Valve won't charge for DLC

By Robert Purchese Published 22 May, 2007

"You buy the product, you get the content".

Valve has told Eurogamer that it has no intention of charging customers who download additional content for games like Counter-Strike and Team Fortress 2, despite the widely spread increase of paid-for updates in the PC and console world.

"You buy the product, you get the content," Team Fortress 2 designer Robin Walker told us. "We make more money because more people buy it, not because we try and nickel-and-dime the same customers."

"[In multiplayer games] the content you're playing is being created by the players you're playing against, so the more people that get into the game, the more content you're going to have," Valve's Charlie Brown concurred.

Valve's master plan roughly resembles the traditional PC model, but in recent years services like Xbox Live Marketplace have made charging for extra content a more popular sight.

This has also spread to the PC, where developers such as Oblivion's Bethesda Softworks have begun to charge for additional downloads to their games.

Valve's marketing director Doug Lombardi admitted the company had "pretty strong opinions" about how to handle post-release content. "Our philosophy there is, if you buy the product, we put more content out to keep the game interesting, we sell more products."

"Counter-Strike is number one and has been since '99 because we kept the game interesting, not because we tried to charge people more, and that's come back in sales of Counter-Strike," he added.

One thing Valve is doing is toying with the idea of in-game advertising, something it recently revealed would feature in tactical shooter Counter-Strike.

Co-founder Gabe Newell said this was to bring attention to an area that could give smaller teams more options when creating games.

"What I would hope to see is that small developers can give away their titles for free and garner ongoing development support by generating advertising revenue, and we've done all the work to make that possible through the work that we're doing in Counter-Strike," said Newell.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (51) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • paulf #1 5 years ago

    good lads :)

  • Freelancepolice #2 5 years ago

    I guess they have a little more leverage with microsoft being one of the top developers

  • Syrok #3 5 years ago

    See that Motorstorm developers. :)

  • Overlush #4 5 years ago

    ""You buy the product, you get the content," Team Fortress 2 designer Robin Walker told us. "We make more money because more people buy it, not because we try and nickel-and-dime the same customers."

    Amen to that, brother

    /gives Lumines Live the birdie

  • Feet #5 5 years ago

    Hooray!

  • Nova5lag #6 5 years ago

    Woohoo Valve-a-rama

  • Darren #7 5 years ago

    Valve should change their name to ValUe I think... ;)

  • asdfffdsa #8 5 years ago

    Yeah, instead of charging you for DLC, they do something worse: flood your games with ads.

    Actually, advertising is a form of charging, so I call BS on this statement by Valve.

  • souljacker2000 #9 5 years ago

    @other developers

    Follow suit please!! :)

  • Paukl #10 5 years ago

    If the story about Epic being the reason behind the 360 getting more RAM is true, and they can't get Microsoft to release one of their map packs for free...well,

    /dubious

  • nickthegun #11 5 years ago

    Zoom back 6 months: This is Epic, its what we do.

    Heres something for them to copy and paste into their next X360 press release:

    We didnt set the price point. Microsoft did.

  • bushwod #12 5 years ago

    I'd rather have in game ads the paid for DLC, with the exception of shivering isles for oblivion everything else I have seen so far has seemed like a rip off!

  • Aurifex. #13 5 years ago

    How long will that last. The pressure of making more money will win.

  • BadBoyBonner #14 5 years ago

    This is Epic, its what we doooo......er I mean Did.

  • trevd72 #15 5 years ago

    advertising is all around you these days so it will make no difference to me to see a character drinking coke and wearing nike trainers as long as it keeps the cost down to use and not supplement their income. It should help with the immersion.

  • Hunam #16 5 years ago

    I like this. I mean Epic bowed to Microsoft, but Valve clearly have more sway and don't need to.

    Its funny, Valve were a tiny unknown company, releases a game and takes a mod under its wing and it just whizzes right past Epic in the food chain.

  • BadBoyBonner #17 5 years ago

    Or make the ads fun

    How about one in Counter strike - where it is someone leaning back about to drink a can of Coke and you can shoot it out of their hand as you run up to it (might be an idea to have the person clothed in bullet proof armour! lol), or cartons of Innocent smoothies lined up along a wall. With the tag line - innocent - a fruit explosion or something.

  • Toothball #18 5 years ago

    I'd prefer to pay for the content than have adverts. Of course, neither would be preferable.

    I sometimes prefer paid for services, as it keeps a lot of American teenagers at bay.

  • Xerx3s #19 5 years ago

    "You buy the product, you get the content," Team Fortress 2 designer Robin Walker told us. "We make more money because more people buy it, not because we try and nickel-and-dime the same customers."

    You hear that ms and bethesda?!

  • BadBoyBonner #20 5 years ago

    In a related story....

    MS have released a new mapack for to purchase for Halo 2 namely Nickle-an-Dime Gulch

    Bethesda have also released for purchase the eagerly awaited NickleanDime Armour
    Edited by 1 at 22/05/07 @ 15:33

  • Veldaban #21 5 years ago

    Pfft, that's nice and well for such a big company to say, who can afford to do something like that. There's nothing wrong with selling DLC in principle. People tend to focus on the bad or overpriced DLC without looking at the good stuff (there's plenty of good DLC for Oblivion, for example, horse armour excepting). Mega-companies acting all "noble" isn't really going to help that perception.

  • bonker #22 5 years ago

    Well I have to say that I think giving Bethesda stick for Oblivion DLC is a bit much given the hundreds of hours that you get in the main game ...

    /Just broke 200 hours of standard Oblivion

  • jellyhead #23 5 years ago

    Well if we don't moan about the crappy DLC then companies will make us pay for more and more stuff that just isn't worth it. Death by a thousand cuts.
    Hopefully us moaning will at least make them think twice before ripping us off.

  • ruttyboy #24 5 years ago

    So that's what happened when he grew up. Wonder if Snoopy's still alive :(

  • steoc4 #25 5 years ago

    I don't see the problem with DLC to be honest. If it's good value, buy it. If it's not, don't. The trading of money for goods and services isn't exactly a new concept and I don't see why additional content for games is somehow exempt from that.

    Great recent example being Crackdown's recent add on, brings you back into a great game with a lot of great new content for a reasonable price.

    Without DLC that stuff would be reserved for a full blown sequel no doubt.

    And aren't extra episodes of Half Life 2 just like really big, expensive pieces of DLC?

  • cyber_nicco #26 5 years ago

    So HL2 Episodes 1 & 2 are free now?

    Awesome!

  • sickpuppysoftware #27 5 years ago

    So we don't pay for DLC but we do pay for the gift of HL2 and Ep1 to give to a friends?

  • smelly #28 5 years ago

    ERm.. i dont get this. IF they're giving it away for free, why not just stick it on the disc?

    You dont pay for DLC, but you will pay in other ways (signing up for their service - etc etc)

  • The_Programmer #29 5 years ago

    Looks like a daft business model to me. Does it apply to cars as well. You buy the car & get all the extras for free?

  • kangarootoo #30 5 years ago

    Its all just cashflow predictions to me.

    Valve do it one way because that suits their model and allows them to maximise profits. Another company do it a different way for the same reasons.

    Valve's method might suit more gamers on here, but they aren't doing it because they love you.

  • Mr_Brown #31 5 years ago

    This is how it should be. You pay for the product, so you should have access to all content for no extra charge. Especially if it involves online play. Charging for online content (maps/wespons) just splits comunities, really. Only if the content adds completly new gameplay to the game should they charge for it. I agree with something like crackdowns DLC charges, but extra songs for Guitar Hero and charging for Maps is robbery IMO.

  • zuljin #32 5 years ago

    @smelly
    "ERm.. i dont get this. IF they're giving it away for free, why not just stick it on the disc?"
    Just because its free doesn't mean its ready at time of release. They may just had a feature lockdown, anything new will come in a downloadable.

    @Mr_Brown
    "This is how it should be. You pay for the product, so you should have access to all content for no extra charge. Especially if it involves online play. Charging for online content (maps/wespons) just splits comunities, really. Only if the content adds completly new gameplay to the game should they charge for it. I agree with something like crackdowns DLC charges, but extra songs for Guitar Hero and charging for Maps is robbery IMO."

    I agree that it splits communities, but I prefer to have charged downloadables. Makes me feel that I only pay for what I use. If a map pack comes out after I'm bored of the game, then my £40 pounds for the disc contributed to that. For things like Singstar/Guitar Hero, I think its perfect, my taste in music is fairly different to the discs out there, but I wouldn't want everyone to have to buy those...

  • kangarootoo #33 5 years ago

    @Mr_Brown

    I'm not sure I really see the difference when it comes to the type of content in question. I do agree that some charagable content can cause problems when you try to play online with your friends, but I'm not sure that is the only thing to consider.

    The way I see it is a bit more clinical.

    I see a game, I decide whether it seems value for money, and if it is I buy it.

    Further down the path they release extra content. Now regardless of whether it is extra game modes or extra tracks for GH, someone had to be paid to make it.

    If that costs was factored into the original costings then I might get the extra content for free. But if it cost extra money to make I should readily expect to have to pay extra money to get it.

    Someone made the car comparison earlier and that is a good example. If those 19inch alloy wheels weren't factored into the list price of the basic car, you should probably expect to pay extra if you want them.

    In the specific case of music games, extra tracks should absolutely be chargeable as that is what makes the system expandable. If GH, or Singstar, or whatever made new tracks free as a rule it wouldn't be long before they stopped making them as they can't afford to just give stuff away.

    I think the pricing on the Gh tracks was off the mark, but the concept is fine in my eyes.


    Like I said, I see these comments from Valve as just PR. You are always paying for the content. They won't give it away for free. The only difference is when you get it, how it turns up, and whether you have a choice as to whether you pay for it (in the case of Valve, and putting negative spin on the same thing, you don't have a choice as to whether you pay for it).

    If I were feeling even more cynical about what Valve said, what he said in the interview was that the multiplayer game measn the other players provide the content. So its not like they are actually giving you anything extra for free. They are simply saying (in this context) that they don't charge you for the content because they aren't the one providing it.

    Its all just spin.
    Edited by 1 at 22/05/07 @ 16:49

  • Ihya #34 5 years ago

    Good for Valve and good for us...

  • muftak #35 5 years ago

    "See that Motorstorm developers. :)"

    i know this comment was ment to enrage people but please STFU

  • Overlush #36 5 years ago

    "Actually, advertising is a form of charging, so I call BS on this statement by Valve"

    Oh do shut up, child. Are WE paying for these adverts?

  • Grobi #37 5 years ago

    I do agree that content should be free, but I don't really agree with advertisements within games. Sure, you recieve more money but it also means the players (i.e. you and me) have to put up with even more advertising even in our spare time plus advertisers would have more say what goes in and what is taken out of the game. Its a sad thing, but it might be the only way for games to go looking at the cost it takes to make one nowadays.

    I suppose downloadable content was to be charged for the communities could just make their own new content, unless they charge for the tools of course...

  • davisorle #38 5 years ago

    Let's see how much they stick to it. I meen, free is always good not that I wouldn't pay for some really good expansion of a game but just for a couple of maps it's getting tiring....

    ( out of topic but... Did you see the Serious Sam 3 engine? I still don't see it on Eurogamer but that shit looks sweet! )

  • Overlush #39 5 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "what he said in the interview was that the multiplayer game measn the other players provide the content. So its not like they are actually giving you anything extra for free"

    WTF? Picking for picking's sake or WHAT!?

    In a MP game the players provide content by the way in which they respond to other online users and theroefore sustain and evolve the experience. He was saying that if the game is good enough to begin with, devs don't NEED to nickel and dime to 'extend' lifespan, because the human factor will do it naturally.

    A MAJOR player in the games industry poo-poos paid DLC and you bitch?

    Sheesh dude, relax!

    Edited by 1 at 22/05/07 @ 18:47

  • smelly #40 5 years ago

    >i know this comment was ment to enrage people but please STFU

    What did he say wrong?

  • DUFFKING #41 5 years ago

    Does this mean i get episode 3 for free?

    :)

  • Peew971 #42 5 years ago

    Stop comparing Valve and Epic on this... MS is the publisher for GOW so it was stupid for Epic to make these claims without checking with the publisher. MS won't publish these games, so Valve can give free DLC if they want.

  • dllord #43 5 years ago

    Valve won't charge but M$ will!

  • zendragon #44 5 years ago

    Not that I'm complaining, but so many valve news, does eurogamer have a n exclusive deal with them or something?

    Epic wanted to release free stuff for consoles too...

  • RedPanda #45 5 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:31:59 28-01-2012

  • Royal Fool #46 5 years ago

    One more reason why Valve rocks so damn hard.

  • Steroyd #47 5 years ago

    WTF is this ****?

    Nice Spin Valve user created content you won't charge naturally but i bet stuff you make yourselves *cough* HL2 Ep2 you'd charge us right?

  • dudefella #48 5 years ago

    You expect them to give away the HL episodes for free?

    Twat

  • Tomo #49 5 years ago

    Heart at Valve.

  • kangarootoo #50 5 years ago

    @Overlush

    "Sheesh dude, relax!"

    I think you must have missed the bit where I said "If I were feeling even more cynical".

    To suppose out loud about these things is not to lose any sleep over it. I was just playing devil's advocate to all the gushing going on the thread in response to Valve not really saying anything of substance.

    Like I said in my earlier post, they don't nickel and dime you in this instance because that isn't the way they make their profits on this particular title. They still make their profits though in the way that suits them best. And as I said before they aren't giving you anything for free. AND as someone else pointed out they charging players for episodes 1 and 2 (which I think they absolutely should do, as they are extras, and I agree with paying for extras).

    My point is that paying for extras is not inherrently wrong. And Valve don't even think so themselves. Valve were just spinning to suit the PR around their current title.

    I just have an issue with spin being viewed as anything other than what it is, regardless of the subject in question or how great the person is who is speaking about it (and I do very much respect Valve for what they have done for game dev and gamers).

    If either of us needs to relax, I might suggest, its not me. :)

  • Overlush #51 5 years ago

    "My point is that paying for extras is not inherrently wrong. And Valve don't even think so themselves. Valve were just spinning to suit the PR around their current title."

    Yes it is. No they don't. No they weren't.

    What is an extra? Extra skins for your character or a 5+ hour long standalone adventure that took months to develop? They disagree with nickel and diming and have neither created nor charged for throwaway 'trinkets' as is the current trend.

    They create AAA titles that you pay once for and they're about to launch the most amazingly packed and superbly priced FPS bundle in the history of gaming.

    Embrace their honesty and just cause my child.