450 réponses à ce sujet

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

koshiee wrote...

 I'm embarrassed for all the people who don't see through the shameless marketing psychology of dlc.

I don't see why I should care about the marketing psychology behind it.

There's a product being made available for sale at a price.  I can buy it or not.  This isn't meaningfully different from any other product.  I'm not being lied to or deceived in any way.

This post is pure and distilled truth. 

[Falls Edge]

JrayM16 wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...
The predatory psychology the other dude was talking about is that a bunch of kids buy games, and the parents don't care enough about the price to get a deal on a game, Kid's don't even realize the value of money which is why a lot of posters say it's "Only 5$" Hell, the developers are aware of the almighty dollar. 

The only people for whom $5 is real money are kids. For anyone with a job it's trivial. In New York I can't get even one beer for $5 unless I'm drinking swill, and I don't drink swill. 

And if the parents don't think $5 is worth worrying about, why should anyone else?

...I don't even know what to say to this.

Anyone want to help me out?

Edit: As I might get modded for not responding adequately...Let me simplify it, does a child value 5$? Why? Is it because the parents are strict and only allow the child to have treats once in a while? Or is it because he has an allowance so that he's limited to what he can get and when he can get it? Should a child learn the tough ways of the business world, by buying a product that he won't appreciate and regret? Do you think an adult or a child values money more? An adult does, they have a 9 to 5 job, that they work hard at to earn it, a child need but ask, or perhaps do a small chore.

If you gave your  child a 5$ bill and then he bought a garbage bag from a stranger wouldn't you like, be worried? Wouldn't you tell him it was wrong to do that? You'd have to correct him right?  and tell him why the garbage bag wasn't what it was supposed to be (a tent or whatever) and that it would be dangerous to use a tent out of plastic.

I'm using a more severe example, but buying things that you don't value or appreciate because of no information on the subject and expecting a child to know what's good or not good to buy until he takes it for a spin is quite the expectation don't you think?

I don't think it's predatory in that sense, and it would only work in cases where parents should take responsability for watching their children, cases where I always blame the parent.  If a child is really too young to make that judgement and appropraitation(and children are smarter than most think) then parents should take responsability to watch what kids do with whatever money they have.  And besides, most of the games that use this tactic are M-Rated anyway so if the parents bought it for them(which they would have to in the US) then the parent has doubly failed at being responsable for their child so I believe that this argument holds no ground. 

Also, you can't really spend a whole thread talking about how preorder dlc sucks for you and then pull out the "think of the children" argument when a bunch of people disagree..  Make your case that of how  preorder dlc is bad for "you" and leave it at that.

I'm simply stating what I assumed he said.
Children are not smarter than most people think, case in point they were children so they know how dumb they were.
As has been pointed out most people ignore the M-rating, I was 5 years old when I played mortal kombat, I doubt most people in this topic were much different.

Also, I can pull that out, I did and there's no contradiction there.
I can say that children make poor choices because they don't make practical or completely rational choices because, you know I certainly wasn't I cried for candy that was unhealthy for me, I didn't want to eat my vegies, I was shy, afraid of heights, you get the idea, saying children can argue with an adult about prices isn't really going to be the case at all, the parent buys it, you're right in that it is the parents fault though. It just sucks for them, and researching every product when businesses only give out good information about their games before release(nothing wrong with this) isn't a problem, because hey, they should've known better.

I actually didn't care about the preorder armor, weapon, or mirror/mabari, I cared about a character that is being given for a price regardless of whether I pay 7 dollars or preorder, either way the company benefits, the only way they don't benefit is if I refuse to buy the product being mentioned, these are incentives, I don't feel like pointing it out over and over again. Companies benefit from the dlc but they also benefit from 7$ I already know how I benefit, I get to use another character, and I know how they benefit, in this case I'm noting the change in how 'big' the content for preorder has become.

It's just a change I noticed, I first got kind of upset and rage posted because I missed out, because I'm not one to put faith on a product  but now I just accept it for what it is.

The only real question I have for this topic now is whether Sebastion was intended to be put into the main game like Shale, or if he's like Kasumi who has no relevance to the plot at all, I'm probably going to pony up for him, if it turns out to be the former.  

[KBomb]

Bringing children into the argument is a pointless grasp-at-straws angle, anyway. There are no DLC stores, points are either bought with a credit card or some sort of point card system, either way an adult has to be somewhat involved in the decision. Another thing, it isn’t Bioware’s place to police other people’s children. That is a parental responsibility.

[Falls Edge]

This is true, this isn't the bargain bin section for gamers anyway, if you want deals you usually have to be aware of them though.

I don't think the average parent knows if steam exists or not, whether they know the games price will drop to half its value in 8 months or less, whether they know that game review sites like gametrailers exist, or if they're aware that there are 'lets plays' on youtube that they can watch  to make sure whether the content is safe for their children or not.

I really did not mean to go into this, though.

Hopefully this changes within the next few years though.

[AlanC9]

Falls Edge wrote...
.Let me simplify it, does a child value 5$? Why? Is it because the parents are strict and only allow the child to have treats once in a while? Or is it because he has an allowance so that he's limited to what he can get and when he can get it? Should a child learn the tough ways of the business world, by buying a product that he won't appreciate and regret? Do you think an adult or a child values money more? An adult does, they have a 9 to 5 job, that they work hard at to earn it, a child need but ask, or perhaps do a small chore.

I think you're simply wrong. What I was a child I valued $5 quite highly. That was my entire allowance for the week. Period. As an adult I could, and have, toss down six times that much in a bar several nights a week without any concern that I would have nothing to show for it at 4 AM. At twelve, or even fifteen, I couldn't do that. And even if I had somehow scraped together $100 or so, I would have known that if I blew a bunch of cash this week, that would be the end of it, because next week I'm still only getting $5.

Different allowances or employment produce different values for $5, of course.

If you gave your  child a 5$ bill and then he bought a garbage bag from a stranger wouldn't you like, be worried? Wouldn't you tell him it was wrong to do that? You'd have to correct him right?  and tell him why the garbage bag wasn't what it was supposed to be (a tent or whatever) and that it would be dangerous to use a tent out of plastic.

The dangers of making a tent out of plastic are completely irrelevant to this discussion. It's OK to load the dice when making up an example, but don't be so obvious about it.

[crimzontearz]

I had this argument with stanley before



it did not end well, we had to agree to disagree.



the whole situation with paid, non paid and temporarily free DLC packages contains too many variables for anyone to make a funcional rule of thumb about it and each case has to be considered singularly and a lot of subjectivity also comes into place.



although we CAN agree that some DLC manouvering are VERY much shady (I am looking at YOU capcom)..and it does not help that until recently even Bioware was unwilling to discuss about the different budgeting so people grew suspicious

[Falls Edge]

It was a metaphor...

You could replace it with anything 'bad' or 'smelly' or 'not good' and it'd mean the same thing, I even mentioned it was an exaggerated example.

As for the other thing that's simply perspective, I wasn't given an allowance I got what I asked for, and felt guilty about it as I got older, especially because of how little I treasured it.  

That's my fault though maybe I'm projecting, and some people really don't value money as much as I do, I'm just a bit of a tighter purse I guess.

[KBomb]

Falls Edge wrote...

It was a metaphor...

You could replace it with anything 'bad' or 'smelly' or 'not good' and it'd mean the same thing, I even mentioned it was an exaggerated example.

As for the other thing that's simply perspective, I wasn't given an allowance I got what I asked for, and felt guilty about it as I got older, especially because of how little I treasured it.  

That's my fault though maybe I'm projecting, and some people really don't value money as much as I do, I'm just a bit of a tighter purse I guess.

So what exactly is the crux of your problem with it? Is it because it’s too expensive to purchase without benefit of trying it first? Is it because children can purchase it and therefore waste their money? Is it because it’s not available free to everyone? Or is it that you don’t think DLC should be a part of the gaming franchise period?
And excluding pre-order DLC, most DLC stays available for a while. Certainly long enough to read a review about it, or ask a friend about it and certainly long enough to save the few dollars that it cost to buy it.

[Falls Edge]

The child thing was upholding the argument of another poster, when the other dude didn't defend it, I did.
Though not really, it was just one of the business tactics that I notice gets brought up a lot, and is basically refuted with "Not our responsibility to tell you if it's good or not, research if it is relevant to your interests."

You know this is a bit of a tricky question, I don't like that I have to pay for dlc that people who payed extra by preordering have to pay, I guess when you look at it in the correct way, both paying for dlc and preordering is the same thing as paying more for more.

I just look at the numbers really, they pay 60-70 and I pay 60-70 + 7 for not giving the company the benefit of a preorder.

I guess realistically I could wait and just buy a used copy for 20 bucks though, but I'd like to play it when it comes out, cause there isn't much on the horizon right now.

I think that dlc should exist but obviously not the village that didn't make it because of bad writing, or because it didn't fit, usually they use a 'b-team' to write extra content and it usually feels like I paid for a side quest that they removed because it sucked. I know that this isn't true and that they designed it and it wasn't already in the game it just has no quality to it. Not the same for all dlc though, I did pay for some bad dlc before I learned my lesson and checked it out more throughly though. So I no longer have a problem, though I feel bad for everyone who falls into the same pitfall I did, I guess I'm empathetic about it?

Also the Warden's keep thing was not something I felt was appropriate for an rping game, you do not get involved with a story between characters and then get told to pull out your credit card, it's an immersion thing, though obviously people have disagreed about it, though I question how anyone could see that as a good way to implement as a gamer, though I can see how a businessman would.

The crux of my problem is that if Sebastion is plot related I have to pay for the 'full' experience, I guess I view it as the equivelent of having to dlc Zevran, He didn't offer anything meaningful to the main plot but it was appreciated just the same and would have felt like a lesser game without him.

Especially because Sebastion  will most likely be of higher quality because the dev team stated they didn't use 'the b-team' but 'the a-team' this time.

I don't actually need the benefit of trying it first, I just need to observe it, thankfully people do that for no charge on youtube etcetera.

As I think about it now and all the discussion and information I've gotten from this topic, I realize that Sebastion is a character that is in no way free.

The general idea is a disagreement I have whether plot centric characters should be dlc.
Such as the morrigan dlc when you meet her again (Completely relevant to the plot) or Shale who was intended as a companion and then wasn't because of problems, but instead of being for free we were charged.

So basically the crux of my problem is that I don't believe plot relevant characters to the overlaying story should be anything but free as dlc, while extra companions that aren't I don't care and won't pay for.

This is a consumer thing.

But  this argument is ironic because anyone who wanted to make a dime off it is going to do that of course.

So my complaint was about Sebastion, and in no way the armor, weapons, or mirror, because those things really are worthless shinies.

I didn't know there was such a thing as pre-dlc though, that's just ridiculous. Thanks for telling me.

That's actually my plan though I'm going to check sebastion out after the game comes out then decide whether to fork over the cash.

[Phoenixblight]

Falls Edge wrote...

The general idea is a disagreement I have whether plot centric characters should be dlc.
Such as the morrigan dlc when you meet her again (Completely relevant to the plot) or Shale who was intended as a companion and then wasn't because of problems, but instead of being for free we were charged.

Uh you were only charged for Shale if you bought the game used. I am sorry you get no sympathy for doing so. 

[AlanC9]

Falls Edge wrote...

It was a metaphor...

You could replace it with anything 'bad' or 'smelly' or 'not good' and it'd mean the same thing, I even mentioned it was an exaggerated example.

A bad metaphor. It confused the issue rather than making it clearer.

Eliminating the danger from your example means that the parent has no interest in whether this is a bad purchase.  The whole point of letting the kid have control over money is letting him evaluate how to spend money. If he can't make bad choices he can't learn anything.

As for the other thing that's simply perspective, I wasn't given an allowance I got what I asked for, and felt guilty about it as I got older, especially because of how little I treasured it.  

That's my fault though maybe I'm projecting, and some people really don't value money as much as I do, I'm just a bit of a tighter purse I guess.

Yep, you're projecting; you're projecting your current values into the past. As a child you were right not to value money, because it was free to you. If your parents valued money little enough to give unlimited amounts away to you, that's a problem with their values, not yours. And if they actually had plenty of money, there's no problem at all.

[Falls Edge]

Phoenixblight wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...

The general idea is a disagreement I have whether plot centric characters should be dlc.
Such as the morrigan dlc when you meet her again (Completely relevant to the plot) or Shale who was intended as a companion and then wasn't because of problems, but instead of being for free we were charged.

Uh you were only charged for Shale if you bought the game used. I am sorry you get no sympathy for doing so. 

I also disagree with this for obvious reasons, she was a plot centric character that was my argument, I actually did buy the game and got shale for free though, so why am I complaining? Sympathy. Because there's nothing wrong with buying a used game, unless you are part of Bioware or some other company you really don't have a leg to stand on there.

Edit: I made a grammer mistake nevermind ignore it.
Bad metaphors do not weaken an argument they just weaken the perception of the one arguing.
If you'd like to tell me why buying a used game is bad and doesn't support the artists, feel free to message me or something. i notice you ignored the Morrigan dlc argument though, which has firmer ground to stand on if you don't like people who buy used games.

Modifié par Falls Edge, 05 février 2011 - 01:52 .

[Phoenixblight]

Falls Edge wrote...

Phoenixblight wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...

The general idea is a disagreement I have whether plot centric characters should be dlc.
Such as the morrigan dlc when you meet her again (Completely relevant to the plot) or Shale who was intended as a companion and then wasn't because of problems, but instead of being for free we were charged.

Uh you were only charged for Shale if you bought the game used. I am sorry you get no sympathy for doing so. 

I also disagree with this for obvious reasons, she was a plot centric character that was my argument, I actually did buy the game and got shale for free though, so why am I complaining? Sympathy. Because there's nothing wrong with buying a used game, unless you are part of Bioware or some other company you really don't have a leg to stand on there.

You buy the game used for 30$ and pay 7$ for a DLC you still make out less than those that bought it day 1. So why do they deserve sympathy again?

[Falls Edge]

Because....It was part of the game, and should've been shoved in there to compensate...?

This is a rock-solid disagreement though it really doesn't go beyond "Agree to disagree." Just because you payed more for a product doesn't actually mean you should get more, a retail dude would even tell you that.

I knew of your argument before you posted that actually it was  what I was expecting you to say, I don't  agree on this, it's simply sharing a product that one person payed full price for, if you want to look at it like your ripping them off a product that was bought and sold okay, I just don't see it that way at all. It's a physical disc what you do with it beyond breaking the law is completely up to you. Used game sales are not against the law and are in no way morally wrong.

In the case of shale which was intended to be inside the game from the start and should have been the equivelent of homework being sent in late(my opinion which doesn't matter).

Modifié par Falls Edge, 05 février 2011 - 02:18 .

[Phoenixblight]

Falls Edge wrote...

Because....It was part of the game, and should've been shoved in there to compensate...?

This is a rock-solid disagreement though it really doesn't go beyond "Agree to disagree." Just because you payed more for a product doesn't actually mean you should get more, a retail dude would even tell you that.

Did I say that? No.

All publishers are fighting second hand sales because they do no make a profit off of it. I support this because they put their work into the DLC outside of the game and should see profit from it. There are some companies like Capcom and Ubisoft that actually lock content on the disc and you then have to pay for a DLC which is just a code that unlocks the said DLC, that I do not support and I have stopped buying games from those companies. 

Edit:

Falls Edge wrote...

Because....It was part of the game, and should've been shoved in there to compensate...?

It may have been originally planned to be in the game but was later cut  due to time and the quality of Shale. SO when they delayed the release of the PC version that actually gave Bioware time to fix it and it was way too late to add it to the DIsc. 

Modifié par Phoenixblight, 05 février 2011 - 02:09 .

[Sidney]

Falls Edge wrote...

I just look at the numbers really, they pay 60-70 and I pay 60-70 + 7 for not giving the company the benefit of a preorder.

Companies like pre-orders, they create an incentive for a pre-order. Simple and easy.

This is no different than griping that you paid $15 for drinks after 7:00 that I paid $8 for the same drinks at 6:30. The restaurant wants to create a behavior in customers and therefore provides an incentive. All kinds of businesses run variable pricing to create specific behaviors.

[Falls Edge]

Sidney wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...

I just look at the numbers really, they pay 60-70 and I pay 60-70 + 7 for not giving the company the benefit of a preorder.

Companies like pre-orders, they create an incentive for a pre-order. Simple and easy.

This is no different than griping that you paid $15 for drinks after 7:00 that I paid $8 for the same drinks at 6:30. The restaurant wants to create a behavior in customers and therefore provides an incentive. All kinds of businesses run variable pricing to create specific behaviors.

If you read the rest of it, you'll note that I already refuted myself.

Edit: Actually the part you quoted was below the part where I refuted myself. <_<

Modifié par Falls Edge, 05 février 2011 - 02:19 .

[Realranger55]

Saying people need to be smart with their money and active consumers is fine, but in all honesty, should we be making 3 or 4 different purchase decisions for a single game? That's mostly my issue. I want to play Dragon Age 2, in my mind thats everything that was created for it included in one base price at one time. If I was to approach this game a few months down the road, without knowing much about it the copious amounts of DLC would definitely turn me off of it. I wouldn't want to purchase the game without all the parts. I understand its a business decision, and one thats fine for bioware to pursue, but as a gamer I find it incredibly inconvenient.

Sell your game as Dragon Age 2... if you want to add content make an expansion. I don't see what's wrong with this. Fans of this company would have absolutely no issue with this and as far as attracting new players, I honestly don't believe dlc is doing that for you either.

[Sidney]

Realranger55 wrote...

Saying people need to be smart with their money and active consumers is fine, but in all honesty, should we be making 3 or 4 different purchase decisions for a single game? That's mostly my issue. I want to play Dragon Age 2, in my mind thats everything that was created for it included in one base price at one time. If I was to approach this game a few months down the road, without knowing much about it the copious amounts of DLC would definitely turn me off of it. I wouldn't want to purchase the game without all the parts. I understand its a business decision, and one thats fine for bioware to pursue, but as a gamer I find it incredibly inconvenient.

You have all the parts. The game is an intact and complete experience w/o any DLC. DLC offers additional/better experiences. Your car ran fine w/o addeding the "Gold Package" to it but you chose to take that route to get a better/different experience with your car. Your hamburger is an intact and functioning food item, if you want to add the "Cheese" DLC that's fine if you feel it makes your hamburger experience that much better.

[1varangian]

Stanley Woo wrote...

1varangian wrote...

I find all the launch date DLC and excessively complicated and aggressive marketing really, really annoying.

Just box the #&%n game and put it on the shelf. If it's good it will sell without confusing tricks. Cutting content just to release it as a separate DLC is very questionable.

Someone hasn't read my pedantic diatribe in this thread about how DLC is usually developed. I encourage you to read it, as it addresses--whether you agree with it or not--your main concerns.

I'm not anti DLC really. But why does the content need to be splintered into tiny little pieces so that getting the full game is impossible. You get stuff from playing a facebook game, you get stuff from Dead Space 2, you get stuff from pre-ordering, you get stuff from pre-ordering signature edition... it's just too much. These long lists of stuff you get from doing X is getting absurd.

And guess what? I always ended up deleting my 'special bonus gear' in Origins since it didn't make sense for the origin in question or I didn't want powerful items to mess up my low level experience. It's definitely not there to enhance the game in any way. It's just aggressive marketing which I don't like.

[Realranger55]

Sidney wrote...

Realranger55 wrote...

Saying people need to be smart with their money and active consumers is fine, but in all honesty, should we be making 3 or 4 different purchase decisions for a single game? That's mostly my issue. I want to play Dragon Age 2, in my mind thats everything that was created for it included in one base price at one time. If I was to approach this game a few months down the road, without knowing much about it the copious amounts of DLC would definitely turn me off of it. I wouldn't want to purchase the game without all the parts. I understand its a business decision, and one thats fine for bioware to pursue, but as a gamer I find it incredibly inconvenient.

You have all the parts. The game is an intact and complete experience w/o any DLC. DLC offers additional/better experiences. Your car ran fine w/o addeding the "Gold Package" to it but you chose to take that route to get a better/different experience with your car. Your hamburger is an intact and functioning food item, if you want to add the "Cheese" DLC that's fine if you feel it makes your hamburger experience that much better.

Yah, I understand the concept, but is it something game companies really need to start doing? Do we really want an economical and a high end version of our video games? Seems silly. Not all business practices apply to all forms of business.

Modifié par Realranger55, 05 février 2011 - 02:22 .

[Falls Edge]

In the case of Shale, it's debatable you look at the reality of them charging users for it, but I looked at it as homework being sent in late and then charging your teacher for the service of having completed it at all.

But I repeat myself.

[DaySeeker]

I must say it seems like there are waaaay too many dlc weapons and such. And I'm saying this as a guy who like variety and can't stand looking at my characters in the same armor for more than one playthrough.



I do like the idea of dlc as actual CONTENT and not just pretty accessories. Honestly, I've been playing games lately that I loved like Dragon Age and most recently Dead Space 2 and thought I would love to play more of this, but the idea of playing ALL of it over again is daunting. I would love to be able to play parts or chapters of each game over again, but in games like Dragon Age or Red Dead redemption, I don't want to slog through the slow parts, or grind up levels again to get to the parts I liked. It would be cool to have chapters of a game as downloadable.



For example, in Dead Space I honestly was a little exhausted for poor Issac. I got tird of the constant delays and change in plans; I loved the world and wanted to see more, but if one more railway was blocked I was going to explode. I would love to play a chapter as a separate character in the same world, one from the story, just to give him a break, and myself too. I would love a different perspective, or an area unseen like in Minerva's Den for Bioshock 2.



I like the weapons, but I'm already getting like five before I even have the game and it kinda make them feel meaningless or tacky, or just useless if I can use them at the beginning. I like the Mass Effect 2 and DCunverse online model of being able to choose the character's appearance even when I get an upgraded weapon or armor to not have to stick with it if I don't like it. I also don't like that I have this great rogue item, but I'm playing a mage and have no great mage item.

[Phoenixblight]

DaySeeker wrote...

but I'm playing a mage and have no great mage item.

\\

Staff of Parthalan?


You get that from just signing up for the newsletter along with a belt. 

[JrayM16]

Falls Edge wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...
The predatory psychology the other dude was talking about is that a bunch of kids buy games, and the parents don't care enough about the price to get a deal on a game, Kid's don't even realize the value of money which is why a lot of posters say it's "Only 5$" Hell, the developers are aware of the almighty dollar. 

The only people for whom $5 is real money are kids. For anyone with a job it's trivial. In New York I can't get even one beer for $5 unless I'm drinking swill, and I don't drink swill. 

And if the parents don't think $5 is worth worrying about, why should anyone else?

...I don't even know what to say to this.

Anyone want to help me out?

Edit: As I might get modded for not responding adequately...Let me simplify it, does a child value 5$? Why? Is it because the parents are strict and only allow the child to have treats once in a while? Or is it because he has an allowance so that he's limited to what he can get and when he can get it? Should a child learn the tough ways of the business world, by buying a product that he won't appreciate and regret? Do you think an adult or a child values money more? An adult does, they have a 9 to 5 job, that they work hard at to earn it, a child need but ask, or perhaps do a small chore.

If you gave your  child a 5$ bill and then he bought a garbage bag from a stranger wouldn't you like, be worried? Wouldn't you tell him it was wrong to do that? You'd have to correct him right?  and tell him why the garbage bag wasn't what it was supposed to be (a tent or whatever) and that it would be dangerous to use a tent out of plastic.

I'm using a more severe example, but buying things that you don't value or appreciate because of no information on the subject and expecting a child to know what's good or not good to buy until he takes it for a spin is quite the expectation don't you think?

I don't think it's predatory in that sense, and it would only work in cases where parents should take responsability for watching their children, cases where I always blame the parent.  If a child is really too young to make that judgement and appropraitation(and children are smarter than most think) then parents should take responsability to watch what kids do with whatever money they have.  And besides, most of the games that use this tactic are M-Rated anyway so if the parents bought it for them(which they would have to in the US) then the parent has doubly failed at being responsable for their child so I believe that this argument holds no ground. 

Also, you can't really spend a whole thread talking about how preorder dlc sucks for you and then pull out the "think of the children" argument when a bunch of people disagree..  Make your case that of how  preorder dlc is bad for "you" and leave it at that.

I'm simply stating what I assumed he said.
Children are not smarter than most people think, case in point they were children so they know how dumb they were.
As has been pointed out most people ignore the M-rating, I was 5 years old when I played mortal kombat, I doubt most people in this topic were much different.

Also, I can pull that out, I did and there's no contradiction there.
I can say that children make poor choices because they don't make practical or completely rational choices because, you know I certainly wasn't I cried for candy that was unhealthy for me, I didn't want to eat my vegies, I was shy, afraid of heights, you get the idea, saying children can argue with an adult about prices isn't really going to be the case at all, the parent buys it, you're right in that it is the parents fault though. It just sucks for them, and researching every product when businesses only give out good information about their games before release(nothing wrong with this) isn't a problem, because hey, they should've known better.

I actually didn't care about the preorder armor, weapon, or mirror/mabari, I cared about a character that is being given for a price regardless of whether I pay 7 dollars or preorder, either way the company benefits, the only way they don't benefit is if I refuse to buy the product being mentioned, these are incentives, I don't feel like pointing it out over and over again. Companies benefit from the dlc but they also benefit from 7$ I already know how I benefit, I get to use another character, and I know how they benefit, in this case I'm noting the change in how 'big' the content for preorder has become.

It's just a change I noticed, I first got kind of upset and rage posted because I missed out, because I'm not one to put faith on a product  but now I just accept it for what it is.

The only real question I have for this topic now is whether Sebastion was intended to be put into the main game like Shale, or if he's like Kasumi who has no relevance to the plot at all, I'm probably going to pony up for him, if it turns out to be the former.  

Maybe, but is it Bioware's responsability to protect the kids from "predatory dlc" when parents should be doing that?