Xbox 360 Owners to Pay $7 for L4D DLC that PC Gamers Get For Free

Usually, it’s the PC crowd that gets dissed by game publishers. But in the case at hand Valve is doing right by computer gamers while Microsoft seems intent upon squeezing the last nickel out of Xbox 360 owners.

At issue is Crash Course,  a bit of DLC for the popular zombie shooter Left 4 Dead. Valve, which doesn’t charge for DLC, plans to give Crash Course away to PC players. Meanwhile MS will be nicking 360 gamers $7 for the download.

Not that he has any explaining to do (although MS does), but Valve’s Chet Faliszek told Eurogamer why it’s happening this way:

We own our platform, Steam. Microsoft owns their platform. They wanted to make sure there’s an economy of value there…

Via: The Consumerist

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. GrimCW says:

    what were these dramatic changes? a medic in GRAW2, the sprint in R6V2?

    those are minor changes worth an expansion packs level of add-ons. New weapons are also expansion pack grade.

    R6V2 isn’t even a sequel, its a tie in. Yet another Expansion queue.

    GRAW 2 was a sequel, but a deliberate unfinished story sequel.

    that aside they tweaked the gameplay and graphics engine. again, signs of an expansion pack.

    as for the HL2 episodes, their considered "episodic content" or more commonly called "shorter individual full games", much like the wallace and Gromit games, or Sam and Max.

    each one finishes its own mini story arc, but the next episode just continues without actually attaching directly.

    the HL2 eps are a neat twist in they each end, but the story links fully right back to the original game, despite seperate tales twisted between them.

    Halo 3 was way to short, even compared to its own predacessors, it was hardly a full game.




  2. djnforce9 says:

    Yup. Good example of that was the recently released F.E.A.R 2 DLC:


    Steam/Valve put F.E.A.R 2 at a 25% discount so that if you bought it with the DLC, it would end up at the original price again before the discount. Rather clever idea.

  3. Monte says:

    valve’s got themselves all backwards. Episodes are what they should be releasing within a year of the previous game, where as sequels are supposed to come several years later…

  4. DarkSaber says:

    Speaking of HL2. WHERE. THE. F**K. is episode 3. I thought one of the 3 reasons for making the expansion episodic was that the releases would be quicker!


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  5. Austin_Lewis says:

    GRAW 2 was not an expansion, nor was Vegas 2.  Both brought dramatic changes to the engine.  Both brought new weapons to the table.  And Vegas 2 added the option to sprint

    And the half life episodes are labeled as expansions, so I don’t see the problem.  They’re not trying to pass them off as full games.

  6. DarkSaber says:

    I remember when 6 hours was the length of the expansion, not the main game.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  7. Monte says:

    heh, i always felt that Halo 3’s campaign mode was WAY too short for a full game; it gets old fairly quickly… 12+ hours (Halo 3 + Halo ODST) sounds a bit more like it… For me, Halo ODST’s campaign is giving Halo 3 the longer campaign mode it really needs; so ya, feels more like an expansion to me

    Which is how i feel for L4D2… i mean I can enjoy L4D as it is, but will not keep me from thinking that it should have had more campaigns (particularly more variety as the ones the have seem to feel the same), melee weapons, and a few more special zombies to feel "complete"… 

  8. chadachada321 says:

    To be fair…Halo 3 ODST is expected to be about a 6 hour campaign, pretty much the same length as Halo 3. And ODST has firefight mode AND every map for multiplayer (including some new ones if I remember correctly). Over $20 in DLC maps, a 6 hour campaign, firefight mode…I mean it’s pretty close to being a full game.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  9. chadachada321 says:

    Oh. The XBLA version had Portal along with some bonus levels.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  10. GrimCW says:

    TBH i wish that any and all companies would stop making shoddy "sequels" and start just labeling them what they are, Expansions. i’m prob gonna get flak for this but here goes anywho.

    the Half Life 2 "Episodes".. expansions. at least priced so too.

    Halo 3 ODST = expansion at full price

    GRAW 2 (either version) = expansion at full price

    Rainbow Six Vegas 2 = expansion at full price

    CoD WaW was a really nice WW2 mod of CoD4 IMHO, but still felt more like some lengthy expansion and mod. Even the new wolfenstein, it literally feels like they just made a CoD with the occult twists of RTCW. it plays, feels, and runs far to similar to the other games using that game engine atm. there was a time when they tried to at least shed the feel of the game that first used the engine, but lately its like that concept of a "new game" means copying everything from the previous game, and barely expanding into new territory.

    theres just so many games not even being tried with, they add maybe a few minor alterations, then slap a new shorter than last campaign into the mix and sell it as a new game. CoD 4 is a good example TBH, it uses the same dated engine of CoD2, but with new lighting and some AI tweaks (not to mention 5 times the infinite spawning enemies until the player specifically moves up) that aside the MP was the only thing really toyed around with. Then CoD WaW took that, and made CoD4 meets DoD with more gore…. lotsa change there.


    and CoD6 MW2 is looking to be yet another expansion sequel with minor changes to keep the masses in line with it, but enough tiny tweaks that’ll draw everyone into buying it anyways.

    a good new game off another engine would be something like Batman, UE3, but shows little to no sign of the engines original gameplay design, even the GoW games that use it don’t reveal it as the FPS engine it was made to be. (GoW to GoW2 being another expansion like sequel)

    this is why i shop used nowadays though when buying console titles…

    they’re to busy pushing out fast games and not spending enough time to make quality games.. tis the fall of gaming truly now that the markets dominated by snappy PR shots and Jocks that’ll actually believe the new game is "so awesome!" when it barely expands the gameplay of the previous titles or others using the same engine!

    so why should i pay full price for expansion packs? let alone pay support to these companies?


  11. KayleL says:

    I wish VALVe made L4D2 a DLC. Not necessary the free type, but the $40-50 extension type. That may help stop with the spliting community part.

  12. Shahab says:

    This is why you people need to put away the xbox and hop on your PC for gaming. Definitely a superior platform.

  13. MaskedPixelante says:

    According to what I heard, Still Alive was just a retail version of The Flash Version Map Pack, which was a free, fan-made download for the PC version.

    —You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

  14. GrimCW says:

    and this my friends is why i’ve always been, and will always be a PC gamer 🙂

    we don’t adhere to shoddy DLC payments so well 🙂 most will probably pirate the content, and others like myself would just ignore it until it came packaged with more than just this and that.

    not the true gamers anywho, these new "casual" players seem to love their microtransactions though… sad really… very sad.

    its actually odd to see so many DLC things costing money on the PC as it is, but more oft than not PC users get it free at some point or another, either with the game, or as a promo/price removal.

  15. jedidethfreak says:

    I don’t have Portal, and never have, but I’ve downloaded Still Alive from Steam for free.

    He was dead when I got here.

  16. chadachada321 says:

    Are you sure that Portal: Still Alive was free for Steam? The extra levels that aren’t in Portal, maybe, but they still have to have payed for Portal. Portal: Still Alive on XBLA was Portal AND the extra levels, and cost like $10-15.

    Unless they gave away Portal and the extra levels both for free on Steam…

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  17. DarkSaber says:

    The fact that Microsoft have done this before with free Valve content does make it a non-issue.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  18. MaskedPixelante says:

    I don’t really see a problem. After all, people bought Portal: Still Alive, and that was just a free DLC pack for the PC version.

    —You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

  19. Wormdundee says:

    I would like to know your source for this. But of course I already know that your source is straight out your ass. Valve has never released sales numbers for anything on Steam and I doubt they ever will. Any numbers you see are guesses.

  20. DarkSaber says:

    But you said the PC had "too few" consumers, which is a different kettle of chips from "The XBox has more consumers"


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  21. olstar18 says:

    I think I have just come up with your theme song.

    Whine Whine whine whine BIIIIIIIIIITCH BIIIIIIIIIITCH ball sqwall BIIIIIITCH


    Come on stop complaining about them coming up with a new game. Havn’t you noticed that they are not just releasing an expansion but releasing a full sequal. Just becuase yiou can’t look back at valves history at release quality sequals does not give you the right to keep beating this dead horse.

  22. djnforce9 says:

    Many of the things promised when the original Left 4 Dead was released (Gabe’s statement can be read here: was instead put into Left 4 Dead 2. The original Left 4 Dead is a very great game but as many have said, its content is very limited in its current state. It’s those unfufilled promises that make this sequal feel like an elaborate expansion pack. However, I think what most were hoping for is for Left 4 Dead to receive the same Treatement as Team Fortress 2 (it has more than doubled in content since its original release).

    Personally, I will still be buying Left 4 Dead 2. It would be very nice if Left 4 Dead 2 player can join in on original Left 4 Dead campaigns so that the old game does not die out while everyone is playing the new maps.

  23. jedidethfreak says:

    No.  I said it was leftover levels from the development of L4D.  Where in that phrase is anything about DLC?

    He was dead when I got here.

  24. Erik says:

    " I would then go on to suggest that what’s in L4D2 was never intended as DLC for L4D1."

    Except for the first sentence when you said it was.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  25. Erik says:

    Good.  We don’t have enough entitlement around here.  We have far too many children here who thinks that they should be seen and not heard.  Nothing has ever been accomplished by sitting on your laurels and just accepting things.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  26. Erik says:

    You missed the point that no one gives a damn about Micro"$"oft charging for this content.  You attempted to shoehorn this into something that the people who have a problem with the whole L4D disaster care about, which they do not.

    The only person who seems to think that anyone thinks that this is a problem is you.  Therefore you are still missing the point.

    Of course you are also a troll, and I’m likely falling for your stupid shit to get responses.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  27. jedidethfreak says:

    Those levels weren’t intended as DLC either.  They were created for the original game’s release, but were culled, as it was felt they detracted from what they wanted to do with the game, much like movie directors cut scenes from movies that just don’t give the movie the "feel" they were going for.  Now, someone may have thought about doing DLC, but that wouldn’t make any sense either, because they were pulled for taking away from that game.  DLC is generally supposed to add to a game, not take from it.  However, they were able to change and adapt those levels to form the basis of L4D2.

    At least, this is what I took from the Valve interviews at E3.

    He was dead when I got here.

  28. Papa Midnight says:

    That was my error. I mis-read. You are correct. Indeed, Left 4 Dead 2 is not DLC. It was never designed as such. It was rebuilt completely from the ground up: A new director, a revamped engine, etc.; it’s just an entirely different game.

    Papa Midnight

  29. Monte says:

    Well i don’t know squat about sports games, but i would ask, how many people still play madden 2008, after picking up madden 2009? Though a bit more realtive, what about FPS with online muliplayer… how many people still played Halo 2 online, once Halo 3 came out? probably nobody since downright everyone moved to halo 3… but ofcourse one of the big differences there would that the two games had several years between them, had signifcant upgrades and people were downright ready to move on… The problem with L4D and L4D2, is that the differences between the games are rather minimal… as such, many players will not be too eager to move on and thus will keep playing the 1st game… the result of this would be that the L4D community would get split between those who are ready to move on, and those who decided to stay behind… And if everyone did move on to L4D2, then L4D would probably begin to die off due to a lack of a community to support.


    As someone who does not own the game but played and loved it and planned on getting it myself, I am not sure on which side of the community i should stand… i mean, if i get L4D, i can play with my friends who have the game… but then i feel like i’ll be missing out on the new content of L4D2… but then i’m not sure if my friends (all or some) will buy the new game as they still have fun with the first… kinda of an annoying spot to be in

    It kinda feels similar to the feeling i got when i finally saved enough money for a playstation, but then found out the PS2 was coming out soon… except with the PS2 i get EVERYTHING the PS1 provided and then some, thus making it easy to decide whether to buy or wait… unlike l4d2, where i’m not sure if my friends will be coming along aswell

     Frankly, i’d be estatic if they did figure out how to make sure L4D1 and L4D2 players could play together, thus eliminating that issue (i vageuly recall hearing something about that, but i could be mistaken and thinking of something else)… i mean if they did that then the only real loss of L4D1 would be when playing offline, and i think L4D thrives more on the online end, via it’s community


    Though y’know i do find it a bit ironic… i mean, Releasing a game one year later is exactly what valve should be doing with half life episodes; while a true blue sequal is meant to be saved for several years later; after the community had grown bored with the first game… Valve got it all backwards

  30. DarkSaber says:

    You mean apart from those levels.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  31. jedidethfreak says:

    Valve said that L4D2 started off as levels for L4D1 that didn’t make it in for whatever reason.  They said this at E3 to all the gaming press after the announcement for L4D2.  I would then go on to suggest that what’s in L4D2 was never intended as DLC for L4D1.

    He was dead when I got here.

  32. chadachada321 says:

    Valve hinted, implied, and I believe even outright stated that new enemies, weapons, and campaigns would be released as DLC for L4D. A whole year later we get 1 campaign, shortly before the release of L4D2. They’re clearly trying to sap money from us at this point, because L4D2 is basically L4D but with new skins and the type of updates that were hinted/implied/stated for L4D, and only a year later.

    We aren’t saying that Valve CAN’T do this, we just think that it’s a pretty greedy thing to do, and a shame because of how nice they usually act. Sadly, I do want to play the game, and do plan on buying it, even if I think that it is definitely not worth $60.

    As for whether or not L4D2 started as DLC: They’re adding new weapons like they said they would for L4D DLC. Same with enemies (that’s the biggy). I think they definitely meant to include a bunch of those features in L4D’s DLC, but then realized that if they did a couple more hours of work they could make a new game and charge lots more money for it. Selfish, yes. Legal, yes. A good business decision? We shall see.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  33. Austin_Lewis says:

    The thing you’re missing is that this whole point was hypothetical anyway.  I don’t believe for a minute that L4D2 started out as DLC, and I think Bennet is just suffering from that entitlement that’s been going around these days.  It’s a game with different characters, different special infected, different weapons (although some old favorites will make a return, supposedly) different maps, and even a differently run ‘director’. 

    What Bennet was saying was the L4D2 was supposed to be DLC for L4D, and that is simply not something that can be proved.  Did the idea maybe start out as one for some DLC?  Perhaps.  But when they took it beyond the concept of something small enough to be an add-on and made it into another game, it can no longer be called, nor traced, to its DLC roots.

  34. DarkSaber says:

    THe point I was responding to missed the point, I corrected them, and you jumped in without engaging the ole neurons saying I was the one missing the point.

    And yes, I’m capable and willing to keep this up all day.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  35. Erik says:

    No.  What I’m saying is if you have an idea that starts out as DLC and evolves into a new game you can’t say that it didn’t start out as DLC.  Such as you stated in your self contradictory statement.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  36. Erik says:

    You, still, are missing the point.  The point you were responding to states that no one cares if they have to pay for content, further no one cares if Valve or Microsoft is the one getting the money.  The comment you were responding to made no issue of if there was a charge or who was making the charge.  Ergo: You missed the point.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  37. JDKJ says:

    No, what I would say is that you can’t have an idea. Period. You ain’t got the wherewithal to be having no ideas.

  38. Austin_Lewis says:

    So, what you’re saying is that I can’t have an idea that starts out maybe as a new level and a new special infected, and then, instead of releasing it, build onto it until it becomes worthy of being a whole new game in of itself?  

    I’m gonna go ahead and disagree, but you can believe whatever you want.

  39. Austin_Lewis says:

    Crash Course is the DLC that’s being released for 7 USD.  I was talking about how Left 4 Dead 2 was not ‘DLC’.  So, you know, that’s some good reading comprehension.  Come on man, I expect better from you.

  40. DarkSaber says:

    No, you missed the point. Quite significantly. This article is NOT about Valve charging $7 for the DLC on XBox, this is about Microsoft charging $7 for Valves DLC that Valve is quite happy to give away for free on PC.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  41. Papa Midnight says:

    Not to mention VALVe announced it as such… I wonder if AL would like the press release. I get them in the mail:




    Crash Course Campaign Due in September


    August 4, 2009 – Valve, creators of best-selling game franchises (such as Half-Life, Portal, Team Fortress, and Counter-Strike) and leading technologies (such as Steam and Source), today announced the next major downloadable content (DLC) update for its co-operative zombie thriller, Left 4 Dead (L4D), the #1 new game title on Xbox 360 and PC in 2008

                Entitled "Crash Course," the latest DLC delivers new single-player, multiplayer and co-operative gameplay to both platforms. Targeted for release in September, "Crash Course" bridges the gap between the end of the "No Mercy" campaign and the beginning of "Death Toll" in the original game, expanding the game universe with new locations, new dialogue from the original cast, and an explosive finale

    While containing both Survival maps and a Co-operative Campaign, the primary goal of "Crash" is to deliver a complete Versus mode experience in just 30 minutes, resulting in a streamlined version of the game’s existing Versus campaigns. A recharge timer for infected teammates has also been added, and item spawn behavior has changed for more balanced gameplay.

    "Since the release of Left 4 Dead last November, the design team has been excited about creating new experiences for this world and allowing players to do the same, by releasing much of our internal toolset, like the Survival Pack and Authoring Tools," said Gabe Newell. "We’re working with the fans toward the ongoing entertainment value of the product."

    Left 4 Dead is an action horror game from Valve that blends the social entertainment experience of multiplayer games such as Counter-Strike and Team Fortress with the dramatic, narrative experience made popular in single player action game classics such as the Half-Life series of games. Released in November of 2008, L4D has earned over 50 industry awards from outlets around the world and sold almost 3 million copies worldwide.

    Left 4 Dead: Crash Course is targeted for release in September and will be available free of charge on the PC and for 560 Gamer points on Xbox Live.

                For more information, please visit


    Looks like DLC to me…

    Papa Midnight

  42. Erik says:

    Your last sentence contradicts itself.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  43. Erik says:

    You, again, missed the point.  No one is really all that upset about having to pay for content.  This is not, despite strawmen set up by immature members here, about entitlement.  There are some people here who really need to grow up.  When you were a child you pretty much had to take whatever was thrown your way because you were a child and your rights and choices were effectivly nill.  But to say that a group of adults need to just act like children by keeping their mouths shut and letting Valve do as they please is really stupid.

    When you were a child if you were served undercooked/burnt food by your mother you had two choices: eat it or get beat.  As an adult if you are served undercooked/burnt food at a restaurant you have every right to send it back to the kitchen.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  44. Austin_Lewis says:

    And how exactly do you know it was ‘supposed to be’ DLC?  It sure looks like a whole new game with whole new special infected, a new class, new weapons, and new maps to me. So, you know, I’m going to suggest that you’re full of shit.  It may have started out as a DLC idea and then evolved into a whole different game, but it isn’t ‘supposed to be DLC’. 

  45. DarkSaber says:

    I actually agree with your concerns there, but in this case it’s about Mircro$oft and not Valve.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  46. jedidethfreak says:

    First of all, it was a joke.  Settle down.

    Second of all, do you have any proof, any proof at all, that L4D2 was SUPPOSED to be DLC for L4D1?  If so, I suggest you tell us what it is, because I’ve never heard this before.  Either that, or GROW UP BECAUSE L4D2 IS COMING AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!

    He was dead when I got here.

  47. JDKJ says:

    And what, pray tell, is the historical precedent upon which you base that expectation? If it truly never rains in Southern California, then why are you carrying around that umbrella?

  48. olstar18 says:

    This isn’t the first time microsuck has forced a price onto dlc that the company making the game intended to be free.

  49. Roh02 says:

    if valve wants to give away their DLC away I dont see how or why microsoft would stop them I mean valve doesnt have to release ANYTHING on the 360 half life 3 included perhapse microsoft might want to be a tad more … accommodating to valve

  50. Ratros says:

    There is some logic behind this, but I still don’t support pirating current gen games. Unless it’s Spore, that’s a whole different matter.


    Downloading older games that are harder to find is just fine, but I think it’s better to support the people who worked on the game.  Then again, I ain’t going to support games that are crap.


    Anyways, this argument amounts to the same one a guy made about people shouldn’t be able to play games if they haven’t given the producers/developers.  We were discussing used games fyi.

    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  51. jedidethfreak says:

    Okay, but if a dealer wouldn’t let you test-drive the car, you’d be arrested and sent to prison for boosting it.

    He was dead when I got here.

  52. chadachada321 says:

    I’m not trying to support THAT guy. If a demo exists, then download that, don’t unnecessarily pirate it. I’m just saying that for the games that DON’T have demos, if I wanted to try it out there’s no other option. I’m not going to buy a car without test driving it, and the same applies here.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  53. jedidethfreak says:

    In this particular case, the pirate was a douche.  As I said, he made such a post in a thread about the demo that he claims didn’t exist.  It does exist.  You can get the demo for the PC version of Arkham Asylum almost anywhere on the internet.  I got mine off Steam, but I actually wouldn’t recommend it.  The demo took almost an hour to download, but only ten minutes to go through.  I’d recommend getting it from somewhere else with faster download speeds than them, if such a place exists.

    He was dead when I got here.

  54. Monte says:

    Ya but that’s YOU… i mean the guy above said he suggested pirated the game because they didn’t release a Demo… could it be that he meant to suggest pirating the game so that he could DEMO it? God forbid… fact is, their are some gamers who DO pirate for that reason; to test the game and nothing more.

  55. DarkSaber says:

    When I pirate a game, it’s not to test it out.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  56. chadachada321 says:

    If I pirate a game to test it out (if they don’t have a demo available), then buy the game if I like it (or mail the company the money if it has Suckurom on it) then I think that is a justifiable reason for piracy. As long as I delete the game if I decide that I don’t want to buy it.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  57. DarkSaber says:

    What an idiot. Either pirate or don’t, but don’t try to freaking JUSTIFY it to anyone.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  58. Zero Beat says:

    That douchebag deserves to be hung upside down from a gargoyle, then have the rope cut by a batarang.


    "That’s not ironic. That’s justice."

  59. jedidethfreak says:

    Like they already do.  On another site, somebody actually rationalized pirating Batman: Arkham Asylum because they didn’t release a demo for it.  Funny thing was, he did so in a thread about the demo.

    He was dead when I got here.

  60. Baruch_S says:

    Not likely. They’ll still expect free stuff and will simply use less-than-legal means of acquiring it.

  61. Austin_Lewis says:

    Sure you do.  I’m sure that someone LD spends way more time studying.  Because, you see, I was in college years ago when the whole ‘Learning Disabled’ craze started, when people who were ‘learning disabled’ started getting extra treatment, from private tutoring to an hour or two more to take a test due to ‘test anxiety’ or some such nonsense.  And I can tell you the vast majority of them didn’t spend ‘more time studying’.  By the way, all the Learning Disabled students I knew had at least 1 job (ranging from ‘sandwich artist’ at Subway to used car salesman to librarian at the local public library).  Then again, most students I went to school with didn’t have parents willing to baby them or pay their way once they got to the age of 18.  This is another one of those negative changes in our society; instead of pushing kids out of the home, parents are letting them stay there indefinitely.

  62. Seiena_Cyrus says:

    Um thank you but I’m 26 years old and a college student…so automatically since I’m full time LD student meaning I spend way more then the average student studying that I’m some kind of child because I don’t have the hours in my day to work? nice…and good for them if they have a target, my town doesn’t, and I don’t have a credit card since I’m not working.

  63. Austin_Lewis says:

    You can buy them in 10 dollar lots at Target and XBoxLive.  So, at most, you need 10 dollars.

    Oh, also, I was assuming that the person in question was an adult, not a child. 

  64. Seiena_Cyrus says:

    You’d be wrong pretty much A) My interenet comes from my family, B) my Xbox 360 was a Christmas Present, C) Same as B, D) My parent’s TV not mine, E) A friend gave me my Live Subscription for my birthday.

    So really no, not everyone can afford the 7 dollars specially since you normally have to buy the points in lots of what a couple thousand or more so really said person has to only find 20 dollars…not a mere 7…

  65. Austin_Lewis says:

    I like to think that if you can afford to A) have internet, B) have an xbox 360, C) Own L4D, which I haven’t seen for less than 45 dollars ANYWHERE yet, D) own a TV, E) have the money to pay for Xbox live, then you should probably be able to find 7 dollars for DLC, even if you have to save up for a month or two. 😛

  66. Monte says:

    Microsoft took a look at the number of RROD, noticed that people still kept on buying their shitty hardware and thus came to conculsion that their fans do not mind burning cash, and thus has moved to milk them for everything their worth… true business mentality… MS can abuse their customers and they will just keep on crawling back

  67. TaoJeannes says:

    Well said. Sooner or later (And I’m thinking sooner) PC users will be persuaded to stop expecting free DLC and will start paying for it like everyone else.

  68. DarkSaber says:

    Yes, you are wrong to assume that, because the 7$ charge is down to Microsoft, not Valve.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  69. MrKlorox says:

    When this was last brought up on another site, I claimed PC users don’t have to pay because Valve knows they simply wouldn’t while 360 users would. I was then called a biased PC fanboy.

    Am I wrong to assume this? It seems to me PC-only gamers are the most demanding of the bunch. Those L4D petetions weren’t signed via XBL after all.

  70. DarkSaber says:

    That’s right Zip, so few consumers that Steam is one of the most successful business models in gaming, enabling Valve to give away their DLC.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  71. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Thats becuse everything costs and or can make money on the 360, on the PC not so much to few consumers on it.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!!

  72. SilverMelee says:

    Well, that’s a shame; us console gamers having to pay for it and all.

    Still, While Valve obviously can’t release it through a patch, if they wanted gamers to have it for free, they could copy what Behemoth did when the new Castle Crashers DLC came out some time ago – buy a bunch of codes that would net you the game for free, and give them to folks who want them (IIRC, to get the code, you had to go to the Behemoth forums and type up "behemothlovesme" or something like that… I don’t remember exactly).

    Obviously, not everyone will be able to get a free code, but it was still pretty cool of them to do that. Valve could do the same if they wanted to.

    — I do more than just play games. I draw, too:

  73. DarkSaber says:

    "They can" being, of course, the main reason.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  74. MrKlorox says:

    Well they did advertise it as coming free later on, well before launch. Same for that Crackdown DLC. But then again didn’t Valve do something similar? Or did they never mention the "free" aspect before release?

  75. DarkSaber says:

    Microsoft only allow patches if they fix what is already in the game, if it adds new content they reject it. (It’s explained a bit more further up the comments.)


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  76. insanejedi says:


    I mean, the Battlefield Bad Company Conquest was free, that wasn’t Microsoft. and Microsoft sure is happy to allow you to download and redownload 1 gig demo’s and 4 gig games over and over again. Why can’t valve just release the DLC in the form of a patch? Patches are pretty big too, I remember Battlefield 2 getting up towards a gig in fixes, I think it’s entirely possible for Valve to fit their campaign on a patch.

    So my point is, are you really sure it’s Microsoft charging for the DLC? Or is it just Valve using Microsoft as a scapegoat for charging the DLC and Microsoft won’t say "We’d be happy to!" because then all those XNA developers go like "Why can’t our stuff be free?" Also, is 7$ really the cost of bandwith of downloading something? Why can’t valve get it down to the lowest number possible if they want to give it for free? 

  77. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Microsoft has rules set up to prevent those situations. Patches cannot add new content to the game only fix things already in the game. If during Microsofts vetting process for patches they find new content being added, they will reject it.

    Microsoft is charging for three reasons:

    1. They have to host the file. Valve hosts teh file on the PC.

    2. They have to pay for the broadband to deliver the file. Valv pays for the broadband for the PC.

    3. They can. Valve can’t do anything about this for the 360.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  78. Bennett Beeny says:

    I’m one of the petitioners.  Our issue was not about free content.  I’ve always been willing to pay for DLC.  The issue is that they are releasing what was supposed to be L4D DLC as a separate game (L4D2) and charging us $60 for it.  This new content will draw players away from L4D and will effectively kill a perfectly good game that Valve promised to support.

    It’s a straw man to say that our issue is all about charging us for DLC.  I expect less ignorance about gaming issues on GP.

  79. Austin_Lewis says:

    We’re entitled to FREE DLC!  I mean, we paid for the game, why can’t we get the extra content free!  LET’S NOT BUY THE NEXT L4D, AND LET’S NOT BUY FROM VALVE EVER AGAIN! Rabble rabble rabble rabble.

    Seriously though, I guess I’ll just pay the 7 bucks.  Not a big deal.

  80. DarkSaber says:



    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  81. MaskedPixelante says:

    Unlike Left 4 Dead 2, the Sniper vs. Spy update, and Hatgate, Valve is not at fault here. This is all Microsoft’s doing, leave Valve alone.

    —You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

Comments are closed.