourages people from selling their copies of Portal 2 in the crucial first few months of the game being on sale.

    • woodsey says:

      “To add some more cynicism:
      Free post-release DLC helps curb used game sales on consoles.”

      That’s only if they give you a free one-use code for it in the box when you buy it, that would then be unusable to a person that bought a second-hand copy.

    • Phydaux says:

      @woodsey
      You don’t need that. If you have a copy of Portal 2 and you know there is some free content coming out in a few months, you may be less likely to trade it in. If a shop has few, or no, pre-owned copies of a game, and you want to play it you have to buy the full price version.

      After the DLC is out, anyone — whether it’s new, a loan or a trade-in — could download the DLC for free. But the majority of sales are around the release of the game, and if they can limit the number of trade-ins, I imagine, they’ll increase the number of brand-new sales.

    • arghstupid says:

      @shoptroll – is that 50% figure based on achievements? If so I’d be a little sceptical of it due to how flaky the steam community thing is (see the earlier RPS article on completion time)
      From what I remember, if your community connection drops, any achievements you get aren’t flagged until next time you log in. Combine that with a game that you can complete in one or two sittings (so people might never log back in) and the final achievement stats are almost certain to take a hit.
      Having said that, it’s up to almost 60% now, which is higher then either of the half life 2 episodes.
      It’s interesting that they lose 10% of people before even getting the first achievement. Seems a little odd that one in ten would pay full price for a game, install it, start playing and then give up almost immediately. Maybe that’s a reasonable indication of ‘missing’ players. Or maybe I should stop looking at numbers.

  13. Jesse L says:

    I know I speak for all other real Valve fans when I say this free DLC is the final insult in a long series of stupid, ill-considered, and, in fact, outright hostile moves by Valve toward a community that is no longer willing to put up with it. Free DLC? Open your eyes. I for one will not be tricked into doing any free Portal 3 playtesting for this snarling pack of ethically-bankrupt money-grubbing skinflints. I expect to be paid for my time, Valve. Come back when you’re ready to make an offer. Actually, you know what? Just don’t.

    You sicken me.

  14. Lyrox says:

    Hats? Oh that’ll be a fiver please. Content? Nah thats free, enjoy!

    God I love Valve, they found a way to make money from DLC (which as a business it is important they do this!) without keeping any real content away from gamers.

    • Sivart13 says:

      They also found a way to make money in general in the form of a Digital Distribution Service where they get some % of the profits from every.single.game. Which I bet is where more of the Portal DLC funding is coming than the hat-store. Hats are well-loved (by some) in TF2, but I’d be surprised if the Portal 2 hat store is currently worth the kerfuffle it stirred up.

    • Wulf says:

      @Sivart13

      You’d be surprised how many people pay for cosmetic things and actually make this worthwhile. See: Champions Online. It’s gotten to the point where cosmetic stuff on the C-Store has actually funded them to the point where they can provide new comics to all players, even free-to-play players, in the form of comics (serialised content).

      Guild Wars 2 is operating on the same idea. Just having cosmetic stuff in their item shop so that they can use that to fund further development, and it works, it sells. Some people buy out of appreciation for the developer, and some people buy because they like showing off, but either way, it works.

  15. hellojed says:

    I just wanna get my mitts on the SDK, so I can make Portal 2: Deathmatch.

    • DarkeSword says:

      I’d play Portal 2: Deathmatch if you added some more guns. Maybe some gel guns, funnel guns, and laser guns.

    • makute says:

      @ DarkeSword

      You forgot the turret guns.

    • Moonracer says:

      this would be quite good if there were no traditional weapons and it’s entirely trying to make cartoonish death traps with portals. Portaling others into spike walls at high velocity and such.

    • Hallgrim says:

      Portal2: Deathmatch? Bring me the CTF mode… where the flag can’t move through portals, and marking a player with a ping means the next portal you fire is one of theirs.

      Oh, and pits with spikes.

    • Joe W-A says:

      The SDK’s most likely just going to be Hammer and a new FGD, so you could get started straight away using the Portal 1 SDK and play your maps in 2.

  16. fiddlesticks says:

    I guess that makes Valve the Robin Hood of the gaming industry; charging rich people for hats so that they can give additional content for free to poor people. You certainly won’t hear me complain.

    • jalf says:

      you mean Valve couldn’t afford to release free DLC just from getting 30% of every Steam purchase (equally what, half the total worldwide PC game sales)?

      They need to sell hats at $5/each in order to afford this?

      Now, I won’t complain about free DLC. That’s great. But comparing Valve to Robin Hood is a bit rich. ;)

    • Wulf says:

      @fiddlesticks

      There’s that and the Steam sales.

    • Hallgrim says:

      There aren’t many companies that have entire divisions of their business (game development) dedicated solely to making other divisions (digital distribution) less profitable.

      I’d bet that Valve make quality games without nickle-and-dime’ing their customers because they aren’t beholden to irrational shareholders and bean counters, and they recognize that providing a product with excellent service is (long term) more profitable than providing a product with bad service.

  17. Guiscard says:

    Says a lot about the changing view of Valve if we actually need a news post telling us that an upcoming content update to a Valve game will definitely be free. I tended to just assume it would be free when I first heard about this expansion/patch/update/DLC/whatever they call it these days.

    • Dana says:

      No, it says alot about nobs that consider stupid skins and gestures a DLCs.

    • Dominic White says:

      The ridiculous thing is that the perception of Valve has somehow changed without Valve changing at all. In fact, ever since they opened up the TF2 store, production of TF2 content has gotten a lot faster, as they’ve got a much greater incentive to keep people coming back to the game.

      Everyone wins. The crazy people with more money than sense get their virtual hats, and the rest of us get new levels and playmodes. And the grumpy gits who hate everything? Well, nothing will ever change their minds short of Valve giving away all their games for free along with fully documented source-code.

    • FunkyBadger3 says:

      Its not Valve that’s changing its “teh internets”, which are getting – hard to believe – even more whiny and stupid.

    • Aninhumer says:

      @Dominic
      If they gave a way the source code, those people would just complain about its quality. :P

  18. KauhuK says:

    I’m still waiting for my copy of portal 2…

  19. karnie says:

    Valve, I take back everything bad I said about you. Mostly about Portal 2 being way to short and easy…. =)

  20. Out Reach says:

    “it’ll be top-notch…”

    YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST MINECRAFT IN PORTAL 2.

    • Wulf says:

      That gives me an idea for an amazing Portal 2 mechanic! Using the Portal gun to control panels, being able to basically tug them around into position so that you can entirely reshape rooms. Now that would make for some interesting puzzles.

    • Urthman says:

      Bah. We’ve already got Portal in Minecraft:

    • Wang Tang says:

      @Urthman

      But then we’d have Portal in Minecraft (in Portal in Minecraft)+ !!

  21. VelvetFistIronGlove says:

    For those interested in making their own Portal 2 maps, let me once again pimp the free, legal, and fully functional unofficial Portal 2 SDK (but slightly more awkward to install than Valve’s will be): http://forums.tf2maps.net/showthread.php?t=16903

    You need Portal 2, Alien Swarm (free) and the Alien Swarm SDK (also free). I’ve been using this since last weekend to work on custom maps.

  22. Wulf says:

    Valve continues to be awesome with their free content and such.

    You know, this is why Valve and ArenaNet are two of my favourite developers, and amongst the few mainstream devs that I actually am really fond of. They both have a reputation for making consistently great games, for providing free content, and for being genuine with their customers and showing us a little respect. Respect isn’t something they have to show us, it’s always a free bonus, but it’s one that counts to me.

    And some people wonder why I praise mainstream developers like them, it just boggles the mind, if we had more of these people then the mainstream games industry would be a better place.

  23. Vinraith says:

    Good on Valve, it sounds like they’re adding a bit of challenging content, which is just what this one seemed to need. I’ll obviously wait for a verdict (I’m in no real rush anyway) but it’s good to see Valve still doing the “solid post-release support” thing.

    • Wulf says:

      Yep, they always have done. I was honestly not surprised about this.

      Looking forward to it!

    • Vinraith says:

      Not always, no, but more often than not. No sense rehashing old arguments, though.

    • Mario Figueiredo says:

      For me it was good also because it softens out a bit the investment I made into what was essentially a very short game with little replayability. So, more than praising them for this, I thank them.

  24. shoptroll says:

    I still don’t get why everyone is hung up on the hat store. It’s the same thing as in TF2. The only problem is that there’s no crafting or achievement based unlocks like in TF2. Also, there’s no infinitely replayable multiplayer mode to really make the best use of the random unlocks they left in the game. Will be interesting to see how trading works when most people have maybe a single hat or two from just playing through the campaigns.

    Also, why the surprise at this being free? When was the last time Valve charged for bonus content (yes, real content not cosmetic doodads to attach to your in-game avatar)? Blue Shift?

    That said, I’m very interested in finding out how they negotiated / coerced Microsoft into letting this DLC be free on their platform. I’m guessing they’re in a much better bargaining position now than they were a couple years ago with L4D?

    Very much looking forward to checking this out in the Fall ;)

    • solidshredder says:

      Microsoft doesn’t PREVENT free content, they just demand a content distribution fee. It’s very likely that Valve is just paying a per transaction fee to MS and taking the loss.

    • shoptroll says:

      Yes they do. There’s a 4 MB limit on the total number of title updates you can do for the system which restricts developers.

      http://www.destructoid.com/borderlands-patch-brings-new-level-cap-weapons-and-more-183457.phtml

    • Xerian says:

      @ shoptroll
      Well… Blue Shift was rather an expansion, really. Its their oldest attempt at halflife “episodes”! I tellsya!
      Now… I wonder when they’re revealing the next half-life… Mm…
      Anyhow, you sir, deserve a cookie. I’d give you mine, BUT ITS MY DAMN COOKIE. I LIKE COOKIES, STAY AWAY… FROM… MY… COOKIES. Also, I WILL MAKE COMBUSTIBLE COOKIES, AND THEN ILL BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN WITH EM.
      Im sorry. I get outta line sometimes, but you dont mess with my cookies…
      Yes, i am, insane. However, passionate about bacon, and cookies.
      If you’re a fan of either bacon, or cookies… Or possibly bacon cookies… Bacookies?… Reply here, tell us your feelings… Of cookies. Or bacon.

    • solidshredder says:

      Sir. You’re incredibly confused. Your response was almost irrelevant. The 4mb is the amount of FREE update (as in, patches) space they give to developers as part of the initial distribution package. We’re talking about DLC here. Do you honestly think MS runs around screaming “I don’t care how much money you give me!! I will NEVER allow you to give free DLC to people! Neeeevvveeeer!”. If Valve pays MS then they can distribute whatever the hell they want at whatever price they want (or no price at all).

    • shoptroll says:

      True, the title update limit isn’t really applicable to this argument. But it does show how draconian MS is in regards to updates in general.

      Anyways, here’s the bit I was really looking for but I couldn’t find it originally.

      http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/l4d1-dlc-pricing-not-valves-decision

      There you have it.

    • Deano2099 says:

      Negotiation?

      I imagine it went something like this-

      Valve: “We’re doing free DLC for Portal 2 on PS3 and PC. You can have it too if you agree not to charge for it”

  25. solidshredder says:

    I look at the hat store in Portal 2 like I look at the stamps in Team Fortress 2. Valve releases content for free like the indies release TF2 maps and if you like what you’re playing and believe it’s worth more money, then you can pay them by buying some things from the store. It’s like donating and getting a free cookie just because. I for one, can’t think of a better way to do it.

  26. Xerian says:

    Whenever you see someone expecting Valve to make you pay for actual content, you know they aint a real fan and know nothing about Valve, ‘cept for hats.
    I mean, really. Come on, why would they, the game developers / publishers whom care thé most about their fans, make us pay for something? Valve has -ALWAYS- updated their games, free of charge. -ALWAYS- given us maps, free of charge. They’ve even polished others maps, given them a pad on the back and encouraging people to donate to the map developers… WHY… WHY IN GODS (Pff, that old n00b) … Why in gods name, would they make us pay? Valve have always been, and will, hopefully, always be… Win. The only content we’ll ever have to pay for… Is hats. Which, we ourselves, can spend time on, and craft. Hats.
    And good god, i just realized i’ll probably be playing a half-life game with hats within a few years…
    I like hats.

    • Vinraith says:

      you know they aint a real fan

      Unthinking loyalty is no virtue, no matter what it’s directed towards.

    • Xerian says:

      Its not really unthinking loyalty, its more like… Knowing the fact that they actually give a damn about the people whom play their games. That is, afterall, one of their trademarks (In my opinion, and a shitload of other peoples too.)

    • jalf says:

      Oh no, it is unthinking loyalty. Valve has made, and continue to make, plenty of big screwups. But unthinking fans don’t care, don’t notice and don’t remember about it.
      Steam’s customer service is horrendous (read, nonexistent), they pricing scheme rips off their international customers (and no, it’s not the big bad publishers’ fault, Valve’s own games do it too), and of course, there are classics like the L4D/L4D2 debacle (whatever an “appropriate” reaction to it may have been, it is a legitimate concern that they explicitly promised, when they released L4D, that it would be followed by free DLC which never actually appeared).

      Valve aren’t saints. They fuck up as much as other companies.
      Claiming otherwise is “unthinking loyalty”.
      They’ve also done a lot of good (for example, released a number of outstanding games, and more or less revived the PC games industry with Steam), but that doesn’t make their mistakes go away.

    • shoptroll says:

      @jalf

      What L4D DLC that never happened? We got the Survival Mode, Crash Course and Sacrifice didn’t we?

    • kitchendon says:

      “promised when they released L4D, that it would be followed by free DLC which never actually appeared”

      Never?

      Survival Pack with The Last Stand – was also free on xbox
      Crash Course
      The Sacrifice

    • Vandelay says:

      I would also say that the only reason these “cock-ups” stand out is because Valve actually do talk to the community and treat them well (I wouldn’t say anything they have done is really a cock-up. The ARG was kind of disappointing, but was definitely an interesting ad campaign and nothing to get angry about. Left 4 Dead 2 was a large improvement over the original, which they continued to support anyway. Hats are completely optional. So on and so on)

      Quite honestly, if they said they would be charging for the DLC I would happily pay them, if it was reasonable priced. My only annoyance over DLC is the price tag that gets placed on them. The Call of Duty games charging expansion pack prices for five maps (are some of these re-hashes of old maps again?) is just absurd. The majority of DLC is only worth between £2-4, £5 tops.

    • wengart says:

      “Oh no, it is unthinking loyalty. Valve has made, and continue to make, plenty of big screwups.”

      You’ll have to name some real screw ups in that case.

      L4D got the free DLC and furthermore you’re a fool to buy a game solely on a promise of something.

      Customer service- is the only issue you’ve raised that has me worried although I’ve never experienced it.

      Pricing of international releases- I understand that it is a problem, but I would hardly call it a big screw up. Being locked out of your game for days because the DRM servers went down is a big screw up, not charging some people more for a game.

    • Xerian says:

      @ Jalf

      Actually, the customer service is awefully -GOOD- If you’re the least worried there might’ve been an issue with something like a prepurchase or such, they’ll give you a refund without any big hazzle, which i tried when i preordered The witcher 2, quite early on, and the “product” i prepurchased disappeared when the Digital whatever-edition came out, so i got a complete refund, and re-purchased it. Their customer support is simple and neat, really. A chat with an adminestrator is in no way horrendous, unless your grammar, and understanding of the english language is.
      And people saying what you’re saying are those, whom arent fans whatsoever, but really just frown upon everything they do, with no actual reason. Pff. (And yet continue to buy their games, and / or spend your time whining about everything you dont like, which seems like an aweful lot of work, for somethin’ you really dont like ^_~’)

    • Wulf says:

      @jalf

      S’funny because that goes against my experiences, and since there hasn’t been any research done into the matter, that’s all we have. But a couple of months back I bought a game for a friend, which didn’t arrive on their end, so I filed a ticket.

      Their response? They’re sorry and they’ll look into it. About an hour later my friend got the game, they said they’d spotted what caused that and are looking into it to make sure it doesn’t happen again, and that they were glad they could fix that for me. This was a massive relief since so many people had gone on and on about how terrible Valve’s support was, I was terrified of contacting them, but my actual experiences didn’t match what people were telling me, as is so often the case.

    • Vinraith says:

      I’ve had one experience with Steam support.

      My purchased copy of Silent Hunter 4 was not installing properly through Steam. Since I have a boxed copy of the game, I know it works fine on this computer, but the Steam version was a broken piece of slag. Steam support denied there was a problem (when they finally got around to responding, several business days after I’d written them). I pointed them to the forum full of complaining users. Steam support denied there was a problem again, and did not respond to further inquiry. No assistance, no “we’re working on it,” just repeated denial that any such problem existed despite dozens of users reporting it. They also refused to give me a refund, needless to say.

      About 9 months later the problem seemed to become resolved, which is good, but it was an incredibly bad support experience nonetheless.

    • Wulf says:

      @Vinraith

      You say they refused to give you a refund, but did you file a new ticket outright asking for one? In many cases, Valve have been known to give good will refunds if there are known problems with games. All you have to do is cite an instance of a problem and tell them clearly that you want a refund, instead of obfuscating it with complaints about how the game doesn’t work.

      The thing is is that Valve are a distribution network, they can’t control how well a game performs, only the game’s developer can do that. All they can do is give you a refund. So if you’re not asking for a refund in your very first ticket, then all they can do is ignore it, since they’re not responsible for the things on their network. They’ve said this many, many, many times.

      It’s sort of like going to a bricks and mortar store and demanding that they make a game you bought work on your PC. They can’t do that, they’ll likely just shrug, apologise, and then ignore you as a crazy person. But if you go in there and ask for a refund off the bat, then they will do that, because that’s something they can do. To me it sounds like you were being unreasonable if I’m going to be frank, and complaining at them about an issue they couldn’t help with.

      When it comes to major publisher content on their network, their hands are tied, the most they can do is pass along your complaint to the publisher and hope that something gets done about it, they can’t wave a magic wand and automatically make everything right, they can’t even touch the content that the publisher has up on there, they can’t fix these issues for you. I’m amazed that you thought they could, to be blunt, genuinely amazed. They’re not GoG, they don’t get their hands into the guts of every game they provide, I don’t even think they’re permitted to do that.

      And the thing is is that since your first complaint was just “Oh, this guy is just complaining about things we can do nothing about.”, they probably passed your complaint along to the publisher and then flagged you as low priority, which is a very logical thing for them to do. I think that had you filed a new ticket explaining the problem, providing your source, and asking for a refund, you would’ve gotten better results. I know I’m repeating myself here, but I think sometimes I have to.

      I find that a lot of Valve haters have the most irrational, illogical, and unreasonable complaints, I really do. Things you just wouldn’t complain about with those bricks & mortar stores you love, Vinraith. It amazes me. I’m sorry but I’m seeing a lot of hypocrisy, there. And I’m honest when dealing with people because I don’t know how to permit myself to not be.

    • OfficerMeatbeef says:

      Here’s a long-ish story about a personal experience I (by which I mean a close personal friend of mine) had with the dreaded horrendous and non-existent Steam Support.

      Said friend is a Canadian currently living in Australia, and a few months ago he put together a shiny new PC and decided to pick up Left 4 Dead 2 from Steam. Unfortunately, I either forgot to (or didn’t have the chance to) warn him that a copy of the game purchased in Australia would be butchered violence (and riot cop) wise thanks to those horrible draconian Australia laws that we all hope will be abolished soon.

      He was understandably disappointed and upset, and I felt really bad because this was something I was in the know about, and yet was unable to avert tragedy. Nonetheless, although I didn’t really expect them to be able or willing to do anything for him from the constant yelling I hear on forums about “Steam support is worthless they blocked my account for NO REASON I lost alllll my games they will NEVER do refunds EVER etc. etc.”, I still suggested it would be worth a try for him to explain his situation and see what comes of it.

      Now, the Australian page for Left 4 Dead 2 very clearly states “Low Violence: Low Violence version” right above the buying buttons. It would have been easy for Valve/Steam support to claim caveat emptor on this one if they were as uncaring and useless as I had heard. But my expatriate chum reasonably explained his situation, and in a day or so (maybe even less!) they had happily refunded him for his mistake and either allowed him to purchase the North American version (which may even be ILLEGAL WHO KNOWS) or (probably more likely) just gave someone here in Canada a chance to gift him it instead, I forget which. I know he remains in Australia but his Steam account happily hosts the North American version of L4D2 in all its entrail-expelling glory,.

      To be clear, this is my only first-hand (well, maybe second-hand but the only one I personally know to be 100% true) experience with Steam support. There is, of course, the possibility that my friend’s experience was a statistical outlier, the one aberration in a near-immeasurable line of ineffectual and uncaring support issues. But I dunno, this company cheerfully gave my friend a refund despite his own mistake and then looked the other way knowing full-well he was then going to obtain a version of the game they could not even legally sell in his region (if I recall correctly? Stupid grey market nonsense is so hard to keep straight), which is rather markedly different from the impression all those surely reasonable and level-headed folks on forums had been giving me.

      In all seriousness, I simply find it a bit hard to imagine a company where the goddamn founder/managing director personally responded to an idiot like me emailing him about friggin’ Fart Cops would employ a cadre of useless and aloof support staff who simply ignore or even actively fight against their customers who no doubt all have perfectly reasonable issues that are surely all shared courteously and coherently. It just seems… I dunno, very unlikely to me? Especially because I have met plenty of customers, and many of them can be… pretty terrible, in real life. I don’t even want to imagine internet ones.

      Of course they make mistakes. But to put it simply: I don’t know many other for-profit companies (and almost certainly none as large and relatively powerful) whose actions and behaviour, coupled with my own personal experiences, have continually and unfailingly* increased my respect for them, and I am thus inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt in most any situation over some random fellow posting on reddit that support is useless because he accidentally tried to buy stuff with money he didn’t have in his bank account, Steam put a lock on his account, and then didn’t have it cleared up within an hour when it was a weekend and the banks were closed.

      Now Vinraith, from the information you’ve provided, I would agree that you seemed to have a valid complaint, in part. Now Valve would certainly have nothing to do with the broken installer at all unless it was somehow their network taking a working version and pushing it out broken, so they have nothing to “work on” there unless that was indeed the case. Logically it follows that every single user would be unable to install the game in such a situation, which Valve would easily be able to confirm and correct. I doubt the Steam version of the installer didn’t work for ANYBODY or I really don’t believe it would have stayed up for long. They can’t fix an installer for a third-party product anymore than they can fix a game-breaking bug 10 hours in, so the most they could do is take down a totally defective (ie. nobody can install it) program entirely and issue refunds to customers as appropriate.

      All this in mind, I would agree with Wulf and posit that the fact that support would not issue a refund is actually very much NOT “needless to say”; that this is, in fact, very much the key and and only truly relevant portion of the complaint. Anyway ugh that’s enough of this who cares.

      *Yes, this includes hats both mercenary and robot-based.

    • Vandelay says:

      I’ll Chip in with another Valve support experience and it is the dreaded one of my account being suspended. It happened a few years ago, whilst I was away at University and my brother was back home using my Steam account to play Psychonauts, thus it was being accessed from two distant IP addresses. One day I attempted to log into my Steam account and it wouldn’t work. Tried a few times across the day and still nothing. I submitted a ticket to steam support and within less than 24 hours I received a response that informed they had suspected my account had been hijacked. A new password was sent to me and I had my account back.

      Now, it would have been nice if I did have to contact them about this, but it certainly was nothing like the horror stories that you hear from what seems to be a large proportion of the Internet. Which is very much the point, it just seems like a lot of people. No one is going to come onto a forum and create a thread entitled “I just had great support from Valve!” Only the negative comments will get heard. Having said that, Vinraith experience definitely did sound like bad service from Valve, denying all knowledge of there being a problem. The origin of the fault probably originates with the developer of Silent Hunter, rather than Valve themselves, but still they should have done more for their customers in that situation.

      I would be interested to see a survey done to see how many people actually are unsatisfied with the service. I would imagine it probably wouldn’t be any different to most companies the size of Valve.

    • jalf says:

      What L4D DLC that never happened? We got the Survival Mode, Crash Course and Sacrifice didn’t we?

      Haven’t we been over this a dozen times already? I don’t think there’s much new to add to the discussion.
      But to jog your memories, when L4D was released, *three* different high-ups at Valve (Gabe Newell, Chet Faliszek and Doug Lombardi) *individually*, in three separate interviews, made the following claims:’
      - we will release new campaigns for free
      - we will release new weapons for free
      - we will release new infected types for free
      - we will release free DLC *more frequently* than we do with TF2
      Valve failed to live up to that.

      you’re a fool to buy a game solely on a promise of something.

      Perhaps, but that’s beside the point. The discussion was about their support and customer service. Do you deny that they failed to support their product, when they made explicit promises about the product which were not kept?
      Maybe people who listened to them are fools, but if so, doesn’t that just prove the point that “you can’t trust Valve to behave”?
      Their customer service is able to handle something like “my game doesn’t show up on my account”, yes. But they provide zero help if your account was hacked. The Steam forums have had (deleted now, of course, which is another example of their great attitude towards customers) quite a few accounts of “help, my account was hacked, I can prove it, I even know *how* it was hacked, and Valve refuses to reopen my account *or* fix the security hole that made the hacking possible”.
      A friend of mine was unable to buy games on Steam throughout the Christmas sale… for no known reason. Support got back to her a few days after the sale ended. With a cookie-cutter reply of the form “we’re sorry to hear you had trouble, have you tried restarting your computer”
      But again, because people on the internet have this odd kind of blind spot when it comes to nuances or shades of grey, I’m not saying Valve is the antichrist, or that they have never managed to solve a single support ticket appropriately.
      I’m just saying they have made some fucking huge blunders, both in terms of how they support their games, how they service their customers and, well, in terms of flat out lying about their pricing policies “wah wah, it’s the publishers fault, our hands are tied”, while doing the exact same thing with their own games.
      Honestly, Valve makes great games. With Steam they have really invigorated the PC games industry. But can we please credit them for that without trying to make sad excuses for their mistakes?
      I know it’s hard to be a fanboy and at the same time accept that the company has made mistakes. And I know it may be tempting to then ignore the latter, so that you can keep being the former.
      But I’d suggest that the other option is much more rational. Stop being a fanboy, stop pretending that Valve is “consistently” good, stop *trusting* them to do the right thing. Credit them for all the good they’ve done (which is a lot), slam them for the mistakes they’ve made (which are fewer, but some of them are quite significant). Like you would with any other company.
      Don’t cover for them. Don’t pretend that they haven’t been caught flat-out lying about their products, or failing to live up to their own promises, ideals or goals.
      Saying “yes no one’s perfect”, or “they’re no worse than other companies their size” is completely beside the point.
      Their mistakes are still mistakes. They don’t go away just because other companies make mistakes *too*.
      Sony’s PSN screwup doesn’t mean that Valve should be let off the hook if they let Steam get hacked at the same scale. Microsoft’s horrendous GFWL abomination doesn’t mean that Steam’s failings are somehow negated.
      Other companies failing to live up to their promises doesn’t excuse Valve doing so.
      This is especially significant because Valve prides themselves on supporting their games, delivering free DLC and generally being worthy of the trust gamers place in them. So when they failed to do so, it shouldn’t just be glossed over. We shouldn’t just pretend that they’ve *never’ failed to support their games, or that they’ve *never* violated our trust. Doing that once is one time too many.

      And it cuts both ways. Their good deeds don’t excuse their screwups, but their screwups don’t negate the good things they’ve done either.

      So, about that Portal 2 DLC, eh? ;)

  27. Gentacle says:

    Is it “this summer” and not “a summer?”

  28. magnus says:

    Yeah, but diplomatic Fence-Sitting is even worse.

  29. propjoe says:

    Love Valve for this. I’ve never thought DLC was all that worthwhile, but with a price like this…

  30. Olivaw says:

    So Valve releases all the meaningful content for free and charges for stupid cosmetic stuff that is entirely unnecessary, and people are still mad about the stupid cosmetic stuff costing money?

    I don’t get it. I just don’t get it.

  31. Kadayi says:

    Great news. Definitely looking forward to this. No doubt the Trolls at 4Chan will find an excuse to complain about it on metacritic though (Valve release ‘cut content’ no doubt).

    • Dominic White says:

      Cast your eyes upwards. People here are *already* saying that.

      What the hell happened?

  32. Very Real Talker says:

    VALVE HAS DEFINITELY CROSSED THE LINE INTO SHAMELESS MONEY GRABBING TERRITORY.

    This dlc should have been released FROM THE BEGINNING in the actual game, which is too short and only a few minutes longer than portal 1. Instead valve has lazily reduced the game into tiny little bits and released an incomplete, very short (a few minutes shorter than portal 1) game and is now releasing WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE GAME FROM THE BEGINNING, TRYING TO LOOK GENEROUS IN THE PROCESS.

    Well the real generous people are the beta tester who PAID to test the portal 2 incomplete alpha. Now we are getting what SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE GAME from the beginning, and we should be thankful?

    • wryterra says:

      YOU’RE RIGHT, FREE DLC IS A MONEY GRABBING BEHAVIOUR.

      This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

      Given that Team Fortress 2 has had literally hundreds of free updates, several of them significant boosts to the content. Given that Left 4 Dead 2 has had several significant updates that add game play and change the experience. Given these facts, long-term observers of Valve can assume that when you’re buying a game from Valve you’re buying a platform for a continued experience. Free updates that actually add something.

      I’m unconvinced that releasing it earlier and adding free content down the line is a bad thing and certainly not convinced it’s a money-grabbing tactic.

      Oh and if you think Portal 2 is a ‘few minutes’ longer than Portal 1 you must have SUCKED at Portal 1.

    • ResonanceCascade says:

      If this is satire, it sure isn’t going to read well since so many people really are this stupid.

      If it’s not satire. HAHAHAHA. Thanks for the laughs, kiddo.

    • RakeShark says:

      I DON’T WANT YOUR DAMN LEMONS!

    • smartalco says:

      I’d imagine this is satire, as he said “a few minutes shorter than portal 1″, which is absurd. Either that or you /really/ sucked at Portal 1. I speedran it in 50 minutes, I don’t think’d be possible (without glitching) to speedrun Portal 2 in anything less then 2.5.

      @RakeShark: LETS BURN HIS HOUSE DOWN. WITH THE LEMONS.

    • RakeShark says:

      @smartalco: BURN HIS HOUSE DOWN! Burning people! He says what we’re all thinking!

    • Serenegoose says:

      Of course it’s satire. Portal 2 goes from being slightly longer than portal 1 to slightly shorter than portal 1 in a single paragraph. :P

    • Herrad says:

      I doubt Very Real Talker is doing any Real Talking in the above. I just can’t understand how someone who clearly enjoys the game enough to rage, with capital letters no less, about a missing feature (that wasn’t advertised IIRC, merely expected by fans), would then go on to condemn Valve for, how he puts it, are”…TRYING TO LOOK GENEROUS…”.

      I dunno, “…TRYING TO LOOK GENEROUS…” doesn’t seem such a crime to me.

    • Herrad says:

      I doubt Very Real Talker is doing any Real Talking in the above. I just can’t understand how someone who clearly enjoys the game enough to rage, with capital letters no less, about a missing feature (that wasn’t advertised IIRC, merely expected by fans), would then go on to condemn Valve who, how he puts it, are simply “…TRYING TO LOOK GENEROUS…”.

      I dunno, “…TRYING TO LOOK GENEROUS…” doesn’t seem such a crime to me.

    • Very Real Talker says:

      yes of course it was just a joke. The way some people actually think it’s not that much different from what I wrote though

    • magnus says:

      Free DLC is (Mermaid man voice on) EVILEVILKEEEEVILLLLLEEEEE!(Mermaid man voice off)

      This reply comes with a Mexican Facepalm.

  33. thebigJ_A says:

    I am offended. I’m going to metacritic to review-bomb this game.

    I demand they charge people for this. It’s not fair that they should release DLC in this day and age that includes worthwhile content and not charge for it!

  34. pipman3000 says:

    it’s actually really comfortable for what is essentially a suit made out of human flesh.

  35. Karris says:

    Lovely news — it follows precedent, Portal’s challenge maps were also added as free DLC a few months after release.

    • edit says:

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure the challenge maps in Portal 1 were in the game from the beginning.. I remember playing through them immediately after completing the game itself.

      RE this news… Valve playing it cool as usual. Gods of the gaming world, I tells ya. Few other developers have so consistently rewarded my fandom.

      Frankly, LOL at any fools who complain. I think some people are just hopelessly addicted to playing the victim, and haven’t learned how not to splurge their negative emotions at anything which they are remotely interested in or affected by.

  36. Ridnarhtim says:

    Not surprised, and happy. Valve are awesome. Anyone who wants to is still free to spend their extra money on hats.

  37. Legionary says:

    Or before the concept of “DLC” was invented, this would’ve been called a patch.

    • Wulf says:

      Since this is free we can call this a patch and post-release support. Nothing wrong with that! I think the difference is is that most developers have turned post-release support into something you pay money for, whereas Valve haven’t (same for ANet).

      Things like this really help determine which devs I like and which devs I dislike.

  38. Sif says:

    “TOR takes a single player game (Knights of the Old Republic III), pads it out with grind, and adds a subscription. The reaction of some? LOVE BIOWARE.”

    Are you nuts? Gamers on the internet has been doing nothing but complaining about TOR, a game that hasn’t come out yet and that none of them have played.

    Valve’s Portal 2 DLC is great news however. Hell I’d have even paid for this I loved the game so much.

    • Wulf says:

      You should take a look at the latest TOR news right here on RPS. I got slammed and called all sorts of things just because I didn’t want to play a single-player game that had been padded out into an MMORPG with low production values, grind, and a subscription.

      Subscriptions are a con I won’t fall for again, and the way Bioware is describing that damned game it does sound like a cannibalised KoTOR III. Of course, if they’d made a single player game out of it, they wouldn’t have been able to bundle in a subscription.

      Next up, Dragon Age and Mass Effect MMOs, for much the same reason!

    • Olivaw says:

      Oh yes, I’m sure that spending the massive amount of money developing unique assets for each side and each class, and designing all their quests and whatever outcomes they might have, and paying all those voice actors to do all that voice acting, and the immense cost of setting up the massive amount of servers they’ll need to accommodate demand, not to mention the unbelievable amount of marketing they’ll have to spend once the game actually gets close to release, plus the sheer amount of maintenance and upkeep those servers will have to put up with, and all the personnel they need to administrate and bugfix the game and come up with new content post-release…

      Yes, I’m sure that the ONLY REASON they did all that work and spent all that money was just so they could charge a subscription. Clearly.

    • Wulf says:

      Sarcasm aside: Obviously. And you don’t have to be an intellectual genius to see why.

      They could have spent that amount of money and made a single player game or a series of them, they’ve done it before, and there won’t be any more content in TOR than there was in the past Knights of the Old Republic games, I can promise you that, despite any wild claims. And you’ll see that when the time comes, but as I’ve said, other people are always behind me when it comes to this. I feel like a bloody clairvoyant.

      So yes, they could have made a game or a series of games, but what would be more profitable in the long run? A duo or trio of single player games, or an MMO with a monthly subscription, expansions, and microtransactions? You should not need me to answer this question for you. In fact, Cryptic said the same thing about Neverwinter, that they were going to just turn it into a MMORPG because they’re so profitable, but there were ‘other factors’ that changed their mind (those other factors would likely be Turbine owning the rights to Dungeons & Dragons MMORPGs), so they made a co-op game instead.

      Bioware had no such constraints, so they didn’t feel the need to make single player games when they believedt hat they could profit so much more from an MMORPG, and think about it, it makes sense. This is why there have been rumblings of a Mass Effect MMORPG too, because that would fit their current M.O. But some people can’t see the forest for the trees.

      But I’ll let you live in your fantasy world and not burst your bubble too much. (Psst, Bioware is a business!) Come back and talk to me after you’ve paid a year’s worth of TOR subscriptions and you’ve caught up to what I’ve figured out already.

    • Olivaw says:

      See, the mistake you are making is that you think that this decision was made lightly.

      “Yo, what’s profitable these days? MMOs? Shit yeah let’s do that!”

      This is not how it happened. Especially that there’s really only one subscription based MMO that actually turns the massive profit you seem to associate with a subscription, and that’s WoW. You don’t come at the king on a whim.

      And furthermore, why would they devote years and years of their company’s time towards making a game just to charge a subscription for it? They’ve been making money hand over fist with the Mass Effect titles, and with DLC. I don’t know why you seem to think that greed is the sole motivator behind making an MMO at all.

      And really, if this whole thing were a purely business-driven decision, they never would have started this goddamn project in the first place! They have all hands on deck for this thing, spent so much of their company’s capital that this is actually a huge risk for them. If this thing tanks, BioWare could go under. Granted, they have a certain amount of confidence it won’t, what with being a Star Wars MMO and all, but look what happened to Galaxies, or Republic Commando, or any number of other games. There IS a history of Star Wars games not selling well, for whatever reason.

      I really don’t know why you view subscriptions in such a greedy, self-serving light, considering how much time and money it costs to actually design, develop, run, and maintain an MMO, especially one this ambitious.

      I know that BioWare is a business, and they want to make money. I am not an idiot. But I also know that they want to make good video games, and that they didn’t just throw some shit together they had lying around and call it an MMO to charge fifteen dollars a month.

      That’s not how BioWare do, baby.

  39. heretic says:

    Its quite smart of Valve to announce this, the no-no DLC people who won’t play games because there is stuff to buy after launch should be reasonably pleased with this and maybe tip them towards buying Portal 2.

    Don’t get me wrong, I hate DLC. It’s a great way for companies to make money though, and since DLC hasn’t gone away that means there are a bunch of dummies who buy horse armour and really have nothing better to spend their money on… (i.e. there is a market for this, the day nobody buys DLC, DLC will die, kinda like gods, if nobody worships them they don’t exist / die).

  40. Dervish says:

    I like how all the other Portal 2 comment sections have people worrying about plot spoilers, but the image here gives away a puzzle solution and no one bats an eyelash. Priorities.

  41. jwfiore says:

    I would pay full price for a decent map editor for Portal 2. :|

  42. Dobleclick says:

    I know this is a bit off-topic, but any friendly Portal 2 player who wants to enjoy the Co-Op campaign? So far I’ve been matched up with assholes or people far more advanced than myself rushing through the chambers. I’ve done some challenges already, but wouldn’t mind starting from scratch. I speak fluent english, german and spanish, so voice-chat shouldn’t be a problem. C’mon RPS’ers!!! Add doblerone in Steam… (Oh, CET timezone, usually play weekends and afternoons/evenings)

  43. 3ay says:

    What source, mr cynic, do you want that’s more credible for a story about Valve’s intent than Valve? I’d say Valve are probably the leading authority on Valve’s plans. If Valve aren’t good enough a source for a story about Valve and what Valve might do, I fear for journalism. şahinnparadisegelenekselramazancoşkusu