"Vampire: The Masquerade--Bloodlines 2," Having Day One Paid DLC is Quite the Choice--A Bad Choice

Those of you in your 20s or 30s may recall the short-lived trend where a game would launch with certain features that were already developed and ready to go, purposely blocked off. This day one paid downloadable content pissed everyone off because it wasn't like a special expansion or anything that was released later on. This was developed simultaneously with the main game but intentionally left out so people had to pay for it and/or prove they had the initial copy and didn't buy it used or rent it (in the case of, "Batman: Arkham City," with its Catwoman DLC code). This trend pretty much died out some time ago as gamers vocally opposed it and companies found other ways to nickel-and-dime us that caused less protest (like making your game, "Free," but charging for battle passes, cosmetics, and so forth, but I digress). That said, it was just announced a game in development Hell for years, "Vampire: The Masquerade--Bloodlines 2," was finally to be released this October--yah! Oh, and of the playable vampire clans, you only get four with the other two locked off for half the cost of the game ($30 for the DLC and the game is $60 on PC)--boo!

The original, "Vampire: The Masquerade--Bloodlines," came out two decades or so ago and was a great, but buggy, first person RPG. It used the same engine as, "Half-Life 2," and was overshadowed heavily by that game. The studio behind it, Troika Games, also made the amazing RPG, "Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura," beforehand. When, "Vampire: The Masquerade--Bloodlines," flopped commercially Trokia went out of business. The game became a cult hit, however, and folks were excited when a sequel was announced a chunk of years ago. Then, "Vampire: The Masquerade--Bloodlines 2" was in development Hell for some time. After a lot of changes in who was even working on the damn thing, many wondered if we'd ever get this game in a released form. Then, it was just announced it is coming so soon! It was weird to get that good news followed by the annoying news.

A third of the theoretically playable clans cost an extra thirty dollars on the first day. Should you like to be a Lasombra or Toreador vampire, pay up. Toreador's are fan-favorites along with Malkavians (and apparently a disembodied Malkavian is in your character's head and you get to play as him in dream-flashbacks to the 1920s, so that's kinda interesting), resulting in DLC seeming extra crass. It is not just a cosmetic shift from the vampire clan you choose, either; it heavily impacts the game what vampire clan you play. If this were the best game, ever, people could maybe overlook this awful day-one DLC that results in you paying ninety bucks for the whole game. However, early impressions of gameplay seem...mixed, at best. If this is the sort of game that everyone reviews as being a 6/10 or 7/10 (with a 5/10 being average) then I doubt many people will want to even buy the base game, let alone pay extra for the, "Bonus," features. If it is considered objectively, "Bad," then it could be a huge bomb.

When, "Vampire: The Masquerade--Bloodlines 2," drops I hope it won't be a mediocre game trying to coast off the love of fans nostalgic for the original game. I hope it will be amazing and impress anyone who plays the tabletop iteration that inspired the PC game, the original game fans, and anyone new to the franchise. I also hope that the game is fun without having to shell out another thirty bucks, and the day one paid DLC really does just feel like some fun bonus content for those who want more game. I am hoping for a lot of things, and I don't know if they can all happen. Expectations for, "Vampire: The Masquerade--Bloodlines 2," are sky-high, and so is the price. I hope for the sake of everyone involved in making and publishing the game, it can deliver. I'm gonna wait for the eventual price drop/bundle deal/"Complete Edition," release to ever try it out, though.

I Hate it When Games Call Their DLC A, "Season Pass," and Am Going to Share Why

You all say, "Season Pass,"but I don't think you understand what it means.

When you buy a, "Season," of a television show digitally on Blu-Ray/DVD you get that whole show, with all the special features. Imagine if you bought a television show but were told to get the full, "Season," you had to pay more money, then you could download the commentaries from creators, extra scenes, etc. all piecemeal or as part of a, "Season pass." Wouldn't you say, "Season pass? I just bought the damn season!" You would be pretty pissed, right? This is why I hate when games call their downloadable content something that can be totally bought with a, "Season Pass," as we keep seeing constantly with upcoming titles like, "Watch Dogs 2," and other games.

Think about this: A game is in a way a, "Season," of entertainment. It should have a full story (or at least give you the kind of game-play where you create your own fun stories to share), provide you with a good amount of entertainment, etc. Therefore, saying someone can buy downloadable content (DLC) in a, "Season Pass," is stupid. I already bought the season, you're just trying to get more money from me for extra stuff you didn't put in the season. Now, this rule doesn't apply to game that actually come out in episodes and which offer a, "Season pass," to play the whole game. It is different if you can buy episodes of the game in downloadable chunks of the whole season of the title--that is exactly like television shows where you can download some episodes or buy a whole season when the show itself actually wraps. Hence, the adventure games Telltale releases in bits ("Walking Dead," "Batman," and so forth) or the most recent way the Hitman game came out are excused as they are actually following the way I think a, "Season," should play-out for a game. It ain't a, "Season," if you give me a whole game and then try to tack on a whole bunch of stuff though. No way, no how.

Again, you say, "Game of the Year," as if you understand what that means.

Now, I am by no means saying I am against paid DLC. If you want to release your game and then have a bunch of extra stuff people can pay to download, go for it! I mean, I probably am not going to buy the DLC and instead of purchasing the initial release of the game will wait for the later-version that collects everything (often called, "Game of the Year Editions," even if the title never won such an award from any publication), but feel free to do that. I will continue to admire when people do what the creators of, "Overwatch," and, "Titanfall 2," have done however, where all the actual good stuff you can play with is free and they just charge for fun little cosmetic things that don't impact the game. I'm really impressed when there isn't DLC and the whole game actually comes when you buy the actual game (or any and all DLC is free)--but these days that sounds crazy!

This sounds almost as whiny as my recent post about the upcoming, "Switch," from Nintendo, but I believe I actually am standing on some firm ground here. Plenty of people hate DLC and while I'm not quite as hardcore anti-DLC as some folk, I clearly despise companies trying to sell it to us as some kind of, "Season Pass," when the way they are doing  it (earlier-mentioned exceptions aside) is in no way what I think of when I hear I can buy a, "Season," of something. I feel better now that I got all this irritation off my chest--metaphorically speaking--I don't actually have any irritation on my chest (if I did, I would go to the doctor ASAP). Do you agree, or am I in fact just yelling into the void of consumer indifference? At this point considering how much money companies make off DLC I'm really not sure.