450 réponses à ce sujet

[Stanley Woo]

Let's try one last time to get it back on topic, please. Thank you.

[Falls Edge]

Edit: okay.

To answer the topics question, there is a whole lot of dlc items, perhaps too many as there are quite a few items on the preorder list and a lot of other ways to get them, the amount of time it would take to collect-em-all would be very long indeed, so it's perhaps a bit ridiculous.

Other users in other topics have debated the usefulness of an item that made you stronger too early in the game, or that could be sold to npcs for unbalancing amount of early ingame cash, others have said that this was the intentioned benefit.

But others have taken a more conservative approach and decided that they wouldn't use any of it, so as not to unbalance the game.

I believe there is a family heirloom for dlc that some have complained should have been put in the game without having to hunt for it because it is plot relevant to Hawke.

Some have argued that dlc items themselves are not given to the player in a correct way so as to make it more realistic such as strategic placement of the items in chests or in dlc only monsters so as to add balance to the game and introduce the items in a believable way.

Others have been surprised with the quality of the dlc content being much higher than in previous games such as the surprising announcment that you could obtain a dlc character for free called 'Sebastion.' if you ordered the special edition before January...11th?

Some have complained that the armor from Dead space in particular is off-putting because it's a space suit in an early era game, where it's out of place, most users have refuted this with, 'you shouldn't wear it then, noones forcing you too.' Which I agree with. 

Edit: The person below me is a cool guy, but he's gunna get the topic locked. *hug*.

Modifié par Falls Edge, 05 février 2011 - 03:59 .

[Lethys1]

Stanley Woo wrote...

I'll help you out, Falls Edge. i think more consumers need to take more rseponsibility for their own buying decisions, whether they are adults or "kids." Such responsibility means that, sometimes, you will buy something that you're not 100% satisfied with. not that it's defective or wrong in any way, you just don't like it. This is perfectly normal and a part of the learning process. The more experience you have with making purchasing decisions, the better you'll be able to deal with buying stuff you might not like.

Stanley, I understand all of your previous points, but selling underwhelming DLC at such high prices is still by far the slimiest thing that game companies do to their consumers, and people being cynical of it as a result is very reasonable.  DLC has a negative reputation for many valid reasons, one of which is that many developers (and I am not saying Bioware necessarily) cut content from their product and make it available as DLC afterwards.  This is simply a fact.  Activision did this with Modern Warfare 2, where many different game modes were coded onto the disc but were locked away from the customer.  Fable 2, published by Microsoft, is also guilty of that as well.  Resident Evil 5 had multiplayer modes coded on the disc but charged $5 to access that content.  Stanley, you're right in that we don't have specific development knowledge at all; but it is far from unreasonable, based on both the pattern above and the amount of DLC coming out with DA2, to call shenanigans on it.


Another reason to be cynical of DLC is that it simply is the least cost efficiency possible for a consumer. If a game costs $60, and DLC costs $10, it should have 1/6 the content of the original game.  Instead, you may get a mediocre two hours of an adventure and an overpowered item(s).  A lot of the time, the DLC was not even slightly relevant to the actual events of the game.  Four $7 packs with as much content as Warden's keep would, as a generous estimate, add up to 6 hours of gameplay.  That's $28, nearly half the cost of the original game, for short content that doesn't have much quality.  DLC costs add up fast, but the amount of content that goes along with it does not, and the quality is almost never there.


An example of Dragon Age DLC which was particularly grimy was Warden's Keep; $7 for a very short mission and some new items, but that wasn't even what made me angry.  What made me angry was the party storage chest, something which a game company that put fans first (i.e. Stardock) would have patched into the game.  Even EA's own Battlefield BC2 gave multiple free maps and updates, so it boggles my mind that the same publisher wouldn't just give us the party storage.  This was something that should have been in the game from the start.  I'm not going to make the claim that the Warden's Keep mission itself, or any othet DLC mission was cut from initial development, but a storage chest?  Come on.  Not only that, but it makes logical sense that the party chest would be in the CAMP, not some secluded old Warden's Keep.


A strong criticism of DLC is that while the content may not have been cut from the original development, the content should have been there in the first place.  I am not going to claim that Warden's Keep or even any of the Dragon Age DLC should have been included in the first game, but Mass Effect 2's Lair of the Shadow Broker should definitely have been included in the original game.  Liara's story involving Shepard's life was an extremely significant part of the story, more significant than many of the things that were included in the game at launch.  You may say your quality control argument, or that it was conceptualized a little too late to be included, but I'd make the case that that means it was poorly developed and not a fully realized product.  I know I certainly had a big question mark about what happened when I went to see Liara, and I was disappointed immensely by the lack of interaction with her.  I should not have had to spend additional money to see that story develop.  I almost would have rather had no DLC and a real explanation in ME3 than a release of content way after the fact, after I've played and beaten the game three times.


And finally, you are completely wrong about expansion packs.  To see a recent example of expansion packs doing very well in sales and having lots of quality content, look at Grand Theft Auto IV's The Ballad of Gay Tony and The Lost and the Damned.  These are two completely new campaigns from the original one, and they sold very well.  Not only that, but the critics rated these two expansions extremely highly.  The same thing can be said about Elder Scrolls Oblivion, which in addition to releasing DLC, also had the Shivering Isles.  I don't know how well Awakening did, but I certainly know that a good expansion can make a lot of money.  I also know that nobody would care about a lack of a steady stream of content if it were known that an expansion wold be released in 4-8 months, even longer.


TL:DR version - DLC sucks and is too short, expansions rule.

Modifié par Lethys1, 05 février 2011 - 03:55 .

[AlanC9]

Lethys1 wrote...
A strong criticism of DLC is that while the content may not have been cut from the original development, the content should have been there in the first place.  I am not going to claim that Warden's Keep or even any of the Dragon Age DLC should have been included in the first game, but Mass Effect 2's Lair of the Shadow Broker should definitely have been included in the original game.  Liara's story involving Shepard's life was an extremely significant part of the story, more significant than many of the things that were included in the game at launch.  You may say your quality control argument, or that it was conceptualized a little too late to be included, but I'd make the case that that means it was poorly developed and not a fully realized product.  I know I certainly had a big question mark about what happened when I went to see Liara, and I was disappointed immensely by the lack of interaction with her.  I should not have had to spend additional money to see that story develop.  I almost would have rather had no DLC and a real explanation in ME3 than a release of content way after the fact, after I've played and beaten the game three times.

I don't see how this argument can work. Any DLC that you really like can be tagged with the label "should have been there in the first place," unless it's obviously unrelated to the main plot like, say, LS.

[Stanley Woo]

Lethys1 wrote...
many developers (and I am not saying Bioware necessarily) cut content from their product and make it available as DLC afterwards.

And how well did that DLC sell? How many consumers actively chose to buy that DLC to enhance their game experience, despite knowing it was on disc? They still made an active choice. Whether we agree or disagree with that choice is immaterial.

If a game costs $60, and DLC costs $10, it should have 1/6 the content of the original game.

Also immaterial. the prices of games and DLC are not based on the amonut of content, but on recouping the cost in creating that product.

An example of Dragon Age DLC which was particularly grimy was Warden's Keep; $7 for a very short mission and some new items, but that wasn't even what made me angry.  What made me angry was the party storage chest, something which a game company that put fans first (i.e. Stardock) would have patched into the game.  Even EA's own Battlefield BC2 gave multiple free maps and updates, so it boggles my mind that the same publisher wouldn't just give us the party storage.

This is you wanting something for nothing, as evidenced by your implied insult of bioWare as a company that doesn't put fans first and your assumption that because one company does a thing, all other companies should or must do the same. You are even incredulous that you didn't get something for free!

A strong criticism of DLC is that while the content may not have been cut from the original development, the content should have been there in the first place.  I am not going to claim that Warden's Keep or even any of the Dragon Age DLC should have been included in the first game, but Mass Effect 2's Lair of the Shadow Broker should definitely have been included in the original game.

"I wanted it for free in the main game" is hardly a strong criticism, and it completely ignores the realities of developer resource management, marketing schedules, and project planning.

I don't know how well Awakening did, but I certainly know that a good expansion can make a lot of money.  I also know that nobody would care about a lack of a steady stream of content if it were known that an expansion wold be released in 4-8 months, even longer.

Your innate knowledge is amazing. It is coming up with scenarios that acountants and strategic planners work for months to develop. Your two sentences here claim to do the work of entire marketing, project management, and accounting departments.

thank you for the work you put into your argument, but I'm afraid i'll have to disagree.

[SammyJB17]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...
many developers (and I am not saying Bioware necessarily) cut content from their product and make it available as DLC afterwards.

And how well did that DLC sell? How many consumers actively chose to buy that DLC to enhance their game experience, despite knowing it was on disc? They still made an active choice. Whether we agree or disagree with that choice is immaterial.

If a game costs $60, and DLC costs $10, it should have 1/6 the content of the original game.

Also immaterial. the prices of games and DLC are not based on the amonut of content, but on recouping the cost in creating that product.

An example of Dragon Age DLC which was particularly grimy was Warden's Keep; $7 for a very short mission and some new items, but that wasn't even what made me angry.  What made me angry was the party storage chest, something which a game company that put fans first (i.e. Stardock) would have patched into the game.  Even EA's own Battlefield BC2 gave multiple free maps and updates, so it boggles my mind that the same publisher wouldn't just give us the party storage.

This is you wanting something for nothing, as evidenced by your implied insult of bioWare as a company that doesn't put fans first and your assumption that because one company does a thing, all other companies should or must do the same. You are even incredulous that you didn't get something for free!

A strong criticism of DLC is that while the content may not have been cut from the original development, the content should have been there in the first place.  I am not going to claim that Warden's Keep or even any of the Dragon Age DLC should have been included in the first game, but Mass Effect 2's Lair of the Shadow Broker should definitely have been included in the original game.

"I wanted it for free in the main game" is hardly a strong criticism, and it completely ignores the realities of developer resource management, marketing schedules, and project planning.

I don't know how well Awakening did, but I certainly know that a good expansion can make a lot of money.  I also know that nobody would care about a lack of a steady stream of content if it were known that an expansion wold be released in 4-8 months, even longer.

Your innate knowledge is amazing. It is coming up with scenarios that acountants and strategic planners work for months to develop. Your two sentences here claim to do the work of entire marketing, project management, and accounting departments.

thank you for the work you put into your argument, but I'm afraid i'll have to disagree.

Sorry Mr.Woo for having to deal with all these people getting stuff for free. I just wanna say thanks for the DLC and main game. When it comes to Dragon Age, I take what I can get.

[magicwins]

Stan, I get that you're saying the SHINY couldn't possibly be a bad thing, but I disagree. When you put the shiny in there without accounting for balancing issues, or giving it a specific/unique role to play, you're just upsetting the vanilla gameplay experience; detracting from, instead of enhancing it.

I dislike this approach; where Marketing feels the need to toss in an epic weapon everywhere. People are going to end up with weapons worth 300G when they start out (like in Origins), or end up tearing up enemies that should be giving them a hard time. Sure, it's our choice on whether or not we wish to use the shiny, but we really don't know whether it breaks the game's balance or not. I feel attracted to the shiny, but it may not be good for me, and I dislike that.

I'm sure you can think of alternatives to overpowered weapons. You could always try silly weapons, like the Wabbajack from Oblivion. Maybe it gives the opponent a frilly dress and makes him talk like a 6 year old girl. That would be fun . How about outfits? They don't even need to do anything special, they could just look great. Or things like Morrigan's voodoo doll? Maybe Hawke could have a pipe that he'd smoke for a bit and gain a bonus to some attribute.

I'm sure you guys have thought about all this, particularly since you made the Feastday pack, but I completely disagree with this 'spam them with SHINY weapons approach'. It really puts me off, because I'd like to be treated as someone who's a little less simplistic than 'ZOMG SHINY!' Like I said, if the shiny is unique, or fulfils a special role, I'm all for it, But adding a bunch of stat bonuses to a nice looking weapon and calling it awesome makes me feel like you guys don't really care what you throw at us.

[Stanley Woo]

SammyJB17 wrote...
Sorry Mr.Woo for having to deal with all these people getting stuff for free. I just wanna say thanks for the DLC and main game. When it comes to Dragon Age, I take what I can get.

I appreciate the sentiment, thank you. Whether you are a DLC person or strictly a main game person, I hope you enjoy Dragon Age II.

[Realranger55]

Thanks a lot for all the responses Stan, it's really nice to actually get some input from dev's on issues like this. It really should be applauded that you take the time to debate issues like this with fans.

[coolide]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Stanley Woo]

magicwins wrote...
I'm sure you can think of alternatives to overpowered weapons. You could always try silly weapons, like the Wabbajack from Oblivion. Maybe it gives the opponent a frilly dress and makes him talk like a 6 year old girl. That would be fun . How about outfits? They don't even need to do anything special, they could just look great. Or things like Morrigan's voodoo doll? Maybe Hawke could have a pipe that he'd smoke for a bit and gain a bonus to some attribute.

Sure, those are all good suggestions.

I'm sure you guys have thought about all this, particularly since you made the Feastday pack, but I completely disagree with this 'spam them with SHINY weapons approach'. It really puts me off, because I'd like to be treated as someone who's a little less simplistic than 'ZOMG SHINY!' Like I said, if the shiny is unique, or fulfils a special role, I'm all for it, But adding a bunch of stat bonuses to a nice looking weapon and calling it awesome makes me feel like you guys don't really care what you throw at us.

We do care, but noted.

[Stanley Woo]

Realranger55 wrote...

Thanks a lot for all the responses Stan, it's really nice to actually get some input from dev's on issues like this. It really should be applauded that you take the time to debate issues like this with fans.

i'm crunching. The community provides a distraction when my eyes start to go buggy from playing Dragon Age II so much. so thank YOU.

[KBomb]

But what of us who love the shiny? I adore the shiny and I don’t mind paying extra for it. Shiny is completely optional, so why should I have to go without shiny because there are some who feel compelled to buy shiny whether they want it or not, then complain about said shiny if it didn’t live up to their standard for shiny?



This is why DLC is optional. If you feel it isn’t for you, then don’t buy it, don’t use it. But don’t take away my shiny.

[Seifz]

Stanley Woo wrote...

If a game costs $60, and DLC costs $10, it should have 1/6 the content of the original game.

Also immaterial. the prices of games and DLC are not based on the amonut of content, but on recouping the cost in creating that product.

The problem I have is that developers and publishers decided to move away from expansion packs in favor of DLC and we, the customers, and paying more because of it.  You need to sell DLC at higher cost:content ratios than you would sell full games and expansion packs.  The end result is that we're paying more for less and that sucks for us.

An example of Dragon Age DLC which was particularly grimy was Warden's Keep; $7 for a very short mission and some new items, but that wasn't even what made me angry.  What made me angry was the party storage chest, something which a game company that put fans first (i.e. Stardock) would have patched into the game.  Even EA's own Battlefield BC2 gave multiple free maps and updates, so it boggles my mind that the same publisher wouldn't just give us the party storage.

This is you wanting something for nothing, as evidenced by your implied insult of bioWare as a company that doesn't put fans first and your assumption that because one company does a thing, all other companies should or must do the same. You are even incredulous that you didn't get something for free!

Sorry, but the party storage seems like something that was intentionally excluded from the main game so that it could be used as a selling point for DLC.  I have a very hard time believe that your QA process didn't return a huge number of "inventory management sucks in this game, we need a storage chest" long before the game went into its final phases.

DLC that actually adds something extra to the game is one thing.  Leliana's Song is an example of optional content.  DLC that contains major plot elements or core gameplay features shouldn't be DLC.  That includes Witch Hunt!  Now I understand that Witch Hunt might not have been planned from the beginning and it might have been something that you all thought up after the game was published and so you tried to find a way to get it out to us because you thought we'd like it.  However, I also understand that you could have saved up Golems and Witch Hunt, created some more content, and sold it all as a second expansion pack.  Expansion packs have much more value per dollar than DLC for customers.

I don't know how well Awakening did, but I certainly know that a good expansion can make a lot of money.  I also know that nobody would care about a lack of a steady stream of content if it were known that an expansion wold be released in 4-8 months, even longer.
Your innate knowledge is amazing. It is coming up with scenarios that acountants and strategic planners work for months to develop. Your two sentences here claim to do the work of entire marketing, project management, and accounting departments.

thank you for the work you put into your argument, but I'm afraid i'll have to disagree.

Oh, come on.  You did just fine with expansions for many, many years.  Developers and publishers switched to DLC to make even more money from their customers.  What are the upsides for us?  Less content?  Higher costs?  Fewer developers and thus more bugs?  Where are we winning here?

And what happened to supporting DA:O with DLC and patches for two years, anyway?  You didn't even make one year!

[magicwins]

KBomb wrote...

But what of us who love the shiny? I adore the shiny and I don’t mind paying extra for it. Shiny is completely optional, so why should I have to go without shiny because there are some who feel compelled to buy shiny whether they want it or not, then complain about said shiny if it didn’t live up to their standard for shiny?

This is why DLC is optional. If you feel it isn’t for you, then don’t buy it, don’t use it. But don’t take away my shiny.

I don't feel compelled to buy stuff because of shiny. And I'm not asking for a lack of shiny either. I'm asking for a better implementation of the 'SHINY makes stuff better' principle.

[Nayt Navare]

Personally, I'm ecstatic about all the DLC!



I'm a manager at a used game store, so let me tell you, I COMPLETELY understand, from a financial point, why developers charge fro some DLC packs, as there is a GIGANTOUS amount of $$$ in the used game biz, and they see none of it.



That said, Mr. Woo, crumudgeon that he is, explained it perfectly! There's a long process involved that is super strict and unforgiving.



The only thing I'd like to know, and perhaps Stanley can help me on this; Is all of this DLC (Sig Ed, preorder before etc) INSIDE the case or sent to stores to be handed out? Do you know yet? I ask, because my store didn't even get the Fable 3 stuff not included in the game cases on time, so no one who visited my store was able to create a villager.

[Falls Edge]

You know, I might get probated for calling out the contradiction here, but that post seemed both condescending and sarcastic.

Still, You basically just repeated and touted why some people are not liking bioware right now, this was a large concern with Ea buying you guys, the almighty dollar shining through and hearing what is the equivelent of JC penny policy, you're telling us business sense, but nothing else, I can't expect more from you, just don't delete a post where I was sarcastic and then make a sarcastic post.

Why are you guys releasing Da2 so quickly?  is it because of good business practice? or is what you are doing good for the game? 

That was basically the heart of what he was getting at, but you really did quickly pick apart why it was dumb to give things away for free.

Stanly woo, Bioware.
"Re-read my contributions to this thread and please let me know where I have been patronizing, condescending, or dismissive of any of the complaints brought up here."

I don't know how well Awakening did, but I
certainly know that a good expansion can make a lot of money.  I also
know that nobody would care about a lack of a steady stream of content
if it were known that an expansion wold be released in 4-8 months, even
longer.

"Your innate knowledge is amazing. It is coming
up with scenarios that acountants and strategic planners work for months
to develop. Your two sentences here claim to do the work of entire
marketing, project management, and accounting departments."

Modifié par Falls Edge, 05 février 2011 - 05:38 .

[Meltemph]

The problem I have is that developers and publishers decided to move away from expansion packs in favor of DLC and we, the customers, and paying more because of it. You need to sell DLC at higher cost:content ratios than you would sell full games and expansion packs. The end result is that we're paying more for less and that sucks for us.

I disagree. Expansions for the most part sucked outside of a few good ones and most people didn't bother buying most of them. I remember very few very good x-pac's(non MMO).

DLC that actually adds something extra to the game is one thing. Leliana's Song is an example of optional content. DLC that contains major plot elements or core gameplay features shouldn't be DLC. That includes Witch Hunt! Now I understand that Witch Hunt might not have been planned from the beginning and it might have been something that you all thought up after the game was published and so you tried to find a way to get it out to us because you thought we'd like it. However, I also understand that you could have saved up Golems and Witch Hunt, created some more content, and sold it all as a second expansion pack. Expansion packs have much more value per dollar than DLC for customers.

Stop speaking for all customers for one. I personally would rather have DLC like the Shadow Broker and the like, then what we got with expansions. You are stuck on this expansions kick like they were all amazing... I think them breaking it up is much better way of doing it seeing as someone like me had no interest in the DSC or Liliana's Song.

Oh, come on. You did just fine with expansions for many, many years.

Says you?

Modifié par Meltemph, 05 février 2011 - 05:06 .

[Stanley Woo]

Seifz wrote...
The problem I have is that developers and publishers decided to move away from expansion packs in favor of DLC and we, the customers, and paying more because of it.  You need to sell DLC at higher cost:content ratios than you would sell full games and expansion packs.  The end result is that we're paying more for less and that sucks for us.

Choosing not to buy it still costs you nothing more.

Sorry, but the party storage seems like something that was intentionally excluded from the main game so that it could be used as a selling point for DLC.  I have a very hard time believe that your QA process didn't return a huge number of "inventory management sucks in this game, we need a storage chest" long before the game went into its final phases.

Believe what you will.

DLC that actually adds something extra to the game is one thing.  Leliana's Song is an example of optional content.  DLC that contains major plot elements or core gameplay features shouldn't be DLC.  That includes Witch Hunt!  Now I understand that Witch Hunt might not have been planned from the beginning and it might have been something that you all thought up after the game was published and so you tried to find a way to get it out to us because you thought we'd like it.  However, I also understand that you could have saved up Golems and Witch Hunt, created some more content, and sold it all as a second expansion pack.  Expansion packs have much more value per dollar than DLC for customers.

Again, believe what you will. Many peiople against DLC will still come up with their own packaging that they will accept, which indicates to me that they want the content, they just don't want to pay what's being asked for it. Hindsight is, as always, 20/20.

Oh, come on.  You did just fine with expansions for many, many years.  Developers and publishers switched to DLC to make even more money from their customers.  What are the upsides for us?  Less content?  Higher costs?  Fewer developers and thus more bugs?  Where are we winning here?

And rotary-dial phones also worked for many years, as did pay-by-the-hour internet, CRT, leaded fuel, and non-unionized workforces. Things can and do change as technology makes it more feasible to do so. Where's your up side? Consoles can get expanded content as well as PCs can, more frequent game content updates,  content that can still be integrated into the main game story, retailer incentive items, and all without completely doing away with expansions.

It would be silly indeed for an industry to come up wtih a new business model to make less money from consumers, especially when games are so much more expensive to make.

And what happened to supporting DA:O with DLC and patches for two years, anyway?  You didn't even make one year!

But you were just complaining about DLC. You should be happy that you weren't saddled with another year of content you weren't going to buy before a new product came out.

[Stanley Woo]

SE JN wrote...
The only thing I'd like to know, and perhaps Stanley can help me on this; Is all of this DLC (Sig Ed, preorder before etc) INSIDE the case or sent to stores to be handed out? Do you know yet? I ask, because my store didn't even get the Fable 3 stuff not included in the game cases on time, so no one who visited my store was able to create a villager.

i don't rightly know. Chris Priestly might, though.

[Nayt Navare]

Stanley Woo wrote...

SE JN wrote...
The only thing I'd like to know, and perhaps Stanley can help me on this; Is all of this DLC (Sig Ed, preorder before etc) INSIDE the case or sent to stores to be handed out? Do you know yet? I ask, because my store didn't even get the Fable 3 stuff not included in the game cases on time, so no one who visited my store was able to create a villager.

i don't rightly know. Chris Priestly might, though.

Appreciate it, sir.  I'll shoot him a PM.  I understand he'll be SUPER BUSY, but hopefully he can take a sec with a yes or no. 

[thedistortedchild]

Am I overwhelmed by the DLC? Short answer: no.

Long answer: Nooooooooooooooo.

The more game I get the happier I am.

[Seifz]

Meltemph wrote...

The problem I have is that developers and publishers decided to move away from expansion packs in favor of DLC and we, the customers, and paying more because of it. You need to sell DLC at higher cost:content ratios than you would sell full games and expansion packs. The end result is that we're paying more for less and that sucks for us.

I disagree. Expansions for the most part sucked outside of a few good ones and most people didn't bother buying most of them. I remember very few very good x-pac's(non MMO).

BioWare has released plenty of quality expansions in the past.  What about BG/BG2 and NWN?  Even Awakening was pretty good once they fixed the insane bugs that never should have passed QA.  Certainly, their expansions have been of much higher quality than the majority of their DLC.

Anyway, my claim isn't really disputable.  You get much more content per dollar with major games and expansions than you do with DLC.  You can disagree with which model you prefer, but please don't treat facts like opinions.

DLC that actually adds something extra to the game is one thing. Leliana's Song is an example of optional content. DLC that contains major plot elements or core gameplay features shouldn't be DLC. That includes Witch Hunt! Now I understand that Witch Hunt might not have been planned from the beginning and it might have been something that you all thought up after the game was published and so you tried to find a way to get it out to us because you thought we'd like it. However, I also understand that you could have saved up Golems and Witch Hunt, created some more content, and sold it all as a second expansion pack. Expansion packs have much more value per dollar than DLC for customers.

Stop speaking for all customers for one. I personally would rather have DLC like the Shadow Broker and the like, then what we got with expansions. You are stuck on this expansions kick like they were all amazing... I think them breaking it up is much better way of doing it seeing as someone like me had no interest in the DSC or Liliana's Song.

Obviously what I write is my opinion.  I never, ever claimed to be "speaking for all customers".  Please don't  make pointless claims that derail the conversation.  Please?

If you actually read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I said content like Leliana's Song is good for DLC because it's not central to the plot of gameplay of the primary game (DA:O) and is, in fact, extra.  Content that is central to the plot (Witch Hunt) or that includes major gameplay features (the chest in Warden's Keep) should be collected into expansions (Golems, With Hunt) or should be included with the original game (Warden's Keep).

Oh, come on. You did just fine with expansions for many, many years.

Says you?

Says reality?  BioWare had zero DLC and many expansions for every game they published before DA:O.   Are you trying to argue that they didn't continuously grow larger and make more and more money?

It's amazing how quickly everyone seems to forget the "old BioWare".  Do you remember Neverwinter Nights?  Do you remember how they gave us two expansions, put a fair bit of effort into helping the community create a third expansion, patched the game for years, and gave us all sorts of new, free content regularly?  What happened to that?

[Alynna_tp]

I'd be interested in that answer too because my store also has "issues" with giving out things not included inside the game case. I usually don't get the items / codes at all if they aren't stuck inside the box safe and sound.

DLC content exists in many games, and has proven profitable for a LOT of publishers.  I'm not surprised EA/Bioware decided to join in the DLC content market.  In the end its up to the consumer to decide if they are worth their money.  If you're worried about a developer "wasting" time on smaller DLC content instead of releasing a larger expansion, you should remember larger doesn't necessarily mean better quality. 

I'll be the first to say I did not buy all the DLC packs for DA:O, nor did I buy them all for ME2.  I bought the ones that I found interesting or had content that I wanted.

Modifié par Alynna_tp, 05 février 2011 - 05:30 .

[Falls Edge]

http://www.joystiq.c...over-1-million/

Okay I made me look it up, I now understand just how big of a deal it is and how much it makes, that's quite a bit of money just off of Warden's keep.

Modifié par Falls Edge, 05 février 2011 - 07:30 .