Metal_Dawn the reason EA is shedding jobs is because the economy is doing poorly not because gamers are upset with DLC. When unemployment is 10% (probably much higher if you count people who gave up looking for work) people are going to try and conserve their money. Consumer spending for better or worse is what drives our economy and until employment picks up you can expect the business contractions to continue. When a business produces a product that sells (e.g. Dragon Age) its only natural they try to reinforce their success by selling DLC, expansion packs etc. There is nothing wrong with that but beware of going to the well too often.
Opposed to DLC? Here is some food for thought
Débuté par
metal_dawn
, nov. 18 2009 03:22
Retour en haut
#27
Guest_Von Salza_*
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 04:53
Guest_Von Salza_*
Guest_Von Salza_*
-
- Guests
We have to support Bioware, Bethesda and Obsidian.
RPGs, a couple of years ago were given as almost extinct, few companies bother to make them still. DLC is fast way to get income on a regular basis, making another game or a full expansion takes more time. Quality DLC: yes, I'll buy
RPGs, a couple of years ago were given as almost extinct, few companies bother to make them still. DLC is fast way to get income on a regular basis, making another game or a full expansion takes more time. Quality DLC: yes, I'll buy
#28
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 04:56
Reiella
-
- Members
- 685 messages
AshedMan wrote...
I fully support DLC and even Day 1 - DLC, however, I cannot support $7-$15 prices for one hour of content.
If the DLC they release is akin to the Deep Roads experience or the Circle of Magi (content that was broad, deep, and took some time to complete) then I would be a happy camper purchasing all of it. Look at Fallout 3's DLC. They had similar pricing but at least offered 3-6 hours of play.
Charging $7 for Warden's Keep and $15 for Stone Prisoner is pure greediness coming from EA. I cannot and will not support anymore of that.
And therein lies the problem.
Stone Prisoner has -alot- of content you don't quite realize on a casual playthrough, it seems alot less than it is. And folks just think in terms of the hour content as evidenced here.
Warden's Keep added a fair bit of new art resources as well.
The issue being folks really don't want to pay for an add-on that pretty much looks the same as what's already there[Here's an addon for some apparantly random Thaigs in the deep roads! enjoy]. At the same time, art is expensive... Voice costs money as well, and that is an 'unforunate' trap that Bioware is in now because of establishing consistant voice acting. And of course, cost of delivery. Knights of the Nine had a nice balance in that it reused -alot- of existing content to make it a longer adventure, yet there was still some new artistic components. In terms of advice, perhaps Warden's Keep would have been better recieved if you had to fight through the caves to get there, just generic cave fights, nothing special in terms of fight, just filler content to drag out the quest. Of course, that still does add to development cost, and QA cost, but without the massive investments in the other fields. It would also include a good will cost because of recycling old content and asking folks to pay for it too.
It's a difficult balancing act, the real unforunate thing is much like pc video games as a whole, you can't try before you buy to decide if you'll like it or not.
#29
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:02
-XM-
-
- Members
- 49 messages
I bought Warden's Keep before starting the game specifically to avoid the annoyance of in-game immersion breaking DLC peddlers. It was short but it was cheap so the time/money ratio is fine by me. A couple of extra talents/items thrown in isn't bad either. Bioware made a big mistake however, in releasing it on day one. Whether it was developed after the game was done and they were porting to consoles or not is irrelevant to the perception of being sold an incomplete game on day one. They should've thought about it and released it in mid-December. They would've been praised for making new content "soon" rather than "before release". Bad marketing.
The whole money problem with the game industry is their own fault for switching to Hollywood style production, with AAA titles having more graphic artists than programmers and writers. Take a hint from the movie industry, when you focus too much on eye candy, it becomes a risky investment for studios. When it becomes a risky investment, the only products that come out are: adapatations from another medium (books to movies, movie tie-in games), sequels/prequels, remakes (hollywood is very guilty of this and usually the american version is worse). In the games industry, this has meant movie tie-ins, endless sequels (how many newly released games out there at the moment are sequels, compared to say not even 10 years ago?), shorter games, etc... Do you think a game like DA:O would have been made if it wasn't planned to be a new "franchise" with a more profitable "IP" since EA doesn't have to license it? Of course not. Because it's a risky investment. Because the price of games has not gone up enough whereas the amount of eye-candy, voice acting, etc... has increased
When the combat mechanics of DA:O are limited by animations and not the other way around, you know there's a problem. The only good thing about this trend is that it means independent developpers will have a larger market to compete, similarly to what happened with movies. I won't cry for publishers who try to maintain the same profit margin they had before, despite selling a product that costs more to make, when the reasons it costs more is just extra fluff. When Micheal Bay makes another 100000000000000 gazillion budget movie with most of it spent on stars and special effects, the studios don't add in-movie characters who ask you for money if you want to watch an extra 15 minute side-story...
The whole money problem with the game industry is their own fault for switching to Hollywood style production, with AAA titles having more graphic artists than programmers and writers. Take a hint from the movie industry, when you focus too much on eye candy, it becomes a risky investment for studios. When it becomes a risky investment, the only products that come out are: adapatations from another medium (books to movies, movie tie-in games), sequels/prequels, remakes (hollywood is very guilty of this and usually the american version is worse). In the games industry, this has meant movie tie-ins, endless sequels (how many newly released games out there at the moment are sequels, compared to say not even 10 years ago?), shorter games, etc... Do you think a game like DA:O would have been made if it wasn't planned to be a new "franchise" with a more profitable "IP" since EA doesn't have to license it? Of course not. Because it's a risky investment. Because the price of games has not gone up enough whereas the amount of eye-candy, voice acting, etc... has increased
When the combat mechanics of DA:O are limited by animations and not the other way around, you know there's a problem. The only good thing about this trend is that it means independent developpers will have a larger market to compete, similarly to what happened with movies. I won't cry for publishers who try to maintain the same profit margin they had before, despite selling a product that costs more to make, when the reasons it costs more is just extra fluff. When Micheal Bay makes another 100000000000000 gazillion budget movie with most of it spent on stars and special effects, the studios don't add in-movie characters who ask you for money if you want to watch an extra 15 minute side-story...
#30
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:04
smelph
-
- Members
- 50 messages
I'm not opposed to DLC so much as I am opposed to paying 7 bucks for 1-2 hours of content. for 15 bucks I can play WoW as much as I want for a month.
I would have no problem paying 7 bucks for 7 hours worth of content. $1/hour is far more reasonable than $7/hour.
I would have no problem paying 7 bucks for 7 hours worth of content. $1/hour is far more reasonable than $7/hour.
#31
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:05
ItsToofy
-
- Members
- 399 messages
smelph wrote...
I'm not opposed to DLC so much as I am opposed to paying 7 bucks for 1-2 hours of content. for 15 bucks I can play WoW as much as I want for a month.
I would have no problem paying 7 bucks for 7 hours worth of content. $1/hour is far more reasonable than $7/hour.
Dont complain, there are people who don't even get paid that much.
If you eat fast food you are getting 7 bucks for 10 minutes of satisfaction followed by 24 hours of indigestion and the runs
#32
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:10
smelph
-
- Members
- 50 messages
ItsToofy wrote...
Dont complain, there are people who don't even get paid that much.
my point exactly.
#33
Guest_Lowlander_*
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:11
Guest_Lowlander_*
Guest_Lowlander_*
-
- Guests
I had every intention of staying away from these forums.
But GRRRRRR! Count me in with the pitchforks and torches set on this one.
Industry problems and layoffs at EA? Solution: Crappy DLC??
If there is an industry problem it rests clearly on the shoulders of EA, which changed the industry from innovation to sequelitis after buying up and destroying most indepenedent game houses that it took over. It spewed some of the worse DRM infections on the public. Remember Spore? EA was doing this not because of piracy, but because of their war on end users trading, buying/selling used games.
Layoffs at EA Good. EA going bankrupt would be a cause for celebration IMO. EA is not a creative force, they are the Borg.
The DLC we have seen here is offensive. It is essentially selling items in a single player game. I dislike this in in MMOs, but in stand alone single player games, it is bile inducing.
Wardens keep was short do nothing DLC, what it really was is selling you best armor weapons in the game for cold hard cash.
Face it, actual adventures are a lot of work. But a new sword and armor, that takes 5 minutes. The dollar return is immense if you can get people to accept paying cold hard cash for their items.
I don't buy any BS about plans to release DLC after the game came out. If that was the case it should be, post campaign new adventures, not swords/armor to use in a camaign you would have already completed.
I am never signing up to be nickel and dimed for in game items. You can sell more story, but I am never laying out real cash for a virtual sword.
I have long had an uneasy feeling because I love Bioware as much as I despise EA. In the end I expect EA will do to them what they did it every other gaming house the acquired. Destroy them. This feels like the first steps.
But GRRRRRR! Count me in with the pitchforks and torches set on this one.
Industry problems and layoffs at EA? Solution: Crappy DLC??
If there is an industry problem it rests clearly on the shoulders of EA, which changed the industry from innovation to sequelitis after buying up and destroying most indepenedent game houses that it took over. It spewed some of the worse DRM infections on the public. Remember Spore? EA was doing this not because of piracy, but because of their war on end users trading, buying/selling used games.
Layoffs at EA Good. EA going bankrupt would be a cause for celebration IMO. EA is not a creative force, they are the Borg.
The DLC we have seen here is offensive. It is essentially selling items in a single player game. I dislike this in in MMOs, but in stand alone single player games, it is bile inducing.
Wardens keep was short do nothing DLC, what it really was is selling you best armor weapons in the game for cold hard cash.
Face it, actual adventures are a lot of work. But a new sword and armor, that takes 5 minutes. The dollar return is immense if you can get people to accept paying cold hard cash for their items.
I don't buy any BS about plans to release DLC after the game came out. If that was the case it should be, post campaign new adventures, not swords/armor to use in a camaign you would have already completed.
I am never signing up to be nickel and dimed for in game items. You can sell more story, but I am never laying out real cash for a virtual sword.
I have long had an uneasy feeling because I love Bioware as much as I despise EA. In the end I expect EA will do to them what they did it every other gaming house the acquired. Destroy them. This feels like the first steps.
Modifié par Lowlander, 18 novembre 2009 - 05:56 .
#34
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:13
Reiella
-
- Members
- 685 messages
smelph wrote...
I'm not opposed to DLC so much as I am opposed to paying 7 bucks for 1-2 hours of content. for 15 bucks I can play WoW as much as I want for a month.
I would have no problem paying 7 bucks for 7 hours worth of content. $1/hour is far more reasonable than $7/hour.
Of course, base cost for World of Warcraft is 80$ instead. And 'soon' not too unlikly to jump to 120$ at least for a little while. And the whole bit of really being a different type of game and currency model
. It's very few monthes where your subscription fee actually results in new content that month.
#35
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:15
LFDog
-
- Members
- 88 messages
Well... grey beard time.
In the "olden" days of D&D we played the game and had a lot of fun. Sometimes we made up our own adventures and sometimes we bought things called "modules" where someone made up adventures for us to play.
Dragon Age is a perfect example of this:
1) Toolset - make up your own adventures for free. Share with friends and even the community.
2) DLC - buy "modules" that interest your playing needs. $7 for a couple hours of fun? Too much? See point #1. Make one of your own and ask if $7 is too much.
Everyone's budget will be different, but there is no forcing you to buy the DLC. (I will say that placing a salesperson in my camp in annoying as all heck).
The toolkit should be reduced in price... oh wait... it's FREE!
In the "olden" days of D&D there were some modules that were free with fanzines, some that were free as part of magazines (Dragon), and some that were free as part of special promotions (such as the Stone Prisoner in DA). Some you had to pay for and there were some that were bad and some that were really, really good. In fact, that's where Forgotten Realms came from - D&D modules.
Some old guys help me out here. What was that first series of Advanced D&D modules that really set the pace and allowed for higher level characters? I can see them in my mind, but can't remember their name.... dang.
Anyhow. DLC is just that - modular expansions that make your initial game investment even more valuable because you now have the "box" to play the DLC and the Toolset to create your own. Thanks BioWare!!
In the "olden" days of D&D we played the game and had a lot of fun. Sometimes we made up our own adventures and sometimes we bought things called "modules" where someone made up adventures for us to play.
Dragon Age is a perfect example of this:
1) Toolset - make up your own adventures for free. Share with friends and even the community.
2) DLC - buy "modules" that interest your playing needs. $7 for a couple hours of fun? Too much? See point #1. Make one of your own and ask if $7 is too much.
Everyone's budget will be different, but there is no forcing you to buy the DLC. (I will say that placing a salesperson in my camp in annoying as all heck).
The toolkit should be reduced in price... oh wait... it's FREE!
In the "olden" days of D&D there were some modules that were free with fanzines, some that were free as part of magazines (Dragon), and some that were free as part of special promotions (such as the Stone Prisoner in DA). Some you had to pay for and there were some that were bad and some that were really, really good. In fact, that's where Forgotten Realms came from - D&D modules.
Some old guys help me out here. What was that first series of Advanced D&D modules that really set the pace and allowed for higher level characters? I can see them in my mind, but can't remember their name.... dang.
Anyhow. DLC is just that - modular expansions that make your initial game investment even more valuable because you now have the "box" to play the DLC and the Toolset to create your own. Thanks BioWare!!
#36
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:21
71Zarathustra71
-
- Members
- 14 messages
addiction21 wrote...
Companies asking you to pay for a product is bad... or did you all not get the memo?
It's not about not wanting to pay for a product. It's about not wanting to pay for a product, get it home and realise they have removed a tiny portion of the game and are trying to sell it to you for nearly a quarter of the original price.
I have nothing against DLC. Updates that extend the life of a game and enhance it somehow are perfectly acceptable. However this is not DLC. It is a part of the original game that they have cynically tried to profit from. It isn't a surprise that a company has attempted this. Even less of a surprise that it was EA.
#37
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:25
1joker
-
- Members
- 9 messages
I also remember sitting around a table for many hours rolling dice, smoking and drinking and adventuring for days on end. And yes the modules we bought then are equivilant to DLC today. Nobody complained you either bought it, or not. If you didn't, you made your own with paper and a little imagination or, like here on the PC, use the free toolset. I play this on my X-box because my PC is ancient, but I WILL buy DLC when it comes out to continue my adventures. Also I love this game on the 360, it looks and plays great, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK BIOWARE!!!
#38
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:30
VanDraegon
-
- Members
- 956 messages
A great article and i agree with his points.
This is what it boils down to for me.... PC gaming is one of my favorite hobbies, one i put a lot of my time and money into. I like to have a good pc to play cutting edge games and i like to have all the latest accessories that go along with gaming on a pc. I love playing PC games. I especially love playing games of the type made by Bioware. If Bioware has decided that they need DLC on day one and after to help fund their next Dragon Age project and to help fund some vacations for Greg and Rob plus bonuses for their employees....i will happily buy it. All of it that applies to my favorite games, such as Dragon Age.
They provide me with an enjoyable experience i like to spend as much time at as i can, i do not begrudge them the extra income. If i was so worried about the costs of my chosen hobby i would either find a way to further fund my experience of find another hobby.
This is what it boils down to for me.... PC gaming is one of my favorite hobbies, one i put a lot of my time and money into. I like to have a good pc to play cutting edge games and i like to have all the latest accessories that go along with gaming on a pc. I love playing PC games. I especially love playing games of the type made by Bioware. If Bioware has decided that they need DLC on day one and after to help fund their next Dragon Age project and to help fund some vacations for Greg and Rob plus bonuses for their employees....i will happily buy it. All of it that applies to my favorite games, such as Dragon Age.
They provide me with an enjoyable experience i like to spend as much time at as i can, i do not begrudge them the extra income. If i was so worried about the costs of my chosen hobby i would either find a way to further fund my experience of find another hobby.
#39
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:33
LFDog
-
- Members
- 88 messages
71Zarathustra71 wrote...
addiction21 wrote...
Companies asking you to pay for a product is bad... or did you all not get the memo?
It's not about not wanting to pay for a product. It's about not wanting to pay for a product, get it home and realise they have removed a tiny portion of the game and are trying to sell it to you for nearly a quarter of the original price.
I have nothing against DLC. Updates that extend the life of a game and enhance it somehow are perfectly acceptable. However this is not DLC. It is a part of the original game that they have cynically tried to profit from. It isn't a surprise that a company has attempted this. Even less of a surprise that it was EA.
Would it have made a difference if they waited a month prior to releasing this module? Yes. They *could* have included it with the full game and they probably also developed it at the same time as the full game.
However, they also needed a way to demonstrate the fact that this game will use DLC. They did this by offering a free DLC to those that pre-ordered (Stone Prisoner) and they demonstrated the paid DLC by having a small module available for purchase on launch.
It's really not that big of a cost - or that big of a deal. The content is not relevant to the main story in terms of playability and the "value" of the module is dependent on your perception of how much $7 worth of entertainment looks like.
I'm also a comic collector and wrote a rather long article on "entertainment density" in which I looled at raw density of entertainment options as a factor against price. Video Games are actually one of the best values for your entertainment budget. Even without replay - a typical video game at even $100 would be a good value in comparision to ... well, almost anything. Experiencial entertainment (day-passes at amusement parks, zoos, etc) are consumed by the time the park closes. Movies (rented or theatre) end after the show. Video's purchased have lower replay value (in genereal - I mean, watching Star Wars 100x is not entertaining - it's addiction and sad)
I guess what I am saying is that $7 for a small 2hr adventure is probably not that bad a deal if you are objective about it and compare it to alternatives.
#40
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:34
VanDraegon
-
- Members
- 956 messages
smelph wrote...
I would have no problem paying 7 bucks for 7 hours worth of content. $1/hour is far more reasonable than $7/hour.
Says the person not running a big software development company that has to pay the wages, taxes and insurance on all its employees.
It is the same in my business. You show up to do a job for someone and they expect you to do the work for practically nothing.
#41
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:38
LFDog
-
- Members
- 88 messages
DragonLance! It was DragonLance.
You have to love Wikipedia!
You have to love Wikipedia!
#42
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:43
Aidunno
-
- Members
- 468 messages
I hate DLC simply because I hate virtual purchases online. Give me a CD, in a store with the DLC for a reasonable price and I'm more likely to get it. Up until then, not that it will ever happen, I'll wait for the modders out there to have lots of fun or a full expansion sequel to come out (which I'm able to buy in a shop).
#43
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:43
LFDog
-
- Members
- 88 messages
smelph wrote...
I'm not opposed to DLC so much as I am opposed to paying 7 bucks for 1-2 hours of content. for 15 bucks I can play WoW as much as I want for a month.
I would have no problem paying 7 bucks for 7 hours worth of content. $1/hour is far more reasonable than $7/hour.
I think that $1/hr is a little low. We are sort of used to this in video games because a typical "big" release will have 40-100 hours of game play and cost around $50.
I suggest you grab a copy of the toolkit and start building some content of your own (if you are a PC gamer) to get an idea of just how much work goes into development. Of course, your advnture will not have any additional art, voice acting and such, but it will give you just a little taste of what it takes to produce DLC.
#44
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:44
Tripedius
-
- Members
- 467 messages
If DLC is value for money I would pay for it. If a game was more expensive, but something I liked as dragon age (and it would be as good as DA), I would pay for it.
If your fanbase is big enough you would get the money you invest back. Look how big wow has become. It's better to sell 1.000.000 x $5 worth of DLC that people would consider value for money, than selling half for $7. Ofc it is more complicated to find the break-even (make a good profit) point, but although I don't regret downloading WK I feel the next DLC will need to be better (aka longer, keeping your keep and stuff like that). Cause after WK I will read the reviews first before downing it.
Also you need to throw your community a bone once in a while, so no obvious exploiting of DLC. I love DA and knew I would buy it since I saw the first trailer, but if I would have felt I was milked for cash I would not have bought it.
There are so many crap games in this world, they should stop making them. The obvious bad ripoffs and stuff. Like we really need another football game or manager for instance or another catwoman, hulk, harry potter crap game.
If your fanbase is big enough you would get the money you invest back. Look how big wow has become. It's better to sell 1.000.000 x $5 worth of DLC that people would consider value for money, than selling half for $7. Ofc it is more complicated to find the break-even (make a good profit) point, but although I don't regret downloading WK I feel the next DLC will need to be better (aka longer, keeping your keep and stuff like that). Cause after WK I will read the reviews first before downing it.
Also you need to throw your community a bone once in a while, so no obvious exploiting of DLC. I love DA and knew I would buy it since I saw the first trailer, but if I would have felt I was milked for cash I would not have bought it.
There are so many crap games in this world, they should stop making them. The obvious bad ripoffs and stuff. Like we really need another football game or manager for instance or another catwoman, hulk, harry potter crap game.
#45
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:46
LFDog
-
- Members
- 88 messages
Aidunno wrote...
I hate DLC simply because I hate virtual purchases online. Give me a CD, in a store with the DLC for a reasonable price and I'm more likely to get it. Up until then, not that it will ever happen, I'll wait for the modders out there to have lots of fun or a full expansion sequel to come out (which I'm able to buy in a shop).
I wouldn't be surprised if down the road we see expansion sets in stores - probably at an even lower cost than the DLC at release date.
This was done previously. I just picked-up the NWN Diamond set off Amazon for less than $20. It was all the expansions, plus the King Maker content too!
Modifié par LFDog, 18 novembre 2009 - 05:48 .
#47
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:47
Eurypterid
-
- Members
- 4 668 messages
LFDog wrote...
Would it have made a difference if they waited a month prior to releasing this module? Yes. They *could* have included it with the full game and they probably also developed it at the same time as the full game.
No, they couldn't. Not without delaying the game release even further. This has been explained many times by the devs. I realize many people may have missed it, since they may not have cruised the forums, but they could not have included either the Stone Prisoner or the Warden's Keep on the disc at launch.
However, they also needed a way to demonstrate the fact that this game will use DLC. They did this by offering a free DLC to those that pre-ordered (Stone Prisoner) and they demonstrated the paid DLC by having a small module available for purchase on launch.
Just a correction: Stone Prisoner is not a result of a pre-order. It's included with every newly purchased copy of the game, whether pre-ordered or not (you can buy the game off the shelf now and SP is included as DLC for free).
Warden's Keep was available at launch day solely because of the delay in the release of the PC version of the game. It was always intended to be for-purchase DLC, and it was only the timing of the delayed game launch that allowed it to be day 1 DLC.
#48
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:47
menasure
-
- Members
- 440 messages
i have no credit card, little interest in regular internet payments and limited bandwith ... dlc won't work for me under such conditions even if the price is right.
#49
Guest_Lowlander_*
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:49
Guest_Lowlander_*
Guest_Lowlander_*
-
- Guests
I also remember sitting around a table for many hours rolling dice, smoking and drinking and adventuring for days on end. And yes the modules we bought then are equivilant to DLC today.
Ahh no. I also played AD&D modules back in the '80s. Modules != DLC.
Modules were equivalent to a full blown expansion, not short crappy DLC, A full complete new adventure story usually taking multiple days of playthrough. A module would be more like "Hordes of the Underdark" for NWN, than the 1 hour DLC nonsense.
You couldn't sell a module that gave 1 hour playtime.
DLC as presented so far is more like small bit of content cut out of the original game and then sold back to you later.
I find it highly offensive, like they are trying to put one over on me. My goodwill toward Bioware is evaporating.
Modifié par Lowlander, 18 novembre 2009 - 05:59 .
#50
Posté 18 novembre 2009 - 05:51
LFDog
-
- Members
- 88 messages
Eurypterid wrote...
LFDog wrote...
Would it have made a difference if they waited a month prior to releasing this module? Yes. They *could* have included it with the full game and they probably also developed it at the same time as the full game.
No, they couldn't. Not without delaying the game release even further. This has been explained many times by the devs. I realize many people may have missed it, since they may not have cruised the forums, but they could not have included either the Stone Prisoner or the Warden's Keep on the disc at launch.However, they also needed a way to demonstrate the fact that this game will use DLC. They did this by offering a free DLC to those that pre-ordered (Stone Prisoner) and they demonstrated the paid DLC by having a small module available for purchase on launch.
Just a correction: Stone Prisoner is not a result of a pre-order. It's included with every newly purchased copy of the game, whether pre-ordered or not (you can buy the game off the shelf now and SP is included as DLC for free).
Warden's Keep was available at launch day solely because of the delay in the release of the PC version of the game. It was always intended to be for-purchase DLC, and it was only the timing of the delayed game launch that allowed it to be day 1 DLC.
I stand corrected on the details - hopefully, the logic and conclusions still make sense.
The point is - DLC is ultimately a good thing as it helps the original game system to be built upon.
