323 réponses à ce sujet

[MindYerBeak]

Powergamers are into the wrong kind of game genre. DAO isn't a shoot'em'up, it's a game where you take your time, understand the world you live in, interact with, and rob other characters in the game. "I finished the game in 20 hours" is a powergamer quip. They're not roleplayers, playing the game as intended. They don't sneak down backstreets as a roleplayer would, in case there are baddies hiding around the next corner. they just want to toast the nearest baddie that appears and win the game in record time to boost their ego. Aren't I the new kiddie on the block? This isn't what DAO is about, hence the complaints that the game was too short. Play the game as a roleplayer instead of boosting your ego and you'll find the DLC's are not as short as you believe them to be.

[Loredis]

Wholetyouinhere wrote...

I'm nominating downloadable content as the biggest crock of this gaming generation. Used to be I'd buy a game and immediately download whatever add-ons were available. Figured I'd bought this sweet game, so how I could I go wrong buying more of it? Then I actually played the stuff. Ug.

Awakenings is hardly the worst culprit, but it is definitely in line with what we've seen from just about every other developer so far: extremely short and unpolished content costing some unacceptable fraction of the original purchase price. Feels like games cost 20-30% more before you even unwrap them.

It's all so far removed from what was promised/advertised for this "feature". Maybe I'm just imagining things, but didn't they bill DLC as an awesome way for devs to continue and expand their games after release? It sounded great for players - like our favorite games would never end, right?

That's an exaggeration, of course, but you catch my drift. At the very worst, it seemed like a GOOD thing. Sure, some devs would float garbage on occasion, and they'd be rightly mocked and ridiculed by everyone else... I hoped. Presently? You can count the responsible devs who put actual time and effort into their appropriately-priced DLC on one amateur firework enthusiast's hand.

Long story, short: I'm tired of feeling 100% bilked out of my money by this industry's latest "great" idea, and it pains me that maybe my favorite remaining studio (yes, Bioware) seems to be front of the line. Probably not their fault; this insulting nonsense bears the fingerprints of big publishers. Still, it's disappointing - and I'm done DLing.

Whats Awakenings?

[AlanC9]

nikki191 wrote...

dont they have seperate teams for patching and working on DLC, etc

Depends on how they're organized. But it's generally a mistake to think of DLC work taking resources away from patching. If anything, it works the other way around -- DLC sales are a revenue stream that lets the company keep paying people to work on the game rather than moving them on to the next title. Bio was absolutely explicit about this with NWN1.

[purplesunset]

AlanC9 wrote...


How does DLC change that? It's content for sale. So is the full game.

Hell, if anything, DLC gives a publisher the chance to do stuff it couldn't do in an A-list title. The NWN1 Premium mods went places Bio couldn't go in NWN.

Err...I think you missed the point.

If DLC truly was a way for publishers to add worthwhile, innovative stuff that they couldn't put into the final game, I wouldn't have a problem with that kind of DLC. In reality, though, micro-DLC's of debatable value are the way they do things. I just read up on that Cryptic class DLC debacle and that kind of stuff seems to be par for the course.

NWN also had expansion packs that went well beyond the original game, (although the premium modules were surpassed by some free user-made modules, imo). I don't mind big expansion packs because that actually adds something which is new  and builds upon the base game.  We're not talking about that in this thread though. The kind of DLC the OP has an issue with is something more recent and was highly influenced by the Sims and mmorpg's.

[AlanC9]

purplesunset wrote...


Err...I think you missed the point.

I didn't miss the point, I'm just not buying it. From what I can tell, folks that make DLCs I don't like make games I don't much like either. I can't see any difference.

[ijustwananame1]

I don’t understand the problem people have with DLC.

At the end of the day, DLC costs very little. About the same as a beer
or two. The cost is minimal.

Secondly, DA DLC has, to date, merely been an expansion to the game.
The storylines, while not particularly overarching are consistent with the
game. They’re additional quests, nothing more. Their plot lines are in keeping
with the overall storyline and the lore.

e.g.
The Stone Prisoner: Golems are the main focus for the main quest line
in Orzamar.

Warden’s Keep: Nothing inconsistent. Adds a little more background to the Grey Wardens.

Return to Ostagar: Adds to the storyline of the death of the king and Duncan.

None of that’s out of keeping with the main campaign.

 Thirdly, they’re a way of adding more unique items to the game. These
items aren’t particularly overpowered and have a backstory to them, adding to
the lore and the universe. I know that Duncan’s Dagger was more appealing, in
terms of storyline, than a random dagger bought in a store.

 For example, I play a rogue. Now, the best rogue dagger in the game,
the Thorn of the Dead Gods (bought from the lyrium addled dwarf in Orzamar
Commons) means nothing in terms of storyline. It’s merely something that I
bought after I had saved up enough cash. Duncan’s Dagger on the other hand … it
had history to it and was much more interesting.

 I guess I see it like this:

1.      
The cost is minimal. I can do without a beer of two.

2.      
The duration is ok for the cost. I doubt I’d nurse two beers for two hours.

3.      
It adds to the campaign in terms of quests.

4.      
It adds unique items with history – by “history” I mean that I actually had to go and kill someone / complete a short quest to get it, rather than make an arbitrary purchase.

 Finally, it allows Bioware to keep making money on the game after release which means that patches, updates and future expansions get additional funding.

 I don’t get the problem.

 If you have a problem with it there’s a simple answer: Don’t buy it. However, you’re missing out on gameplay, items and content. You’ll also be waiting for the next release without anything new to do.

Varenus Luckmann wrote...

Drake Sigar wrote...

Immersion. It doesn't make sense roleplay wise. Picture this. There's a guy
following you around the entire world. Through darkspawn infested roads, to
forbidden forests, that guy is always there. If he were in the street, you'd
could walk past him without a second thought. But no, he's in your basecamp.
He's been staring at you for hours. Is he friend? Is he foe?

You have to talk to him. It's the only logical thing to do.

This.

It's just how you magically know that there's someone at "Location X",
that may want to sell you something. Wink wink. Nudge nudge.

How can I possibly know that? Would it really been so hard as to have the
man show up in the camp and give you a quest to go to Warden's Keep after doing
two major plot quests? Would it have been too much to ask for the Stone
Prisoner questgiver to instead be a merchant in Denerim? Would it have been too
much to ask that the questgiver for Return to Ostagar to have been a
prisoner in one of the later dungeons? Would it have been too much to
ask for any of these DLCs to be properly integrated into the game?

Of course not.

Right.

And how are all quest-givers donated in Dragon Age? Exactly the same way.

Saying “The guy in my camp with the big shiny quest symbol above his
head forces me to talk to him”, is exactly the same as saying, “The woman by
the Chantry Board in Denerim/Redcliff etc. forces me to talk to her.”

You walk along the street in, for example, Lothering, and you’ll see
the guy who wants to trap his house, the old woman who wants poultices for the
refugees, the merchant ripping off the locals. They’re all denoted by a
shiny golden symbol above their head. Otherwise, how would you know to talk to
them?

You can chose to ignore the quest givers and you can choose to ignore
the guy standing in your camp.

Talk to him, decide you don’t want the DLC and move on.

Remember, “Just say no”.

filetemon wrote...

Renegade133 wrote...

Geeze i dont know why people are so concerned with DLC PC Games never used to
come with new content until there was a exp pack

and that was a proper expansion pack, well priced and worth your money, not
"alternate costumes pack", "a new weapon and armor" and
"a new multiplayer map".

And in any case it was already in the DVD you purchased waiting to be unlocked.

And none of the DA DLC can be described as "alternate costumes
pack", "a new weapon and armor" and "a new multiplayer
map".

All of them have plot, new locations, new items.

-

As an aside, what would people regard as a “fair” price for DLC?

I Dollar? 2? 3?

Remember that the DLC is comparable to two beers for two(ish) hours play…

Seems to me that people have some sort of sense of entitlement to DLC.
Which would be a very strange concept.

Modifié par ijustwananame1, 01 avril 2010 - 07:33 .

[TheMadCat]

As an aside, what would people regard as a “fair” price for DLC?

 

I Dollar? 2? 3?

 

Remember that the DLC is comparable to two beers for two(ish) hours
play…

 

Seems to me that people have some sort of sense of entitlement to DLC.
Which would be a very strange concept.

Well, my problem is there is no "fair price". You know those two beers and why they cost you that much? A market and competition dicttated that price and created a standard. What dictates DLC prices? The company selling them. We don't know what a "fair price" really is. We may be getting great deals, or we may likely be getting completely hosed. I don't know and you don't know and unless either of us get a job rummaging through EA's budget allocations, revenue sheets, and P&L's pertaining to DLC we will never know. All we can do is take EA's/BioWare's word that it's a fair price, look at the content at hand and make an unedecuated guess on whether it is or not.

[ijustwananame1]

TheMadCat wrote...

Well, my problem is there is no "fair price".

It’s down to the individual.

However, one method of comparison could well be your
enjoyment and how long you enjoy the product for.

Seeing a film at the theatre lasts under 2 hours (in the
majority of cases) and costs you (a lot) more than DA DLC. You can also replay DLC
without paying again.

What’s more reasonably priced?

You know those two beers and why they cost you that
much? A market and competition dicttated that price and created a
standard. What dictates DLC prices? The company selling them.

Sure.

In this case it’s the users of DA that’ll decide the fair
price and therefore form the market.

If you think it’s overpriced, don’t buy it. However, you
have to hope that a lot of people feel the same way. That’s the only way to
influence the market.

If DLC comes a common practice, then it'll be other companies that impact the cost.

Until then, it's all you.

We don't know what a "fair
price" really is. We may be getting great deals, or we may likely be
getting completely hosed. I don't know and you don't know and unless
either of us get a job rummaging through EA's budget allocations, revenue
sheets, and P&L's pertaining to DLC we will never know. All we can do is
take EA's/BioWare's word that it's a fair price, look at the content at hand
and make an unedecuated guess on whether it is or not.

And how is that different from, say, the price of a beer?

Just because the market and competition has dictated a
price, doesn’t mean that you’re getting a bargain. It just means that other
people have determined what you will pay.

Again, and I’m aware you don’t know, but what do you
feel would be a fair price?

I know that, for example, the cost of beer in my local pub,
versus the cost of beer in a high-end London bar are completely different. It’s
down to the individual. However, it’s the same product they’re buying. So who’s
being ripped off? Answer: Nobody.

And, I’d be amazed if it was worth the money for Bioware to
make DLC for much less than they do now. i.e. that two beer’s price.

… Though, thinking about it, it’s more like 1 beer if you
live in London / New York…

Modifié par ijustwananame1, 01 avril 2010 - 08:10 .

[TheMadCat]

It’s down to the individual.

However, one method of comparison could well be your
enjoyment and how long you enjoy the product for.

Seeing a film at the theatre lasts under 2 hours (in the
majority of cases) and costs you (a lot) more than DA DLC. You can also replay DLC
without paying again.

What’s more reasonably priced?

No, comparisons to anything except to immediate competitors are completely useless.  What does a movie and a DLC have in common? Seriously what makes them a valid comparison? Let's remember it costs a company 300x more to produce a movie than it takes for a company to produce a little piece of DLC. Do you think the price shouldn't reflect that one bit?

Sure.

In this case it’s the users of DA that’ll decide the fair
price and therefore form the market.

If you think it’s overpriced, don’t buy it. However, you
have to hope that a lot of people feel the same way. That’s the only way to
influence the market.

If DLC comes a common practice, then it'll be other companies that impact the cost.

Until then, it's all you.

On the first part, kind of. The notion that consumers set any sort of market value for anything is false. Consumers want goods for impratical prices, if companies let consumers set the market they'd be out of business. Now they can adjust as they see fit, but in no way is EA forced to adjust because there is no competition. We have no choices here, it's either this or nothing and EA  can use that to their advantage.

The second part is not true, as examples Bethesda's DLC pricing will have no influence over EA's DLC pricing because they're not competiting for the same consumers. One has zero bearing over the other, aside from being a more valid compairson than movies and beer.

And how is that different from, say, the price of a beer?

Just because the market and competition has dictated a
price, doesn’t mean that you’re getting a bargain. It just means that other
people have determined what you will pay.

It's different because the people setting the price are competiting against each other for the same consumer, and since consumers want for nothing the closer you are to the bottom the more sales you are likely to generate. This pretty much means you're getting the best bargain these companies can ultimately afford. In the case of DLC there is no one competiting for Dragon Age DLC, so EA simply has to find the peak price that will allow them to reach their target. Could we be getting a bargain, sure. But that doesn't equate to the sure thing that a competitive market creates.

Again, and I’m aware you don’t know, but what do you
feel would be a fair price?

I know that, for example, the cost of beer in my local pub,
versus the cost of beer in a high-end London bar are completely different. It’s
down to the individual. However, it’s the same product they’re buying. So who’s
being ripped off? Answer: Nobody.

And, I’d be amazed if it was worth the money for Bioware to
make DLC for much less than they do now. i.e. that two beer’s price.

Value is incredibly subjective no doubt and quality and name have a strong influence on ones level of tolerance, ala the premium tax. The owners of your local pub aren't looking for the same customers as a high end bar in London, they'll take them sure but it's not what they're targeting and banking on.

Again, I don't know what a "fair price" is, you brought up that term. I know what I'd personally be willing to pay for say a WK style DLC, but I don't know if I'm shortchanging the developers, if they're completely ripping me off, or if it's somewhere down the middle. The only word we have to go by on whether it's reasonably priced is EA's, there is no one else to say we can easily do the same thing and charge half the price. So ultimately yes, it's up to the individual as you said and everything will be determined by each individual and they'll all have their own opinions which will have minimal reflection in future pricing. The argument I'm trying to make is that DLC market isn't tilted in favor of the consumer and what this most likely means is we're not getting quite the deal we could be getting. If their next DLC is as long and deep as WK marked it with a $20 tag and it generates enough sales to meet their target than the argument could be made is was a good value and reasonably priced since people bought it.

[ModerateOsprey]

Good to see this discussion is still going on...Looks like it is the turn of us folk on the other side of the pond.
I have just caught up with the thread and some more interesting points have been put forth. However, some have simply been regurgitated with no real conclusions. I have read back over the whole thread and there are many points I would have liked to individually replied to but that would become almost a full day's project to pick out the different bits and piece together. I also revisited the post that started this thread and the OP has not posted since then.

I would like to propose we start a new thread in a suitable spoilers location on the topic of DLC that the keeps the theme of 'this generation' and has a less emotive title. It would also be good we could nail down some points of where there is agreement and the areas where there certainly isn't.

I'll start, everyone agrees:

We care about these latest BW games and have invested money in them for our entertainment.
We want to see these games extended, added to, expanded, et al. And don't mind paying a fair price to do so.

There seems to be some disagreement on:

Delivery mechanism - physical media vs digital delivery
Corporate motives.
Other recurring concepts are:
Measurement of value - game time vs seeing a film vs drinking a beer vs shoe shopping (for me, beer is usually involved in all these ).
Nature of the content itself.

Please do add..amend..

If you think my proposal is pants, then, hey that's cool. 

Modifié par ModerateOsprey, 01 avril 2010 - 09:49 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Some of my reasons for not buying Awakening are that it isn't compatible with older DLCs and patches and that DA:O without Awakening is most likely not compatible with future DLCs and patches. My main reasons are that Awakening ignores my player character's past and cuts the game off from Fereleden. A minor gripe with the game in general is that ending the game should not close down any areas in Ferelden. It prevents doing unfinished quests and limits the usefulness of mods and DLCs. So, because I am not buying Awakening I fear that I will be left out when it comes to future patches and DLCs and thus there is a chance that DA:O has been abandoned by BioWare. I have not seen any signs that tell me otherwise, but maybe I have missed that.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 avril 2010 - 11:01 .

[Wholetyouinhere]

Going to address some of the predictable, apologist responses.

"You don't have to buy it." - This is a completely pointless statement on nearly any discussion forum. It's the first stop on a slippery slope that ends with no one talking about anything, ever. It's a painfully obvious non-starter. I'm not writing about a utility monopoly here. I'm fully aware that it is my responsibility to vote with my money, and I intend to do so. My post was intended to convey *why* my stance changed as well as my disappointment in the DLC feature overall.

"You can't expect DLC to match the polish/length of the original product." - 100% true... in the event of *free* DLC. If they charge for the content, it should necessarily provide content commensurate with price. Further, the idea that I should not base any "cost vs. entertainment" expecations on the standard created by the original product is nonsense. What metric should I be using to judge DLC? It's still an "I give you money, you give me game" transaction with the same company that sold me the base game, right? Why in the world would I embrace this means of content distribution if I'm also supposed to adopt alternate and frankly lesser standards?

"It's a business." - Another pointless rebuttal. You honestly think I'm not fully conscious of this? I'm sure DLC makes a truck load for these companies. In fact, that's a huge part of the problem: the cost/benefit ratio benefits EA to an absolutely insulting degree. They spend loads on the game, I'm sure. If it's any good, they typically recoup that investment on, you know, sales. But the lame add-ons for $5-10-15 (or whatever) a pop come off as incredibly exploitative. You're counting on customer brand/game loyalty for a lot of automatic downloads that probably wouldn't happen if people were more cognisant of the limited product. I imagine they're also expecting DLC profits to cover losses on other projects - projects that frequently suck and deserve to lose money. Really, this argument is about qualification. It's not just "business"; it's "insulting/exploitive business". Be specific/accurate if you're going to defend something this stupid.

Anyways, the thread wasn't specific to DAA, necessarily. EA is definitely at the forefront of this "feature" abuse (as I'm going to call it), but a lot of these responses are missing the broader point, which is borderline infuriating because I put it right in the subject heading. DLC, as a new feature of this console generation, had promise. They talked up much of that promise. It's played out more like a complete money-making scheme. That sucks. The end.

Modifié par Wholetyouinhere, 01 avril 2010 - 12:53 .

[frayjog]

I think it's hilarious that people actually think DAO's DLC was produced after the original game. All of the DLC content existed before DAO was released. It was not included in the game so that EA could charge everyone more money. Does anyone honestly think this stuff isn't planned out well ahead of time by the publisher?

[Stormbringer3]

I really dislike DLC. I live in a dial-up only part of the country. Even though I want to do a limited number of DLC's for this game, I'm not able to log on to the server. EA tech support told me that they did not support dial-up.

[RurouniSaiya-jin]

frayjog wrote...

I think it's hilarious that people actually think DAO's DLC was produced after the original game. All of the DLC content existed before DAO was released. It was not included in the game so that EA could charge everyone more money. Does anyone honestly think this stuff isn't planned out well ahead of time by the publisher?

Yup. That's why we got Return to Ostagar on time this holiday season. Because it was "done" before hand.

Is some DLC finished before hand? Yes but nothing that would've been in DA:O even if they decided to have no DLC at all for DA:O. The problem here is , again, people seem to have little to no knowledge about game/software development as a whole and rather than acquire this knowledge, they've just skipped to accusing Bioware/EA of trying to rip them off. Someone who has knowledge about these things would easily be able to understand and accept why Shale and Warden's Keep are DLC. Shale was cut when they feature locked the game and then was completed and reintroduced into the game using DLC by the DLC team. If they hadn't done this, he would've just remained cut and unfinished. Once feature lock occurs in software/game development, no new content can be put into the game/piece of software in question. Warden's Keep was made during the long extended time of polishing, bug fixing and balance tweaking by the DLC team as content for the Digital Deluxe Edition and made available to everyone else at a price.

[Shallina]

Bring down the sky wasn't a crock. It was acttually a very good DLC. But I must admit I didn't bother with any of the other DLC from Bioware.

[the_one_54321]

Amazing how quickly concepts recycle. Most of what's been said in the last page was already talked about 3-5 pages ago. Have a read.

[ijustwananame1]

[quote]TheMadCat wrote...

No, comparisons to anything except to immediate competitors are completely
useless. [/quote]

In your opinion, not in mine.

 

A computer game is merely a form of entertainment and, as you’ve said,
there isn’t another immediately obvious comparison to Bioware’s DLC.

 

As a result, it’s impossible to say “this is too expensive”, as there’s
nothing to compare it to.

[quote]What does a movie and a DLC have in common? Seriously
what makes them a valid comparison?[/quote]

Both entertain me for roughly the same time.

[quote]Let's remember it costs a company 300x more to produce a movie
than it takes for a company to produce a little piece of DLC. Do you think the
price shouldn't reflect that one bit? [/quote]

Sure. However, your average movie will also attract larger audiences
and will benefit from DVD sales, sound tracks, merchandise, promotional tie-ins,
etc.. The income streams for a Hollywood movie are myriad when compared to DLC.

[quote] On the first part, kind of. The notion that consumers set any
sort of market value for anything is false.[/quote]

I disagree. The clamour for cheaper products leads the companies to
produce said product.

[quote] Consumers want goods for impratical prices,[/quote]

No, consumers want products for fair prices, there’s a difference. In
case of DLC, that price is subjective.

[quote] if companies let consumers set the market they'd be out of
business. Now they can adjust as they see fit, but in no way is EA forced to
adjust because there is no competition. We have no choices here, it's either
this or nothing and EA can use that to their advantage.[/quote]

You do have a choice.

 

You either abstain from your two beers, or you don’t buy it.

 

Simple.

 

If enough people don’t buy it, EA will either lower the cost, or stop
making DLC.

[quote]The second part is not true, as examples Bethesda's DLC pricing
will have no influence over EA's DLC pricing because they're not
competiting for the same consumers. One has zero bearing over the other, [/quote]

It does, because, across the industry, other companies and the fans of
those companies will be watching the developments, be they RPG-makers or not.

[quote]aside from being a more valid compairson than movies and beer.[/quote]

It’s perfectly valid to me. My equation regarding the purchase of the
DLC was “What could I buy with the same money?”

 

That it wasn’t your motivation doesn’t make it invalid.

[quote] It's different because the people setting the price are competiting
against each other for the same consumer, and since consumers want for nothing
the closer you are to the bottom the more sales you are likely to generate.
This pretty much means you're getting the best bargain these companies can
ultimately afford. In the case of DLC there is no one competiting for Dragon
Age DLC, so EA simply has to find the peak price that will allow them to
reach their target. Could we be getting a bargain, sure. But that doesn't
equate to the sure thing that a competitive market creates.[/quote]

Every product is competing against every other product. If it’s a form
of entertainment, then yes, EA is competing against my love of the latest
Jennifer Aniston rom-com (yes, that is a joke).

 

And again, you’re assuming that customers all want something for
nothing. That’s certainly not the case with me. I’m perfectly willing to pay a
fair price. That fair price is determined by: The Cost of DAO DLC vs. The Cost
of Two Beers at My Local Bar.

 

As you say, EA has to find the peak price – i.e. the price people are
willing to pay. The key word there is willing.

 

If people aren’t willing to pay, then that price will either drop, or
EA will cease production of DLC. If there is no money in it, they will not do
it.

[quote] Value is incredibly subjective no doubt and quality and name
have a strong influence on ones level of tolerance, ala the premium tax.[/quote]

Correct. And the very fact that you’re on the DA page of Bioware’s
forum suggests that they’ve got you, hook, line and sinker. As they have me.

 

Question: Have you bought any DLC, and, if you have, what are your
thoughts on it?

[quote]Again, I don't know what a "fair price" is, you
brought up that term.[/quote]

But you can’t complain about pricing without knowing what you’re aiming
for. Like you said, value is subjective. The question is, how much will you
pay to entertain yourself for two hours. In my case, the DLC is a no-brainer.

[quote]I know what I'd personally be willing to pay for say a
WK style DLC, but I don't know if I'm shortchanging the developers,
if they're completely ripping me off, or if it's somewhere down the
middle.[/quote]

But that doesn’t matter. What matters is if you regard it as a “fair”
price.

 

You get ripped off at every point in life. The economics behind
mass-produced products are mind-blowing when it comes to cost of production vs.
retail price.

[quote]So ultimately yes, it's up to the individual as you said and
everything will be determined by each individual and they'll all have their own
opinions which will have minimal reflection in future pricing.[/quote]

Do you really believe that if sales of DLC are really bad because the
majority of people aren’t buying the product due to price, that this won’t, a.,
kill the product, or b., drive down the price?

[quote]The argument I'm trying to make is that DLC market isn't tilted
in favor of the consumer and what this most likely means is we're not getting
quite the deal we could be getting.[/quote]

Is there any evidence to support this?

 

At the end of the day, if it’s not in the favour of the consumer, it
will fail.

[quote]If their next DLC is as long and deep as WK marked it with
a $20 tag and it generates enough sales to meet their target than the argument
could be made is was a good value and reasonably priced since people bought it.
[/quote]

Right. But if it’s as long and as deep as WK (i.e. dwarf-like and
similar to a baby’s paddling pool), people won’t buy it. Why? Because they’ll
read a review and see that it isn’t considered as value for money (at $20). – I
know that the obvious answer to this is twofold, 1., that value is subjective,
which is true, and that 2., people don’t read reviews. My answer to 2 is that
you can’t legislate for idiots.

 

I’m enjoying this exchange.

[quote]AngryFrozenWater wrote...



Some of my reasons for not buying Awakening are that it isn't compatible with
older DLCs and patches and that DA:O without Awakening is most likely not
compatible with future DLCs and patches. My main reasons are that Awakening
ignores my player character's past and cuts the game off from Fereleden. A
minor gripe with the game in general is that ending the game should not close
down any areas in Ferelden. It prevents doing unfinished quests and limits the
usefulness of mods and DLCs. So, because I am not buying Awakening I fear that
I will be left out when it comes to future patches and DLCs and thus there is a
chance that DA:O has been abandoned by BioWare. I have not seen any signs that
tell me otherwise, but maybe I have missed that.[/quote]

I agree, all of that makes me pretty irritable.

 

The non-transfer of DLC/ in-game info. is a joke.

[quote]Wholetyouinhere wrote...

"You can't expect DLC to match the polish/length of the original
product." - 100% true... in the event of *free* DLC. [/quote]

Agreed.

 

Paid DLC should be of the same standard as the original game.

-

 

Some of the responses in this thread are needlessly aggressive/disrespectful
to posters.

 

It’s clear that we’re all Bioware fans here, we are, after all, posting
on their forums and discussing the minutiae of their products.

 

Grouping people into a category such as “apologists” doesn’t do anyone
any favours.

 

I’m not a Bioware apologist. I’m outside of the US and therefore missed
the bazaar. I also play on a PC and therefore missed the free approval-altering
DLC that came out for PS3. Yeah, I’m a little irritated by all this.

 

However, personally, I defend the DLC because I enjoyed it and
I didn’t think the price was a factor.

 

It’s a simple cost-benefit choice. That’s it at the end of the day. And
everyone has a choice, you can vote with your wallet. It’s not as if Bioware
games are not crack cocaine, you can walk away.

Modifié par ijustwananame1, 01 avril 2010 - 04:44 .

[AlanC9]

@ the_one_54321: Sometimes posts are for self-expression as well as for trying to establish a proposition. Don't tell me you haven't noticed that before.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 avril 2010 - 04:47 .

[ijustwananame1]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sometimes posts are for self-expression as well as for trying to establish a proposition. Don't tell me you haven't noticed that before.

Are you addressing anyone in particular?

[AlanC9]

@ ijustwananame1: see edit. My connection's acting up today

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...
@ the_one_54321: Sometimes posts are for self-expression as well as for trying to establish a proposition. Don't tell me you haven't noticed that before.

Well sure, but it irks me when arguments get recycled. Going in circles get's boring.
Any particular reason you linked to my profile? 

[frayjog]

RurouniSaiya-jin wrote...

frayjog wrote...

I think it's hilarious that people actually think DAO's DLC was produced after the original game. All of the DLC content existed before DAO was released. It was not included in the game so that EA could charge everyone more money. Does anyone honestly think this stuff isn't planned out well ahead of time by the publisher?

Yup. That's why we got Return to Ostagar on time this holiday season. Because it was "done" before hand.

Is some DLC finished before hand? Yes but nothing that would've been in DA:O even if they decided to have no DLC at all for DA:O. The problem here is , again, people seem to have little to no knowledge about game/software development as a whole and rather than acquire this knowledge, they've just skipped to accusing Bioware/EA of trying to rip them off. Someone who has knowledge about these things would easily be able to understand and accept why Shale and Warden's Keep are DLC. Shale was cut when they feature locked the game and then was completed and reintroduced into the game using DLC by the DLC team. If they hadn't done this, he would've just remained cut and unfinished. Once feature lock occurs in software/game development, no new content can be put into the game/piece of software in question. Warden's Keep was made during the long extended time of polishing, bug fixing and balance tweaking by the DLC team as content for the Digital Deluxe Edition and made available to everyone else at a price.

The decision to include DLC as part of DAO was made long before DAO was released.  EA does this with most of their game franchises.  Just look at the Sims.  The DLC releases are spread apart in intervals to maximize profits, not because they aren't ready to be released.

[RurouniSaiya-jin]

frayjog wrote...

The decision to include DLC as part of DAO was made long before DAO was released.  EA does this with most of their game franchises.  Just look at the Sims.  The DLC releases are spread apart in intervals to maximize profits, not because they aren't ready to be released.

Deciding to have DLC for a game and making DLC are two different things.

Actually, as Bioware has commented before, there's a downward trend between how much a DLC sells and how far away from the release of a game the DLC releases. This is no big surprise. Once a person finishes playing a game,they'll either sell it while the sell back value is still high or they'll shelf it and once you shelf it, you're less likely to want DLC for that game since you aren't really playing it anymore anyway. So, it doesn't really maximize profits to spread out your supposedly already done DLC over the course of 2 years.

[frayjog]

RurouniSaiya-jin wrote...

frayjog wrote...

The decision to include DLC as part of DAO was made long before DAO was released.  EA does this with most of their game franchises.  Just look at the Sims.  The DLC releases are spread apart in intervals to maximize profits, not because they aren't ready to be released.

Deciding to have DLC for a game and making DLC are two different things.

Actually, as Bioware has commented before, there's a downward trend between how much a DLC sells and how far away from the release of a game the DLC releases. This is no big surprise. Once a person finishes playing a game,they'll either sell it while the sell back value is still high or they'll shelf it and once you shelf it, you're less likely to want DLC for that game since you aren't really playing it anymore anyway. So, it doesn't really maximize profits to spread out your supposedly already done DLC over the course of 2 years.

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here.  Of course DLC that already exists isn't scheduled to make an appearance 2 years after the game is released.  My point is that DAO is an example of a game that was released with DLC ready to sell as soon as it made the most sense.  I only stated this because it seemed that some people were under the impression that DLC isn't as well developed as the original game and that the reason for this is that there isn't as much time to develop the DLC. 

I'm not arguing that EA is some super-evil corporation out to screw everyone out of their money, or the relative value of DLC as time progresses from the release of a game.