Please no paid cosmetic DLC

I do have to agree with XombieMike that the "13 Free DLC" framing was entirely a marketing move. It sounds better than, "planned content withheld", which is in essence what was done. The core story mode of the game was pushed out to get a release. I couldn't tell you whether it was due to concern with the unrest that was growing over delays and a lack of concrete release date, or due to going over budget and needing to start bringing in the sales numbers so that they could afford to finish the project, but that's definitely what happened. There's signs that suggest things were cut to get the product in a saleable state by a deadline. Saying that they're offering a lot of DLC for free just sounds better than saying that they released the game before all the planned content was finished.

...and despite the lack of openness, there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with them putting a marketing spin on things, nor with looking for a way to capitalize on the success of what's being called one of the best Kickstarter games of all time. However, if they end up burning the good will that their smart marketing has garnered, that is a problem. Being able to accurately convey to them what the community finds perfectly acceptable, totally unacceptable, and divisive is important to maintaining that good will, and not becoming the company that made something great, and then blew it while trying to make more money. So I think that even the most rude comments in this thread have their place, and hope that Question and others on the development side are paying close attention to people's reactions. Over half of the community seems to be against this DLC, and I see a number of people (myself included) saying that even if they're willing to make one purchase, they wouldn't be happy with it...or at least not without some serious restructuring of how things would work.

Yeah 505 has been very good at that. Anybody who thought that the game was going to look bad without everybody complaining about pre-alpha demo graphics was a fool. The game was more than likely *always* going to look as good as it does currently. 505 just spun it up into a nice trailer that everybody loved.

Like, they're *really* good at marketing. Which is why I really am not looking forward to (probably) voicing valid complaints about up and coming new modes only to be shouted down with "WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT FREE DLC?!?"

Huh, my bad on that then.

It's great that our post and poll was used to show demand for certain costumes. It shows we actually still have a voice on the forums. Maybe this very thread and poll can also help inform the team.

As for backers not paying for it just because we recommended it first, I can see where you are coming from on that, but I kinda don't want to agree. Even though I personally wouldn't be willing to pay for cosmetic DLC, that work needs to be funded, right?

This is a tricky thread because it's titled "Please no paid cosmetic DLC" which I don't agree with. People can have their opinion on if they want to pay for DLC or not. That's up to them. This is a valid thread however, because it is a reaction from not having an option to say that the aren't willing to pay for cosmetic DLC. For that reason I'm interested in this thread.

Oh it's perfectly possible to change a title, but I'm certainly not going to ask you to or change it by force. It's fine. In hindsight I should have guided that the poll should be for "Would you pay for cosmetic Bloodstained DLC" not should there be any at all.

It's fine though. It's been an interesting discussion.

Also, the results do speak sorta for both questions. Things are often more deep than just a yes or no vote on something, and this discussion is proof of that.

I didn't say backers shouldn't pay for it and if it seemed like I was suggesting that, I'm not. I'm more pointing out the cash grab feeling that I, personally, felt reading the survey more than anything. As far as the list goes, to put it bluntly, it feels like they stole those ideas from all of us here, without acknowledgement and are now trying to make more cash off of those ideas as if they were their own.

Something I just thought about adding that might be important: the way Angel introduces the idea sounds probably to many like a flippant and off-hand remark about the idea - like it's a matter of course and light conversation. I think his intention was rather to be upfront and candid about it instead of the "of course lol" way it could be taken. See what I mean here:

"Although the vast majority of the extra stuff we want to make is free, we also have to make some money to be able to do that lol. More moneyz = more tasty free DLC. "

That's probably the best section for what I mean and he does this often. Casual language and smiley faces, but instead of the surface level of being sneaky and pulling the wool over your eyes, that's just the direct, honest, friendly (intended) way he communicates. I think especially if English is someone's second language, it can be hard to pick up on something like that? I think one main reason he talks like this is that he doesn't want to sound corporate and dump a bunch of disclaimer language on us, but remain honest and friendly about what they're doing while not talking down. I feel like there might be a better way to explain what I mean, but hopefully you guys get it.

I'm a huge fan of this communication style, although I don't always agree with him. As someone who's worked in law and administration, I grow tired of all the guarded language obscured behind impenetrable layers of corporate disclaimers. It's very refreshing to see a company simply adopt the "okay guys, here's the deal..." style.

I am explicitly not saying that, and was very clear on that point.

What I am saying is that the timing sends a poor message, and given that balance on these items was already what I believe to be a high area of concern, it is all the more reason for them to be making sure these item packs are not going to serve as a way to buy power, so as to avoid giving that impression.