206 réponses à ce sujet

[b09boy]

the_one_54321 wrote...


specifically, that DLC team could have been coding the content into the game. yeah, they arent geared for that, but why does that mean they are incapable of it?

That's a wild mismanagement of resources and a sure bet way of screwing up a game.

[the_one_54321]

b09boy wrote...

 Do you think that the DLC was cut from the original game? 

This answers that:

the_one_54321 wrote...

well i dont believe them. they had time to code in a merchant the sells the stuff to you ingame, and then the stuff gets installed in the game after that. so they encoded the installer as well. they could have spent that time just
putting the stuff in the game. of course they're going to tell us what they think we should hear. that doesnt make it the truth. like i said, i've lost some respect for bioware over this, and this is why.

b09boy wrote...

Do you think that the DLC could have been put onto the disk?

Again, this answers that:

the_one_54321 wrote...

well i dont believe them. they had time to code in a merchant the sells the stuff to you ingame, and then the stuff gets installed in the game after that. so they encoded the installer as well. they could have spent that time just
putting the stuff in the game. of course they're going to tell us what they think we should hear. that doesnt make it the truth. like i said, i've lost some respect for bioware over this, and this is why.

b09boy wrote...

Do you think that that the DLC should have been free?

This answer that:

the_one_54321 wrote...

i would argue that it should be free. unless they packaged it all together and sold it as a separate physical retail expansion pack.

b09boy wrote...

If you answer yes to any of these questions, why do you think this?

These answer that:

the_one_54321 wrote...

well i dont believe them. they had time to code in a merchant the sells the stuff to you ingame, and then the stuff gets installed in the game after that. so they encoded the installer as well. they could have spent that time just
putting the stuff in the game. of course they're going to tell us what they think we should hear. that doesnt make it the truth. like i said, i've lost some respect for bioware over this, and this is why.

the_one_54321 wrote...

it has nothing to do with the cardboard box. it has everything to do with the physical copy that will always work, even if EA disolves bioware at some point in the future.

i still have games from the original Playstation that i like to play. i'd like to think that this game will be good enough to warrant the same kind of treatment.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 29 octobre 2009 - 06:01 .

[Leonaius]

I'm one of those guys who will pay for any additional quests or addons to make the game harder/longer, always on the look out for more content because it increases the depth.

I love Bioware, the rpgs they make have always been top notch and i don't have a single complaint.

Infact bring on more DLC please Bioware! i'll pay for it all no problem , it is afterall to pay for my addiction which is stories.

Modifié par Leonaius, 29 octobre 2009 - 06:00 .

[the_one_54321]

b09boy wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

specifically, that DLC team could have been coding the content into the game. yeah, they arent geared for that, but why does that mean they are incapable of it?

That's a wild mismanagement of resources and a sure bet way of screwing up a game.

you dont leave a crew sitting on their hands just because they arent specifically intended for something they are fully capable of doing. it's not like they are taking artists and telling them to write code. these are people who are capable of putting conetent into a game.

and it's not as though you're dropping them into the middle of something unexpected with no forewarning. they could have planned this and set it in motion the same way they planned it and set it in motion as a DLC project.

the way they did it is certainly more cost efficient because it generates more revenue for the company, but that came at our - the consumers - expense. i find that unacceptable. why is it such a big deal to you that i find it unacceptable?

Modifié par the_one_54321, 29 octobre 2009 - 06:02 .

[Leonaius]

Personally, so long as i get the game and they make extra content available to download at a price i don't much care. I'm pretty happy though, expanion wise and mod wise on the pc this game has the most potential to get alot bigger.

I don't blame Bioware for releasing them as content to buy, anyone who beleives in some big conspiracy theory or whatever i'm not too sure what to say to them.

Actually yes i would say "stop thinking too much", unless they send you keyloggers through your email to get your credit card details i beleive you should just trust them.

Modifié par Leonaius, 29 octobre 2009 - 06:15 .

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

We need a sticky for this, almost every day some ass-clown shows up to burst out in outrage about the fact that EA/Bioware charges money for DLC.

Modifié par Spaghetti_Ninja, 29 octobre 2009 - 06:25 .

[b09boy]

the_one_54321 wrote...

you dont leave a crew sitting on their hands just because they arent specifically intended for something they are fully capable of doing.

They're not just sitting on their hands, though.  They're adding onto the game.  You just don't like it.

it's not like they are taking artists and telling them to write code. these are people who are capable of putting conetent into a game.

Just because they're capable doesn't mean they're any good at it.  This isn't a sort of 'if you got enough monkeys they could invent the lightbulb' situation or the like.  You don't plug people into work they're not especially good at and expect quality to come out.

the way they did it is certainly more cost efficient because it generates more revenue for the company, but that came at our - the consumers - expense. i find that unacceptable. why is it such a big deal to you that i find it unacceptable?

How exactly does this come at our expense?  The game is still $50/60 and it probably wouldn't have come out earlier than November 3rd even if it was finished - the last delay seemed more to dodge around competition than an actual necessity.

[onewhoknows]

The DLC is and always has been intended for DLC from the moment of its inception.

BioWare (or EA) has already included "The Stone Prisoner" as a mea culpa, but that isn't enough for you people?  They could just as easily have held off on the DLC for a month and then released it where everyone would be none wiser.

[the_one_54321]

b09boy wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

you dont leave a crew sitting on their hands just because they arent specifically intended for something they are fully capable of doing.

They're not just sitting on their hands, though.  They're adding onto the game.  You just don't like it.

yeeeeaaaaahhhhh. that's what ive been saying this whole time.

b09boy wrote...

it's not like they are taking artists and telling them to write code. these are people who are capable of putting conetent into a game.

Just because they're capable doesn't mean they're any good at it.  This isn't a sort of 'if you got enough monkeys they could invent the lightbulb' situation or the like.  You don't plug people into work they're not especially good at and expect quality to come out.

what do you think these people do, exactly? either they can code game material or they cant. it's not like putting engineer in a computer programers job.

b09boy wrote...

the way they did it is certainly more cost efficient because it generates more revenue for the company, but that came at our - the consumers - expense. i find that unacceptable. why is it such a big deal to you that i find it unacceptable?

How exactly does this come at our expense?  The game is still $50/60 and it probably wouldn't have come out earlier than November 3rd even if it was finished - the last delay seemed more to dodge around competition than an actual necessity.

because we end up paying more in gross for the same content. how is that not at our expense? it's really simple.

[b09boy]

the_one_54321 wrote...

what do you think these people do, exactly? either they can code game material or they cant. it's not like putting engineer in a computer programers job.

You're right.  it's more like putting an artist in a computer programmer's job.

because we end up paying more in gross for the same content. how is that not at our expense? it's really simple.

...what?  The game costs just as much whether they're making DLC or polishing the game.

[Tyler_Aus]

The additional content of the game is exactly that, additional content not originally intended in the design budget of the game. This is why companies have things list green, yellow, red lists for projects.



If additional content that was not orginally decided upon as necessary to the final product get's added it is all gravy. But if it won't fit in the current plan for the release of a game (along with the differences in testing) then they make a business decision what to do with it.



Plain and simple, we are getting the product that was originally intended for us to get, maybe with some additional stuff that we will never know was optional. The DLC of the game was not intended to be part of the release and it has little to no effect on the main story. It's just gravy.



If you buy a burger at a fast food place, you get what was intended to come on the burger. If you want the extra slice of cheese or bacon, you pay for it.

[eviluten]

My gosh, some of these arguments are really out there.



It seems that some of the people are failing to understand one really important thing. The game has gone gold. They can't work on the main disc at all after that occurs. DLC, that just happens to be coming out on Day 1, and is most likely still being worked on, was certainly still being worked on once the game went gold.



It doesn't matter that it is coming out on Day 1, as Day 1 is only OUR release date, not the completion date. Bioware is putting in extra effort to scramble to get the DLC ready for us to be able to get on Day 1 and I am rather thankful.



They could have made two other choices you know.. A) Drat, that bit has to be cut because there is no way it'll be finished on time.. Or Let's hold on to it for a while, and release it in six months or so..



Would you prefer the game had been out for over a year, like GTA IV?? And yes, I did get that content too. *grin*



And in the end, it may cost more, but they work more and we do have a choice. We don't have to buy the extra content. None of it is essential.

[the_one_54321]

b09boy wrote...

You're right. it's more like putting an artist in a computer programmer's job.

Now you’re just being obstinate. Either these guys can code content into a game or they cant.

b09boy wrote...

...what? The game costs just as much whether they're making DLC or polishing the game.

What are you talking about? Does the DLC cost money to download or doesn’t it?

Tyler_Aus wrote...

If you buy a burger at a fast food place, you get what was intended to come on the burger. If you want the extra slice of cheese or bacon, you pay for it.

I’d say it’s more like being told you were going to get a bacon cheeseburger. Then they tell you the recipe has been redone and you’re just getting a hamburger. Then they tell you that you can have the bacon and cheese added on at extra expense if you wish.



Granted the cheese and bacon is a much large difference to the burger than this content is for the game. But similarly, I’d just tell them no thank you, I’ll just buy a cheeseburger from a company gives me a cheeseburger the next time I’m hungry.

[SheffSteel]

the_one_54321 wrote...

we end up paying more in gross for the same content.

The same content as what? The hypothetical version made by the developers who say, "You know what, the release date just got pushed back, so let's add some content"?

I hate to say this but those developers went out of business... because they didn't understand game development.

Modifié par SheffSteel, 29 octobre 2009 - 07:05 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Hello everyone, longtime lurker, recent signer-upper and first time poster for what it's worth.

While I will probably wind up buying dlc and can see the possibilities in it, I can fully understand the_one's concern.  Take the Sims 3: the game was gutted of content so that EA could sell it to you piecemeal while still charging full price for the base game.  DLC scams have been done (successfully) by these companies before, and as such he is not willing to take them at their word.  In fact, it's only because I like BioWare games (been playing Baldur's Gate again while waiting) that I am giving the game a chance despite the EA tag on it.   And while he may have the choice to not buy it, it will still impact him if companies take this route. 

jazzy B 3 wrote...

Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them. That is how markets work. If people are willing to pay the asking price for DLC then the DLC will be profitable and will continue to be used as a business model. If people feel that it's not worth it, it will cease to be profitable and will no longer be made. The definition of "what people are willing to pay for something" changes daily. Check out the stock markets and inflation.

Indeed, that's how Capitalist societies should work, in theory.  But then, just like Communism, things don't always work out in practice.  Companies will spread misinformation, lie, cheat, and monopolise.  Sometimes a CEO will find that he can make millions by ruining the very company he runs. 

Also, you're assuming that people look into the product they are buying, but alot of people are ignorant and will not know the true value of what it is they are buying.  While it may indeed be their own fault for being ignorant, it will have the knock on effect of the company pursuing these types of people for the easy buck, producing their product over what they can get out of these people while leaving the ones that are not ignorant with nothing to buy.

Just to be clear, I'm not calling anyone here ignorant, as I said at the start I'll probably wind up buying some dlc too if it's worth it, but I can understand the_one's concern is all.

Boo will answer any questions you may have.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 29 octobre 2009 - 07:07 .

[the_one_54321]

SheffSteel wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

we end up paying more in gross for the same content.

The same content as what? The hypothetical version made by the developers who say, "You know what, the release date just got pushed back, so let's add some content"?

I hate to say this but those developers went out of business... because they didn't raelly understand game development.

they had time to code in such and such instead of that they coded in this and that etc etc etc etc. i really dont want to repeat it all over again.

[SheffSteel]

the_one_54321 wrote...

they had time to code in such and such instead of that they coded in this and that etc etc etc etc. i really dont want to repeat it all over again.

Well, another shocking bit of reality for you: Some things take longer to code than others. More importantly, some things take longer to put through QA than others.

[the_one_54321]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
...

THANK YOU. that was a completely fair and evenhanded response.

[the_one_54321]

SheffSteel wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

they had time to code in such and such instead of that they coded in this and that etc etc etc etc. i really dont want to repeat it all over again.

Well, another shocking bit of reality for you: Some things take longer to code than others. More importantly, some things take longer to put through QA than others.

while i'll accept that i could be mistaken about this, i really do not see the difference at all. download and install, or just put in the code straight away.

[dmhalsey]

the_one_54321 wrote...

b09boy wrote...
You're right. it's more like putting an artist in a computer programmer's job.

Now you’re just being obstinate. Either these guys can code content into a game or they cant.

b09boy wrote...
...what? The game costs just as much whether they're making DLC or polishing the game.

What are you talking about? Does the DLC cost money to download or doesn’t it?

Tyler_Aus wrote...
If you buy a burger at a fast food place, you get what was intended to come on the burger. If you want the extra slice of cheese or bacon, you pay for it.

I’d say it’s more like being told you were going to get a bacon cheeseburger. Then they tell you the recipe has been redone and you’re just getting a hamburger. Then they tell you that you can have the bacon and cheese added on at extra expense if you wish.

Granted the cheese and bacon is a much large difference to the burger than this content is for the game. But similarly, I’d just tell them no thank you, I’ll just buy a cheeseburger from a company gives me a cheeseburger the next time I’m hungry.

 

No this is more like you order a cheeseburger and they tell you for a little extra they can add bacon to your cheeseburger. And then apparently you scream and cry like a little girl sayong your cheeseburger should come with bacon at the same price. GROW UP!!! They have said repeatedly that wardens keep was not meant to be part of the original game it was always meant to be DLC. Shale was meant to be part of the original but was cut do to not enough time so when they got it done they added it for free.

[JackDresden]

Has anyone told the OP yet that they are also going to have NPCs who tell him about the DLC quests and only tell him it's an extra he has to buy when he accepts the quest.

[Taltherion]

Couple of thoughts ... don't know if they were already mentioned.



- most of the DLC is free if you buy a new copy of the game - which most or all of us will do or have already done. I don't think one should make a fuss about that. Some of that DLC was intended to be in the game but didn't make it before content lock-down - so you get it as a free DLC ... I don't see any problem with that. I own a couple of games that got stuff added through downloads for free (mostly in the form of a patch).



- the only DLC that costs money at the moment is Warden's Keep. Now as far as I understand this was never meant to be in game right from the start. A team was working on it for the sole purpose of having a DLC that would garner some revenue.



- DAO was postponed. It was scheduled for the PC to come out in spring 2009 ... is it so far out to think that the original plan was to have the game out in March 2009 and have Warden's Keep as the first DLC in November? Would we then still be complaining ... or is it more the fact that release and first DLC to buy is on the same day?

[052Hagen]

Out of curiosity, does the Warden's Keep DLC add new art assest (objects etc.) to the toolset in addition to the new quest?

[JackDresden]

I would expect it to personally but I guess bioware would have to answer for sure.

[SunKilMoon]

---the_one_54321---



Did you even read the first two pages before posting?



There are some pretty damn good points made, enough to change the OP's thoughts on DLC



It really seems like you opened the thread, read the first post, then responded in agreeance, starting the entire argument ALL over again as SOON as it had just ended



Except you sound more like a whiny know it all whereas the OP sounded respectable and smart



This DLC discussion is something that will never die