165 réponses à ce sujet

[DocLasty]

shadowreflexion wrote...

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. 
.

You can pick her to go in the vent - that's about all you can do with her. You can't use her as a squad member, you can't take her on missions, et cetera. What's on the disc is incomplete data that'd be useless to you even if it was unlocked.

[Tachai03]

Personally, I think DLC is BS. Reason being: Why am I paying money for content that should have been in the game to begin with? What do I mean by this?

Let's take LoTSB, Arrival and the other mission DLCs for example. From what I've heard, ME3 will assume that you have these DLCs and make Liara the new shadow broker, and Shepard will be held on trial. Wait.. What? People argue that DLC is completely optional, and I agree: if I don't want DLC I simply do not pay for it and move on... But when DLC is actually part of the plot for the sequel, don't you think it's unreasonable that it's not included with the rest of the game?

I feel it's unfair that I will miss out on the story that *should* have been a part of the game because I didn't want to shell out another $20 on a game I payed $60 for. If it's something stupid like the Dr. Pepper promo items or squad uniform changes and or additional minor squaddies, fine - make it DLC. It's something that I do not need to play the game. But when it's actually something significant? No. That's ridiculous.

Modifié par Tachai03, 19 juin 2011 - 06:36 .

[DocLasty]

Tachai03 wrote...

Personally, I think DLC is BS. Reason being: Why am I paying money for content that should have been in the game to begin with? What do I mean by this?

Let's take LoTSB, Arrival and the other mission DLCs for example. From what I've heard, ME3 will assume that you have these DLCs and make Liara the new shadow broker, and Shepard will be held on trial. Wait.. What? People argue that DLC is completely optional, and I agree: if I don't want DLC I simply do not pay for it and move on... But when DLC is actually part of the plot for the sequel, don't you think it's unreasonable that it's not included with the rest of the game?

If it was a major part, yes. Those aren't. Not playing those DLCs won't keep you from enjoying ME3. The first is a detail involving a single character, the second just sets up ME3 and puts the stage in place. I just look at them the same way I look at that prequel comic for ME2 - fills in some backstory, but it's not required reading.

[AlanC9]

Tachai03 wrote...
Let's take LoTSB, Arrival and the other mission DLCs for example. From what I've heard, ME3 will assume that you have these DLCs and make Liara the new shadow broker, and Shepard will be held on trial. Wait.. What? People argue that DLC is completely optional, and I agree: if I don't want DLC I simply do not pay for it and move on... But when DLC is actually part of the plot for the sequel, don't you think it's unreasonable that it's not included with the rest of the game?

No more unreasonable then expecting Bio to include those DLCs with ME2 when they hadn't been written yet.

So I guess you're saying that once a game ships the company should never expand the story in any way until a full-fledged sequel ships. No DLC, no expansions, nothing? Yikes.

I wasn't bothered by this twenty years ago when Wing Commander 1's expansions shipped, and I don't see a reason to be bothered now.

[In Exile]

Tachai03 wrote...
Let's take LoTSB, Arrival and the other mission DLCs for example. From what I've heard, ME3 will assume that you have these DLCs and make Liara the new shadow broker, and Shepard will be held on trial. Wait.. What? People argue that DLC is completely optional, and I agree: if I don't want DLC I simply do not pay for it and move on... But when DLC is actually part of the plot for the sequel, don't you think it's unreasonable that it's not included with the rest of the game?

Bioware mentioned early on th DLCs for ME2 in ME3 were optional in the same way ME1 was optional for ME2, with the difference being that the DLCs wouldn't neccesarily have plot branches.

I feel it's unfair that I will miss out on the story that *should* have been a part of the game because I didn't want to shell out another $20 on a game I payed $60 for. If it's something stupid like the Dr. Pepper promo items or squad uniform changes and or additional minor squaddies, fine - make it DLC. It's something that I do not need to play the game. But when it's actually something significant? No. That's ridiculous.

LoTSB and Arrival clearly weren't made with the main game (as in, only started after release), and it's likely that Overlord wasn't either.

They're like expansion packs in that sense (only much smaller) and couldn't have been in the main game unless the main game was delayed.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

AlanC9 wrote...

Tachai03 wrote...
Let's take LoTSB, Arrival and the other mission DLCs for example. From what I've heard, ME3 will assume that you have these DLCs and make Liara the new shadow broker, and Shepard will be held on trial. Wait.. What? People argue that DLC is completely optional, and I agree: if I don't want DLC I simply do not pay for it and move on... But when DLC is actually part of the plot for the sequel, don't you think it's unreasonable that it's not included with the rest of the game?

No more unreasonable then expecting Bio to include those DLCs with ME2 when they hadn't been written yet.

So I guess you're saying that once a game ships the company should never expand the story in any way until a full-fledged sequel ships. No DLC, no expansions, nothing? Yikes.

I wasn't bothered by this twenty years ago when Wing Commander 1's expansions shipped, and I don't see a reason to be bothered now.

Exactly.  DLC is the same as expansions, just it's split up sometimes.  Instead of getting LotSB and Overlord and Arrival all at once for $30 on a disc labeled "Mass Effect 2 expansion" you download them as three parts for $10 each.  Same $30 either way, and these are just as optional as, say you played Starcraft. Did you refuse to buy Starcraft : Brood War because it should have been shipped as complete with the original game? 

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...
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.

Hmmm...

Let's talk Dead Space 2 for a moment?  In DS2,  there are a number of doors in the game that are locked by default,  they contain armor that gives significant benefits and many other goodies.  They're in the game on the release discs.  The only way to access them is to purchase the pre-launch DLC game,  which unlocks them in the full game.

Is this morally wrong?  It is obviously finished because it's in the game on day 1,  fully functional,  unlocked by having purchased a DLC game prior to buying DS2.  Making it mandatory for you to fork over more money to access everything you paid for on the disc.

IMO,  where the information is located is quite key,  because it shows that the stuff was finished,  included in the game,  and locked in order to force you to pay extra money to get the whole game.  This is a *very* slippery slope,  because condoning that eventually gets you to the point where you pay for each companion,  pay to have each weapon,  pay for each mission outside of the main ones.  EA would do that in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.

It's also really pushing the edges of being legal,  because the "Fair Use" laws express that you own everything on a disc you purchase,  and the studio's assertion that they're "Leasing" you software hasn't been tested yet to my knowledge.  I suspect it would be a tight battle,  and it's very possible the ruling would come down on the side of "Fair Use".

Edit:

God I'm sleepy,  on the DS2 topic...

In the PC version those same doors are locked,  but there's no DLC,  and no way to open them.  So the items are there,  finished,  present in the release version of the game,  but it's impossible for the PC players to access everything on the disc they paid for in any way.  So they sell you an intentionally incomplete game,  that you cannot return for a refund,  and the *only* way for a PC player to get everything they already paid for is to repurchase a console version,  purchase the mandatory DLC,  and then they can get the full game after having paid more than twice it's sticker price.

Is this morally ok?

Modifié par Gatt9, 19 juin 2011 - 07:34 .

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
IMO,  where the information is located is quite key,  because it shows that the stuff was finished,  included in the game,  and locked in order to force you to pay extra money to get the whole game.  This is a *very* slippery slope,  because condoning that eventually gets you to the point where you pay for each companion,  pay to have each weapon,  pay for each mission outside of the main ones.  EA would do that in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it.

Slippery slopes aside, is there a moral principle here? If so, what is it?

It's also really pushing the edges of being legal,  because the "Fair Use" laws express that you own everything on a disc you purchase,  and the studio's assertion that they're "Leasing" you software hasn't been tested yet to my knowledge.  I suspect it would be a tight battle,  and it's very possible the ruling would come down on the side of "Fair Use".

Maybe. In which event the studios will spend a little more on bandwidth and make sure the stuff isn't on the disk.

Hell, in five years I'm not sure there will actually be any game discs.

In the PC version those same doors are locked,  but there's no DLC,  and no way to open them.  So the items are there,  finished,  present in the release version of the game,  but it's impossible for the PC players to access everything on the disc they paid for in any way.  So they sell you an intentionally incomplete game,  that you cannot return for a refund,  and the *only* way for a PC player to get everything they already paid for is to repurchase a console version,  purchase the mandatory DLC,  and then they can get the full game after having paid more than twice it's sticker price.

Is this morally ok?

You're assuming what you're attempting to prove. The company would certainly say that the PC player didn't pay for the locked content. If they thought he had a right to everything on the disc they wouldn't have put the DLC content on the disc, since they had no intent of giving it to him for free. 

[Sidney]

Tachai03 wrote...

Personally, I think DLC is BS. Reason being: Why am I paying money for content that should have been in the game to begin with? What do I mean by this?

Why "should" it have been in the game? You bought a game for $X. You felt like that was a good deal when you bought the game - presumably you didn't have a gun to your head. At that point there's nothing wrong with your purchase of the game. Anything extra they want to sell you past that is just that - extra.  Cars have all kinds of extras that you could argue "should" be on the car. Drinks and appetizers "should" be part of a dinner menu - or at least coffee for the love of god -but they aren't.

[Clonedzero]

characters like zaeed and shale where they're free with EVERY new copy of the game is fine. i dont buy used copies cus i like to support the developers and ive been ripped off with used copies before. one of the big reasons i stopped going to gamestop (also getting harassed to preorder random games is annoying as well).

however sabastian from DA2 i had an issue with because he only came "free" in the more expensive collectors edition and for people who got normal new copies they had to pay 10 extra bucks to have him, which was ridiculous. especially since they announced him as the collectors bonus a good 5-8 months before release, which woulda been plenty of time to actually put him in the damn game or at least as a free download.

payed DLC on day one shouldnt be really influential characters. it should be a extra little adventure quest. like wardens keep in DA:O

[Liou]

I have never downloaded any of them, even when they where free. I think it's a distasteful business model but i can understand why they do it. If people is willing to pay, it would be foolish not to do it. If you are truly against it, then do like me, show it with your wallet. In the end, that's the only thing they respect.

Modifié par Liou, 19 juin 2011 - 03:12 .

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Guns wrote...

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

There's more truth to that statement than you know, as a lot of commuters should be taking the bus so freight can get to its destination unhindered.

As for the OP, sadly that seems how it has been forced on us, through marketting and hype, we get to "buy" into E/As' business model, with the help of Bioware, for a complete set of squaddies.

Modifié par ohupthis, 19 juin 2011 - 05:02 .

[Gill Kaiser]

Actually, Shale was legitimately not in the game originally. She was concepted but scrapped mid-production due to problems in development. Once the PC version of DA:O was postponed for half a year in order for a multi-platform release, Bioware had enough time to finish Shale using a seperate team from the main project.

However, every day one DLC character from that point on has, as you say, been ripped out of the game on purpose as part of EA's Project 10 Dollar.

[Davescarface]

Given that the amount of DLC we will get for ME3 will be limited. I would have to say to Bioware "please dont waste anymore DLC on pointless new squad members like Kasumi".

We got more than enough squad members leftover from ME2 anyway.

Modifié par Davescarface, 19 juin 2011 - 05:44 .

[Paul Sedgmore]

KLUME777 wrote...

*Cut long thread replies*

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).

Going Gold is not content complete but passed submission to Sony and Microsoft and ready to go to manufacture.

As for them intending characters to be DLC , I'm fine with it as it is just aditional content that is not required to experience the full game. There is a big difference with having a character designed for DLC than to rip out part of the game for the purposes of selling it seperatly which happens far less than people think.

Modifié par Paul Sedgmore, 19 juin 2011 - 05:50 .

[Nexis7]

I for one actually agree with this.
..
yeah thats all i have to say.

[Paul Sedgmore]

Clonedzero wrote...

characters like zaeed and shale where they're free with EVERY new copy of the game is fine. i dont buy used copies cus i like to support the developers and ive been ripped off with used copies before. one of the big reasons i stopped going to gamestop (also getting harassed to preorder random games is annoying as well).

however sabastian from DA2 i had an issue with because he only came "free" in the more expensive collectors edition and for people who got normal new copies they had to pay 10 extra bucks to have him, which was ridiculous. especially since they announced him as the collectors bonus a good 5-8 months before release, which woulda been plenty of time to actually put him in the damn game or at least as a free download.

payed DLC on day one shouldnt be really influential characters. it should be a extra little adventure quest. like wardens keep in DA:O

Actually the signature edition was the same price as the normal version you just had to pre-order before a certain date to be able to get it. I agree that the Exiled Prince DLC should have been free for all new copies of the game though.

[KLUME777]

*Cut thread replies*

Paul Sedgmore wrote...

Going Gold is not content complete but passed submission to Sony and Microsoft and ready to go to manufacture.

As for them intending characters to be DLC , I'm fine with it as it is just aditional content that is not required to experience the full game. There is a big difference with having a character designed for DLC than to rip out part of the game for the purposes of selling it seperatly which happens far less than people think.

And they could have had that character in the main game and not have had him for DLC at all. They never did that with KoTOR or previous games, but if those games were today, they would have cut one of those characters out during the writing process and marked him as DLC. That is a problem. That shouldn't be happening.

Even if you don't mind, other people (even people who bought a new copy of DA2) miss out and feel like they don't get the complete experience . I'm not talking about me, i had the SE, but i felt ripped off because the bonus content is a bunch of crappy items and a character that should have been in the game (the items, too).In DAO, bonus character was given for free to everyone, so theres no difference, but now you have to get a collectors edition.

This kind of crap just didn't happen last generation. Again, imagine if you needed to pay an extra $20 to have HK-47 in KoTOR? Now you might say he was important ( "I'm fine with it as it is just aditional content that is not required to experience the full game"), because he can be used to translate to the sand people and find out the ancient history of Tatooine (something Bioware would be too lazy to do nowadays, since 93% of people would just kill them all). But shouldn't all characters be important to the story? Like Shale was to Orzammar. Whats the point of having a companion that doesn't contribute to the main game. You may as well ditch them for the whole game and bring a "proper" companion along (which is what i did, anyway). The DLC characters should just either be in the game in the first place or be a free download to everyone like Shale.

Shale is the only good type of DLC character. You can clearly see he was meant for the original game, but didn't make it, so they released him as a free dlc so it's like he was there anyway. The rest after that (Zaeed, Sebastien) were meant for DLC, and were crap. They are completely unrelated to what is going on in the game, unlike Shale, who made a significant difference, and "felt" complete.

EDIT: Sorry, wall of text.

Modifié par KLUME777, 20 juin 2011 - 06:56 .

[In Exile]

KLUME777 wrote...
And they could have had that character in the main game and not have had him for DLC at all. They never did that with KoTOR or previous games, but if those games were today, they would have cut one of those characters out during the writing process and marked him as DLC. That is a problem. That shouldn't be happening.

Bioware's official position is that Sebastian was made separate from the main game, along a DLC budget with a separate expected return. Seb. was planned early on, but always as 'separate' content, which is why Seb. is not related to any main quest, but also integrated into the plot.

Whether or not you buy it is up to you.

This kind of crap just didn't happen last generation. Again, imagine if you needed to pay an extra $20 to have HK-47 in KoTOR? Now you might say he was important ( "I'm fine with it as it is just aditional content that is not required to experience the full game"), because he can be used to translate to the sand people and find out the ancient history of Tatooine (something Bioware would be too lazy to do nowadays, since 93% of people would just kill them all). But shouldn't all characters be important to the story? Like Shale was to Orzammar. Whats the point of having a companion that doesn't contribute to the main game. You may as well ditch them for the whole game and bring a "proper" companion along (which is what i did, anyway). The DLC characters should just either be in the game in the first place or be a free download to everyone like Shale.

Shale wasn't important in Orzammar. Sebastian is a better argument for importance, because Seb. shows you a different angle of the chantry. Also, it would be $7 instead of $20. HK is a mandatory character. A better parallel to KoTOR would be Juhani.

Shale is the only good type of DLC character. You can clearly see he was meant for the original game, but didn't make it, so they released him as a free dlc so it's like he was there anyway. The rest after that (Zaeed, Sebastien) were meant for DLC, and were crap. They are completely unrelated to what is going on in the game, unlike Shale, who made a significant difference, and "felt" complete.

Shale didn't make a significant difference, not moreso than Sebastian. Zaeed and Kasumi were really superflous, though. Outside of their mission.

[KLUME777]

In Exile wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...
And they could have had that character in the main game and not have had him for DLC at all. They never did that with KoTOR or previous games, but if those games were today, they would have cut one of those characters out during the writing process and marked him as DLC. That is a problem. That shouldn't be happening.

Bioware's official position is that Sebastian was made separate from the main game, along a DLC budget with a separate expected return. Seb. was planned early on, but always as 'separate' content, which is why Seb. is not related to any main quest, but also integrated into the plot.

Whether or not you buy it is up to you.

Thats what i'm saying, that shouldn't be happening. There should be no characters marked as DLC, and the DLC budget shrinked while the main game budget increased.

This kind of crap just didn't happen last generation. Again, imagine if you needed to pay an extra $20 to have HK-47 in KoTOR? Now you might say he was important ( "I'm fine with it as it is just aditional content that is not required to experience the full game"), because he can be used to translate to the sand people and find out the ancient history of Tatooine (something Bioware would be too lazy to do nowadays, since 93% of people would just kill them all). But shouldn't all characters be important to the story? Like Shale was to Orzammar. Whats the point of having a companion that doesn't contribute to the main game. You may as well ditch them for the whole game and bring a "proper" companion along (which is what i did, anyway). The DLC characters should just either be in the game in the first place or be a free download to everyone like Shale.

Shale wasn't important in Orzammar. Sebastian is a better argument for importance, because Seb. shows you a different angle of the chantry. Also, it would be $7 instead of $20. HK is a mandatory character. A better parallel to KoTOR would be Juhani.

I thought Shale was significant. He was a well fleshed out character and made a difference at the Anvil of the void (he fights for Caradin if you decide to keep the Anvil, which can make the fight pretty tough since you lose a companion). I agree that Sebastien was more important than Zaeed or Kasumi (I still think Shale made a bigger difference), but that only makes it more obvious that he should be there for everyone, not a collectors item. Otherwise, players don't see a full view of the Chantry, like you said.

And no, Juhani is far more important than HK. First of all, you are required to confront her so you can pass the Jedi trials, and she is also needed later in the temple on the unknown planet, otherwise you only have Jolee because you can only bring force users. In fact, she is one of the most used companions in KoTOR (and one of my most favourites, if she was a DLC, i would hate it). HK is not needed, and is actually very easy to miss because he is in an obscure little shop and you need to buy him in-game. He doesn't make much of a difference other than that he is an awesome character, and you learn a lot about Revan' past, the same as Juhani because Revan saved Juhani before s/he got amnesia (during the battle of Taris, if you bothered to pursue Juhani's stories).

Shale is the only good type of DLC character. You can clearly see he was meant for the original game, but didn't make it, so they released him as a free dlc so it's like he was there anyway. The rest after that (Zaeed, Sebastien) were meant for DLC, and were crap. They are completely unrelated to what is going on in the game, unlike Shale, who made a significant difference, and "felt" complete.

Shale didn't make a significant difference, not moreso than Sebastian. Zaeed and Kasumi were really superflous, though. Outside of their mission.

Agree with Italics part.

Modifié par KLUME777, 20 juin 2011 - 07:35 .

[AlanC9]

Paul Sedgmore wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

however sabastian from DA2 i had an issue with because he only came "free" in the more expensive collectors edition and for people who got normal new copies they had to pay 10 extra bucks to have him, which was ridiculous. especially since they announced him as the collectors bonus a good 5-8 months before release, which woulda been plenty of time to actually put him in the damn game or at least as a free download.

payed DLC on day one shouldnt be really influential characters. it should be a extra little adventure quest. like wardens keep in DA:O

Actually the signature edition was the same price as the normal version you just had to pre-order before a certain date to be able to get it. I agree that the Exiled Prince DLC should have been free for all new copies of the game though.

IIRC the DA2 SE ended up being cheaper than the normal edition, if you ordered it before the price change.

[AlanC9]

KLUME777 wrote...
This kind of crap just didn't happen last generation. Again, imagine if you needed to pay an extra $20 to have HK-47 in KoTOR?

Umm... why are we imagining that? What's actually happening is that we're being asked to pay $7 for a companion that isn't as good as HK-47 --  as you say, DLC characters aren't typically as good as the ones in the box.

If we're gong to try and imagine stuff for KotOR, we ought to imagine realistic price points and quality.

[AlanC9]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Actually, Shale was legitimately not in the game originally. She was concepted but scrapped mid-production due to problems in development. Once the PC version of DA:O was postponed for half a year in order for a multi-platform release, Bioware had enough time to finish Shale using a seperate team from the main project.

However, every day one DLC character from that point on has, as you say, been ripped out of the game on purpose as part of EA's Project 10 Dollar.

This is silly. Since Project 10 Dollar has been around since initial design specs on any game being released now, the DLC is going to be in the project plan from day 1. So it's never been part of the game in the first place.

Unless Bio's project managers are idiots, which I suppose is conceivable

[KLUME777]

AlanC9 wrote...

Paul Sedgmore wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

however sabastian from DA2 i had an issue with because he only came "free" in the more expensive collectors edition and for people who got normal new copies they had to pay 10 extra bucks to have him, which was ridiculous. especially since they announced him as the collectors bonus a good 5-8 months before release, which woulda been plenty of time to actually put him in the damn game or at least as a free download.

payed DLC on day one shouldnt be really influential characters. it should be a extra little adventure quest. like wardens keep in DA:O

Actually the signature edition was the same price as the normal version you just had to pre-order before a certain date to be able to get it. I agree that the Exiled Prince DLC should have been free for all new copies of the game though.

IIRC the DA2 SE ended up being cheaper than the normal edition, if you ordered it before the price change.

I can get DA2 brand new Day 1 at Kmart, Big W, JB-HI-FI for $70, while the SE is $120 at EB Games, Game (I live in Australia of coarse, but you would have a similar situation with Walmart or something in the US). Therefore, SE is more expensive, and i have to trust that the game is good a month before the release. That is not a good deal, the DLC character should have been with normal editions (because not everyone is gonna pre-order a whole month before). Bioware were looking for a new crowd, those aren't going to come in Pre-orders, there going to come from new game sales.

[KLUME777]

AlanC9 wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...
This kind of crap just didn't happen last generation. Again, imagine if you needed to pay an extra $20 to have HK-47 in KoTOR?

Umm... why are we imagining that? What's actually happening is that we're being asked to pay $7 for a companion that isn't as good as HK-47 --  as you say, DLC characters aren't typically as good as the ones in the box.

If we're gong to try and imagine stuff for KotOR, we ought to imagine realistic price points and quality.

I think there is a misunderstanding... I forgot you guys have different prices... Here in Australia, games cost twice as much, and our dollar is worth the same as yours. You pay $60 for a game, we pay $120...in USD (1AUD=1USD). The same goes for DLC. Exiled Prince is $15.95 - $20, i can't remember exactly. Shale was $21.


EDIT: Just checked the store, Exiled Prince is $11.95, Black Emporium is $15.95(wtf! for items and a mirror), Shale is $23.95. See how DAO gave everyone the Bonus Character for free, yet you have to buy the SE of DA2 for a bonus character thats only worth half as much as DAO's?

Modifié par KLUME777, 20 juin 2011 - 08:26 .