165 réponses à ce sujet

[flexxdk]

Guns wrote...

I don't like buying gas. Guess I should just stop going to work.

/win

Oh, and BTW, Shale's a she. Not a he.

You're getting free DLC if you pre-order the game. If not, then you don't get it. Simple as it is.
Annoying? Yes.
Can something be done about it? No.

[JayhartRIC]

shadowreflexion wrote...

 Sorry. But many people in this thread are really misinformed about things not being in game already. This was posted by a forum member 3 days ago. If you take the time to listen to what's being said, it may enlighten your views to this topic. The forum member's name is CPT Eightball. Here's the original link he posted with the information.

www.youtube.com/watch

I'm not oppsed to personally paying for DLC but it's more about the morality of doing so. The question basically is do you feel the need to pay for something that was already completed and integrated into the game but removed to become DLC? If you don't believe the OP then delete Kasumi's DLC if you have it and then do the SM in ME2. You'll be able to choose her character without the hood when deciding on who to send where.
Kasumi is included in the finished game but you just can't use her until the suicide mission.

Here's the thread that was originally posted by CPT Eightball.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/7648588

Just because there is a pic or few lines for Kasumi on the disc doesn't mean Kasumi was ready for release.

[Someone With Mass]

It's almost like listening to some weird conspiracy.

If you don't want to pay for anything, then don't.

[Kusy]

I like DLCs.

[wizardryforever]

Shale's a gender neutral golem, neither he nor she.  Just because Shale was a woman before being a golem does not mean that Shale is a woman now.  Legion is also gender neutral, and people don't argue semantics with "him."

Anyway, character DLCs are most likely here to stay, and thus far I'm okay with that.  Shale, Zaeed, and Kasumi were well done and either free or cheap, but not necessary.  Besides, it is only fair that Bioware/EA do something to ensure that people buy the game new.  That's the main method of income for a game developer.

[shadowreflexion]

JayhartRIC wrote...

shadowreflexion wrote...

 Sorry. But many people in this thread are really misinformed about things not being in game already. This was posted by a forum member 3 days ago. If you take the time to listen to what's being said, it may enlighten your views to this topic. The forum member's name is CPT Eightball. Here's the original link he posted with the information.

www.youtube.com/watch

I'm not oppsed to personally paying for DLC but it's more about the morality of doing so. The question basically is do you feel the need to pay for something that was already completed and integrated into the game but removed to become DLC? If you don't believe the OP then delete Kasumi's DLC if you have it and then do the SM in ME2. You'll be able to choose her character without the hood when deciding on who to send where.
Kasumi is included in the finished game but you just can't use her until the suicide mission.

Here's the thread that was originally posted by CPT Eightball.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/7648588

Just because there is a pic or few lines for Kasumi on the disc doesn't mean Kasumi was ready for release.

It's about a character being already on the disc as opposed to one being added from DLC. If it were truly DLC then Kasumi would not have been on there at all. That's the purpose of DLC is it not? Now say your rebuttal is 100 % true, then that means that you do acknowledge that Katsumi was in the finished product at time of release and something added later. Should it be right that a character who was already in the finished version was just added upon? Hence people actually paid for a "different character model, an unlock code for the mission, and one new gun? Would that be fair to say that you acknowledge that? 

If DLC is not really DLC then there's a fine line between adding something new to a game or just expanding on a character already in the finished product. While I still enjoy the DLC that I buy for many games, this type of problem is becoming more of principle. Now the natural rebuttal would be, "then just don't buy the game." But that doesn't argue the principle for anyone who supports their game developers. Another may be to hire a lawyer. But sometimes things don't have to come to that. It should safe to say that a game company, be it BW, DICE, NoA, etc etc should evaluate what justifies "earning" a consumers money. Like many have acknowledged, there isn't much company in used games. In other places on this forum people grew upset because they didn't want to order ME3 CE from origin because they wanted to order the DDE or the game in general from companies like Steam. BW took a step in the right direction in order to try and cut piracy, make a profit for their team, and I think that works in everyones favor.

In short, DLC that's already there comes down to just principle nothing more, nothing less.

[KLUME777]

Paul Sedgmore wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

Paul Sedgmore wrote...

The content for Shale and Sabastian missed the date for content complete and if these games were released last generation they would have just been cut, never to see the light of day. Plus those two characters we released for free if you bought a new copy of the game, and if you didn't neither were critical to the game and you could enjoy it and complete it without ever needing those characters.

For Shale, yes, what you said was true. He didn't complete his dev cycle, and he was free for a new copy for the game. I liked Shale and didn't have a problem with him being DLC character, because it felt legitimate. You WILL miss out on enjoyment if you don't have him. 

For Sebastion though, your a BioDrone if you really think he couldn't make his dev time. Because he was never made for the original in the first place. He was advertised as an extra bonus months before, something they could have put in the game. He WASN"T free to everyone, only those who pre-ordered the Signature edition. Therefore legitimate customers missed out, because he was fairly important at the end.

Sebastien is a clear rip-out from the main game, and i cannot see Bioware doing something like this when they were making a great like KoTOR. Imagine if HK-47 was a DLC character? Just imagine?


I see it like this: Shale missed his dev time and was therefore cut. Some genius decided to implement him as free* DLC. Fair enough, and it worked, too.

So much, that Bioware decided to have Zaeed cut and used for DLC (who may or may not have been in the original game, or maybe was thought up of for DLC later on, since he has a minimal impact on the game compared to Shale), and later Kasumi.

Then, when DA2 comes along, they decide right off the bat to mark a DLC character before they even write the characters since it's now company policy. They also make it not free, and only available in the SE, since they know the game will be bad and they want people to buy the game months before it is released.



Sorry, wall of text.

Fair enough I forgot that it was only in the sig edition that Sabatian was free, however he has no impact on the overall story of DA2 except throughing a hissy fit about what happens at the end, you are not really missing anything by not having the content. You do realise that games go content complete months before release and they don't add anything in during the run up to release right?

Both Zaeed and Kasumi are clearly designed as DLC characters as they are throw away in regards to the plot.

Not DA2's developement.... I remember when DA2 went Gold, it was a few weeks before release. They can't add anything after that. But Sebastien was advertised months before that time, at around or before Christmas. We didn't even know who he was just "Pre-order and you get a bonus character". They obviously intended him to be DLC from the very beggining because it is a good* marketing, based off previous games. I think you will see that ME3 will have a bonus character as well, and from now on, any other games made by Bioware (although it might change when they finish they're contract with EA).

[stu117]

whats stupid is that its probably content that they were gonna release with the game for free but wanted to make an extra buck so they make u pay for it

[DocLasty]

shadowreflexion wrote...

JayhartRIC wrote...

shadowreflexion wrote...

 Sorry. But many people in this thread are really misinformed about things not being in game already. This was posted by a forum member 3 days ago. If you take the time to listen to what's being said, it may enlighten your views to this topic. The forum member's name is CPT Eightball. Here's the original link he posted with the information.

www.youtube.com/watch

I'm not oppsed to personally paying for DLC but it's more about the morality of doing so. The question basically is do you feel the need to pay for something that was already completed and integrated into the game but removed to become DLC? If you don't believe the OP then delete Kasumi's DLC if you have it and then do the SM in ME2. You'll be able to choose her character without the hood when deciding on who to send where.
Kasumi is included in the finished game but you just can't use her until the suicide mission.

Here's the thread that was originally posted by CPT Eightball.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/7648588

Just because there is a pic or few lines for Kasumi on the disc doesn't mean Kasumi was ready for release.

It's about a character being already on the disc as opposed to one being added from DLC. If it were truly DLC then Kasumi would not have been on there at all. That's the purpose of DLC is it not? Now say your rebuttal is 100 % true, then that means that you do acknowledge that Katsumi was in the finished product at time of release and something added later. Should it be right that a character who was already in the finished version was just added upon? Hence people actually paid for a "different character model, an unlock code for the mission, and one new gun? Would that be fair to say that you acknowledge that? 

If DLC is not really DLC then there's a fine line between adding something new to a game or just expanding on a character already in the finished product. While I still enjoy the DLC that I buy for many games, this type of problem is becoming more of principle. Now the natural rebuttal would be, "then just don't buy the game." But that doesn't argue the principle for anyone who supports their game developers. Another may be to hire a lawyer. But sometimes things don't have to come to that. It should safe to say that a game company, be it BW, DICE, NoA, etc etc should evaluate what justifies "earning" a consumers money. Like many have acknowledged, there isn't much company in used games. In other places on this forum people grew upset because they didn't want to order ME3 CE from origin because they wanted to order the DDE or the game in general from companies like Steam. BW took a step in the right direction in order to try and cut piracy, make a profit for their team, and I think that works in everyones favor.

In short, DLC that's already there comes down to just principle nothing more, nothing less.

The stuff of Kasumi that's on the disc doesn't even come close to amounting to a full character. People unlocked it, and saw what it was. Her mission's not on there. Her model isn't there. Just a few lines and some placeholder data.

[elearon1]

I have no problem with this. I like new characters in a game, Zaeed and Kasumi were both good characters with some fun and/or interesting material without being integral to gameplay - a perfect kind of dlc if you ask me. Mind you, I wouldn't want EVERY dlc to introduce a new person, I also really enjoyed Lair of the Shadow Broker and ... actually most of the dlc for ME2. (not so much for the first game)

What I don't want to see is Item/Outfit packs or crap like that Arena dlc from ME1. Or - for that matter - most of what we got for DA. (though I liked Leliana's Song ... because I loved Lel)

And if a character is used as a preorder incentive ... it is far more likely to get me to preorder a game than an extra weapon is.

[shadowreflexion]

DocLasty wrote...


The stuff of Kasumi that's on the disc doesn't even come close to amounting to a full character. People unlocked it, and saw what it was. Her mission's not on there. Her model isn't there. Just a few lines and some placeholder data.

Did you actually listen to her dialogue without having Kasumi downloaded? Did you pick her character to go into the vents without having Kasumi downloaded? This Kasumi's face and body model is not a placeholder. She has features similar to Fem Shep and the only thing that's really missing is her outfit and hood. (If Kasumi's DLC isn't downloaded the option to pick her is there.) Now in the reply that I made that you responded to, you would have seen that I said you're paying for the Locust, outfit, and the unlock code for Kasumi's loyalty mission. I don't come on forums lying to people. If you won't do the research then just agree to disagree. 

Also, even though I enjoy DLC from various companies the question still remains. Is it morally wrong to pay for something that's already complete twice? That's it. This is not attacking BW or other developers and publishers. This come down to ones integrity. This can be debated all day long if no one really looks at it from all angles. Good debates consist of people listening to each other, not agreeing but at least taking the time to listen.

[sonofalich]

this is the new business model for most companies now: tear out content from the finished game to sell it as "bonus" content.

[shadowreflexion]

stu117 wrote...

whats stupid is that its probably content that they were gonna release with the game for free but wanted to make an extra buck so they make u pay for it

That I can agree with 100%. If it's done that way, then there should be no mention and interaction with the DLC intended character on the game disc at all. Then when it's released as DLC then you are getting something new not the feeling of getting a recycled character. Again, I agree with you 100%.

[AlanC9]

wizardryforever wrote...

Shale's a gender neutral golem, neither he nor she.  Just because Shale was a woman before being a golem does not mean that Shale is a woman now.  Legion is also gender neutral, and people don't argue semantics with "him."

So gender is dependent on the body rather than the mind? Or did the golemification process erase Shale's female qualities?

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 juin 2011 - 04:33 .

[Ravenmyste]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Guns wrote...

I don't like buying gas. Guess I should just stop going to work.

/thread

nope its not you still have to get to work now what you going to do  take the bike or carpool and stil have to pitch in for gas and or fix flat tires on you bike whatever this  can  fit into walk as well as taking the bus you see

/thread revived.

Modifié par Ravenmyste, 19 juin 2011 - 04:35 .

[AlanC9]

On topic....

shadowreflexion wrote...
This Kasumi's face and body model is not a placeholder. She has features similar to Fem Shep and the only thing that's really missing is her outfit and hood.

Um...... doesn't disc Kasumi looking like FemShep mean that her model was a placeholder? They certainly were never going to ship her looking like FemShep.

And how do you know that her mission is actually on the disc, again? 

Also, even though I enjoy DLC from various companies the question still remains. Is it morally wrong to pay for something that's already complete twice?

I don't think that sentence came out the way you wanted it to. You meant to say something about it being morally wrong to charge for something under some circumstance, right? I can't come up with a way to make this mess actually make sense, though.

[wizardryforever]

AlanC9 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Shale's a gender neutral golem, neither he nor she.  Just because Shale was a woman before being a golem does not mean that Shale is a woman now.  Legion is also gender neutral, and people don't argue semantics with "him."

So gender is dependent on the body rather than the mind? Or did the golemification process erase Shale's female qualities?

Well Shale does specifically say: "I am a golem, I have no gender.  Whatever gender I may have been is irrelevant now."  That's all the proof I need.  It is just as erroneous to claim that Shale is female as it is to claim that Shale is male.  Stupid pet peeves.  It wouldn't bother me so much if people didn't constantly correct others about it.

[AlanC9]

And this is just silly:

Son of Illusive Man wrote...
While I agree, this has nothing to do with "rights", I have to say it's a sleazy strategy, akin to putting an asterisk and some small text at the bottom about hidden charges.

There's nothing hidden about DLC. The point of having DLC is to sell it (or get people to preorder in the case of Sebastian). You can't sell stuff if people don't know about it.

[AlanC9]

wizardryforever wrote...

Well Shale does specifically say: "I am a golem, I have no gender.  Whatever gender I may have been is irrelevant now."  That's all the proof I need.  It is just as erroneous to claim that Shale is female as it is to claim that Shale is male.  Stupid pet peeves.  It wouldn't bother me so much if people didn't constantly correct others about it.

Good point. If Shale's self-conception is genderless, we should respect that. So, does it go back to female later in the game? We don't actually get to ask it if it thinks of itself as female later on.

[shadowreflexion]

AlanC9 wrote...

On topic....

shadowreflexion wrote...
This Kasumi's face and body model is not a placeholder. She has features similar to Fem Shep and the only thing that's really missing is her outfit and hood.

*Um...... doesn't disc Kasumi looking like FemShep mean that her model was a placeholder? They certainly were never going to ship her looking like FemShep.

And how do you know that her mission is actually on the disc, again? 

Also, even though I enjoy DLC from various companies the question still remains. Is it morally wrong to pay for something that's already complete twice?

I don't think that sentence came out the way you wanted it to. You meant to say something about it being morally wrong to charge for something under some circumstance, right? I can't come up with a way to make this mess actually make sense, though.

* Um.....maybe we have two very different definitions on what a placeholder is. There is no true detail in a placeholder. It's meant to be a blueprint. Here's a placeholder. www.youtube.com/watch

No, in a nutshell. Do you feel that it's morally wrong to pay for the same product "twice"? If it's complete but the mission coding has been taken out and offered as DLC is that right?

Modifié par shadowreflexion, 19 juin 2011 - 05:07 .

[AlanC9]

shadowreflexion wrote...
 * Um.....maybe we have two very different definitions on what a placeholder is. There is no true detail in a placeholder. It's meant to be a blueprint. Here's a placeholder.

As long as we both agree that Kasumi's model wasn't anything close to releaseable, the semantics don't matter.

You skipped my question about the mission. Where's the evidence that it's actually on the ME2 disc?

No, in a nutshell. Do you feel that it's morally wrong to pay for the same product "twice"? If it's complete but the mission coding has been taken out and offered as DLC is that right?

"Morally wrong to pay" means that the person paying is comitting the moral wrong. That's obviously not what you meant to say. (I could have sworn I was clear about that ). It's stupid to pay, but it isn't morally wrong.

Now, is it morally wrong for the company to charge me for the same product twice? Maybe, but that isn't what's happening. When I bought ME2, I didn't buy Kasumi. Even if she is on the disc, I didn't expect to get her for no additional charge, I had no right to expect her for no additional charge, and Bioware was under no obligation to provide her to me for no additional charge. Where the information that makes up Kasumi is physically located is morally irrelevant.

Edit: I'm not quite sure how it would be possible to actually charage twice for the same product. The closest thing I can think of is the sketch from A Day at the Races, but in that case the additional codebooks and so forth aren't supposed to provide additional functionality, they're necessary to get any value at all from the stuff already purchased.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 juin 2011 - 05:33 .

[shadowreflexion]

AlanC9 wrote...

shadowreflexion wrote...
 * Um.....maybe we have two very different definitions on what a placeholder is. There is no true detail in a placeholder. It's meant to be a blueprint. Here's a placeholder.

As long as we both agree that Kasumi's model wasn't anything close to releaseable, the semantics don't matter.

You skipped my question about the mission. Where's the evidence that it's actually on the ME2 disc?

No, in a nutshell. Do you feel that it's morally wrong to pay for the same product "twice"? If it's complete but the mission coding has been taken out and offered as DLC is that right?

"Morally wrong to pay" means that the person paying is comitting the moral wrong. That's obviously not what you meant to say. (I could have sworn I was clear about that ). It's stupid to pay, but it isn't morally wrong.

Now, is it morally wrong for the company to charge me for the same product twice? Maybe, but that isn't what's happening. When I bought ME2, I didn't buy Kasumi. Even if she is on the disc, I didn't expect to get her for no additional charge, I had no right to expect her for no additional charge, and Bioware was under no obligation to provide her to me for no additional charge. Where the information that makes up Kasumi is physically located is morally irrelevant.

I apologize, forgot about that one. The proof to me is when something is in place physically which Kasumi was. The same dialogue and the same actions. Even on the character select screen she is faded out and she accomplishes that part of the mission strategy during the SM. It's not that I believe she was there based on faith and hope, I saw her and heard her visually and verbally. 

I see where my wording went astray. But yes I believe that it is morally wrong for a company to present and release a game in the state of being "finished" but then turn around and charge you for a character that was already in the game but marketing it as a new DLC. Like I stated before, if something is truly DLC content then there should be no record of anything pertaining to that DLC in the "finished" product. That way, the DLC becomes true DLC and not just an add on. Now I really understand what Game Informers Andy wrote about questioning 'the pay to play" concept in issue 211 I believe.

[Dangerfoot]

Guns wrote...

I don't like buying gas. Guess I should just stop going to work.

Oh internet metaphores...

You so silly.

[AlanC9]

shadowreflexion wrote...
I apologize, forgot about that one. The proof to me is when something is in place physically which Kasumi was. The same dialogue and the same actions. Even on the character select screen she is faded out and she accomplishes that part of the mission strategy during the SM. It's not that I believe she was there based on faith and hope, I saw her and heard her visually and verbally.

But you didn't see or hear her mission, and yet you you stated that the mission was present on the CD and only unlocked by a code. That statement was based on faith and hope. Or rather, distrust and suspicion.

I see where my wording went astray. But yes I believe that it is morally wrong for a company to present and release a game in the state of being "finished" but then turn around and charge you for a character that was already in the game but marketing it as a new DLC. Like I stated before, if something is truly DLC content then there should be no record of anything pertaining to that DLC in the "finished" product. That way, the DLC becomes true DLC and not just an add on. Now I really understand what Game Informers Andy wrote about questioning 'the pay to play" concept in issue 211 I believe.

Gotcha. I don't find the distinction between DLC and add-ons to be morally tenable, myself. The company says what is in the product, and you either buy that product or you do not. Whatever other things might have been in the product if the company made different decisions isn't relevant to that purchase.

[goofyomnivore]

10 years ago people were saying the exact same things about expansion packs