284 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Doesn't matter that the part wasn't finished at release of ME2, that just means that ME2 was released in an essentially unfinished state, albeit one that was close to finished. In the past companies didn't demand money to patch their games to full status when released in an unfinished state once the product had already been bought. Greed is becomming more and more appearant in companies these days...

So ME2 was released unfinished because it released plot relevant dlc? I find it hilarious that you're comparing the content in a patch to a full dlc, which requires resources dedicated to creating new environments, voice-acting, writing, enemy design, etc. No, the scenarious are not equivalent. If Bioware does not charge for dlc, then it's likely that dlc will not be made.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 septembre 2011 - 01:55 .

[SalsaDMA]

didymos1120 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Greed is becomming more and more appearant in companies these days...

Here's a tip: there has never been some golden age wherein corporations weren't interested in maximizing profits.  If it seems to be more apparent now, then you weren't really paying attention previously.

You should watch some of the old early EA ads and comp0are with now. It's really funny to see how much the focus of the company have changed.

[SalsaDMA]

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Doesn't matter that the part wasn't finished at release of ME2, that just means that ME2 was released in an essentially unfinished state, albeit one that was close to finished. In the past companies didn't demand money to patch their games to full status when released in an unfinished state once the product had already been bought. Greed is becomming more and more appearant in companies these days...

So ME2 was released unfinished because it released plot relevant dlc? I find it hilarious that you're comparing the content in a patch to a full dlc, which requires resources dedicated to creating new environments, voice-acting, writing, enemy design, etc. No, the scenarious are not equivalent. If Bioware does not charge for dlc, then it's likely that dlc will not be made.

Bring down the Sky.

Very good DLC. Didn't cost the users a dime.
And whlie they can certainly refer to it in later games, if the user had completed the DLC, nobody believes it is an actual PLOT RELEVANT DLC. It's close to a perfect DLC, really.

It also showcased how shallow the ME1 sidemissions were compared to what they could have been :-/

[Someone With Mass]

The books and the comics are also relevant to the overall plot. Are you forced to buy them? Nope. Are you forced to buy a DLC that you don't like or want? Nope.

Is the story comprehensible without the books, comics and DLCs? Yes.

[AntiChri5]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Doesn't matter that the part wasn't finished at release of ME2, that just means that ME2 was released in an essentially unfinished state, albeit one that was close to finished. In the past companies didn't demand money to patch their games to full status when released in an unfinished state once the product had already been bought. Greed is becomming more and more appearant in companies these days...

So ME2 was released unfinished because it released plot relevant dlc? I find it hilarious that you're comparing the content in a patch to a full dlc, which requires resources dedicated to creating new environments, voice-acting, writing, enemy design, etc. No, the scenarious are not equivalent. If Bioware does not charge for dlc, then it's likely that dlc will not be made.

Bring down the Sky.

Very good DLC. Didn't cost the users a dime.
And whlie they can certainly refer to it in later games, if the user had completed the DLC, nobody believes it is an actual PLOT RELEVANT DLC. It's close to a perfect DLC, really.

It also showcased how shallow the ME1 sidemissions were compared to what they could have been :-/

Bring Down the Sky was only free for PC users, because ME1 came out later on PC then 360. It was not free on 360.

[littlezack]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Doesn't matter that the part wasn't finished at release of ME2, that just means that ME2 was released in an essentially unfinished state, albeit one that was close to finished. In the past companies didn't demand money to patch their games to full status when released in an unfinished state once the product had already been bought. Greed is becomming more and more appearant in companies these days...

So ME2 was released unfinished because it released plot relevant dlc? I find it hilarious that you're comparing the content in a patch to a full dlc, which requires resources dedicated to creating new environments, voice-acting, writing, enemy design, etc. No, the scenarious are not equivalent. If Bioware does not charge for dlc, then it's likely that dlc will not be made.

Bring down the Sky.

Very good DLC. Didn't cost the users a dime./

Uh, no.

On PC, I believe it came free. On XBL, it cost money.

[DaringMoosejaw]

SalsaDMA wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Greed is becomming more and more appearant in companies these days...

Here's a tip: there has never been some golden age wherein corporations weren't interested in maximizing profits.  If it seems to be more apparent now, then you weren't really paying attention previously.

You should watch some of the old early EA ads and comp0are with now. It's really funny to see how much the focus of the company have changed.

EA has never been a charity, so I'm going to agree with the other guy.

[SalsaDMA]

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

If the plot in ME3 indicates that arrival was undertaken in ME2, then it wasn't a bonus in ME2, but part of the package that the middle part of the series was about.

This logic would also lead to sequels and expansions never being produced. Bioware announced that they would make story-bridging dlc from the very beginning. This content was not designed until after the main game was completed, so they released the main campaign of ME2.  

So no, in that sense you didn't get the full product. Playing ME1->ME2->ME3 without installing EXTRAs, shouldn't mean that any of the parts refer to the EXTRAs as something that is asumed to have been part of the story. Then they are no longer EXTRAs, but plot requirements.

So what is ME1 if not an "extra"? I'm pretty certain that's necessary for the story of ME2 and ME3. There is no law which states what form Bioware must or must not continue the storyline in. If they want to change the venue to a novel, that's their call. Every sequel, expansion, or dlc is an "extra", in the end.

We have yet to see, ofc, how they deal with the issue in ME3, so this debate may be meaningless. But people should stop advocating for getting half a product for a full price.

And you should stop making assumptions about other people's arguments, particularly when you try to pass dlc off as "half the product".

Now you are just making things up.

Sequals wouldn't be possible? Really? That's the extent of your argument? Come on...

I get that EA driven Bioware is trying to scrape in whatever cash they can, but stop trying to defend them when they are making you pay for something you should have received as part of the original product.

DLCs should be treated in subsequent productions as if they were optional in the previous games, cause that what they were. If their effect on the universe is not optional, then the DLC should have been part of the package to start with. This means that checking flags and giving extra differentations based on wether or not the player had bought the DLC in the previous game when importing a save is fine, but asuming the DLC to have been bought, despite it not being part of the actual product, is not.

[SalsaDMA]

Someone With Mass wrote...

The books and the comics are also relevant to the overall plot. Are you forced to buy them? Nope. Are you forced to buy a DLC that you don't like or want? Nope.

Is the story comprehensible without the books, comics and DLCs? Yes.

Are the books about Commander Shepard? No?

Have Devs specifically stated that everyones Commander Shepard is canon? Yes?

What's your point? that the devs lied then? That peoples Shepards are no longer canon?

[SalsaDMA]

AntiChri5 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Doesn't matter that the part wasn't finished at release of ME2, that just means that ME2 was released in an essentially unfinished state, albeit one that was close to finished. In the past companies didn't demand money to patch their games to full status when released in an unfinished state once the product had already been bought. Greed is becomming more and more appearant in companies these days...

So ME2 was released unfinished because it released plot relevant dlc? I find it hilarious that you're comparing the content in a patch to a full dlc, which requires resources dedicated to creating new environments, voice-acting, writing, enemy design, etc. No, the scenarious are not equivalent. If Bioware does not charge for dlc, then it's likely that dlc will not be made.

Bring down the Sky.

Very good DLC. Didn't cost the users a dime.
And whlie they can certainly refer to it in later games, if the user had completed the DLC, nobody believes it is an actual PLOT RELEVANT DLC. It's close to a perfect DLC, really.

It also showcased how shallow the ME1 sidemissions were compared to what they could have been :-/

Bring Down the Sky was only free for PC users, because ME1 came out later on PC then 360. It was not free on 360.

I stand corrected on the cost issue for console users then. I never had a console, so asumed similar 'pricing' schemes for both systems. Doesn't change that the DLC was free for PC users, though.

[Wynne]

AnAccountWithNoName wrote...

Im just saying, i don't think something so drastic like killing 300,000 batarians, should be forced upon our Shepards.

How about something drastic like DYING? I didn't like my Shepard agreeing with the Council to go out and fight Geth, but that happened. And not that I wouldn't have saved Joker, but I didn't choose that either. It was Shepard's decision, because all Shepards refuse to leave anyone behind.

Shepard is not our character. The important thing about Arrival is that it is in character for Shepard--what Shepard did was necessary, for every Paragon and Renegade and in between. So accept that it did happen; whether it happened onscreen or not, whether you chose it or not. You did not create Shepard or see every moment of her/his life. Some things are negotiable, others are not. Shepard cannot be an asari. Shepard cannot be a turian. You didn't "choose" to be human, Shepard just is. And Shepard chose to stop the Reapers from invading and destroying everything. That is simply mandatory. 

To put it another way, if I choose not to play ME2, can I safely disregard its events and expect ME3 to cater to that? Hardly, that would be stupid.

But if it really bothers you so much, sure, you can choose not to have your Shepard not kill those 300,000 Batarians. Here is your result.

[littlezack]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

The books and the comics are also relevant to the overall plot. Are you forced to buy them? Nope. Are you forced to buy a DLC that you don't like or want? Nope.

Is the story comprehensible without the books, comics and DLCs? Yes.

Are the books about Commander Shepard? No?

Have Devs specifically stated that everyones Commander Shepard is canon? Yes?

What's your point? that the devs lied then? That peoples Shepards are no longer canon?

Shepard isn't in them - directly - but the comics establish canon parts of the story and go over events that happened between the games. They're a part of the story you have to pay separate money to see and experience.

[Omega4RelayResident]

Zakera Ward Security: "Assumptions are dangerous. Stay alert. Stay safe."

Stop arguing you lost... you know why? Because BioWare said it happened. Congrats you are a mass murderer... how does it feel?

Its not like as if you are arguing against us... you are arguing with BioWare. If you dont like it dont buy ME3... no one has a gun to your head.

[SalsaDMA]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Greed is becomming more and more appearant in companies these days...

Here's a tip: there has never been some golden age wherein corporations weren't interested in maximizing profits.  If it seems to be more apparent now, then you weren't really paying attention previously.

You should watch some of the old early EA ads and comp0are with now. It's really funny to see how much the focus of the company have changed.

EA has never been a charity, so I'm going to agree with the other guy.

You're right. Not a charity, but as the founder stated:

"
From the beginning, Hawkins had an ambitious view of what games
could be. "We learn by doing," he said, "and computer simulation was
the most efficient way to do this. I wanted to help the world
transition from brain-deadening media like broadcast television to
interactive media that would connect people and help them grow."

Hawkins also wanted to properly credit and compensate the talent
that produced games, giving them the same respect that artists in other
media enjoyed. He envisioned Electronic Arts as a publishing company
that would be known for its quality and professionalism, working with
the best independent talent to make the computer game industry
equivalent with film, books, or music.
"

Earning money for the sake of doing so at any means necesary isn't what I read in that statement, you know...

[Kyria Nyriese]

Oh for crying out loud, EA is a for profit company, as is Bioware. They may want to see the games improve and have a lot for the games, but in the end if they don't make a profit they don't make games. I'm not going to begrudge the company for wanting to make a profit, since I generally tend to like to make money in my own business.

[SalsaDMA]

Wynne wrote...

AnAccountWithNoName wrote...

Im just saying, i don't think something so drastic like killing 300,000 batarians, should be forced upon our Shepards.

How about something drastic like DYING? I didn't like my Shepard agreeing with the Council to go out and fight Geth, but that happened. And not that I wouldn't have saved Joker, but I didn't choose that either. It was Shepard's decision, because all Shepards refuse to leave anyone behind.

Shepard is not our character. The important thing about Arrival is that it is in character for Shepard--what Shepard did was necessary, for every Paragon and Renegade and in between. So accept that it did happen; whether it happened onscreen or not, whether you chose it or not. You did not create Shepard or see every moment of her/his life. Some things are negotiable, others are not. Shepard cannot be an asari. Shepard cannot be a turian. You didn't "choose" to be human, Shepard just is. And Shepard chose to stop the Reapers from invading and destroying everything. That is simply mandatory. 

To put it another way, if I choose not to play ME2, can I safely disregard its events and expect ME3 to cater to that? Hardly, that would be stupid.

But if it really bothers you so much, sure, you can choose not to have your Shepard not kill those 300,000 Batarians. Here is your result.

Ironically, they could have gotten around the issue entirely by not having arrival as a DLC for ME2 and instead put it as the first thing happening in ME3...

[littlezack]

SalsaDMA wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Greed is becomming more and more appearant in companies these days...

Here's a tip: there has never been some golden age wherein corporations weren't interested in maximizing profits.  If it seems to be more apparent now, then you weren't really paying attention previously.

You should watch some of the old early EA ads and comp0are with now. It's really funny to see how much the focus of the company have changed.

EA has never been a charity, so I'm going to agree with the other guy.

You're right. Not a charity, but as the founder stated:

"
From the beginning, Hawkins had an ambitious view of what games
could be. "We learn by doing," he said, "and computer simulation was
the most efficient way to do this. I wanted to help the world
transition from brain-deadening media like broadcast television to
interactive media that would connect people and help them grow."

Hawkins also wanted to properly credit and compensate the talent
that produced games, giving them the same respect that artists in other
media enjoyed. He envisioned Electronic Arts as a publishing company
that would be known for its quality and professionalism, working with
the best independent talent to make the computer game industry
equivalent with film, books, or music.
"

Earning money for the sake of doing so at any means necesary isn't what I read in that statement, you know...

You mean, the founder of a company said something that made it seem like his company was comitted to a lofty goal? Why, this concept is new and strange to me. There's no way he's exaggerating or saying stuff that makes him look good, is there? What he says must be taken at 100% face value. If he was only interested in making money, I'm sure his statement would have gone like this:

"I'm only interested in making money. Suck it, *******."

[Omega4RelayResident]

A ****** poor start to ME3 that would have been

[Leonia]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Wynne wrote...

AnAccountWithNoName wrote...

Im just saying, i don't think something so drastic like killing 300,000 batarians, should be forced upon our Shepards.

How about something drastic like DYING? I didn't like my Shepard agreeing with the Council to go out and fight Geth, but that happened. And not that I wouldn't have saved Joker, but I didn't choose that either. It was Shepard's decision, because all Shepards refuse to leave anyone behind.

Shepard is not our character. The important thing about Arrival is that it is in character for Shepard--what Shepard did was necessary, for every Paragon and Renegade and in between. So accept that it did happen; whether it happened onscreen or not, whether you chose it or not. You did not create Shepard or see every moment of her/his life. Some things are negotiable, others are not. Shepard cannot be an asari. Shepard cannot be a turian. You didn't "choose" to be human, Shepard just is. And Shepard chose to stop the Reapers from invading and destroying everything. That is simply mandatory. 

To put it another way, if I choose not to play ME2, can I safely disregard its events and expect ME3 to cater to that? Hardly, that would be stupid.

But if it really bothers you so much, sure, you can choose not to have your Shepard not kill those 300,000 Batarians. Here is your result.

Ironically, they could have gotten around the issue entirely by not having arrival as a DLC for ME2 and instead put it as the first thing happening in ME3...

And you know what? They probably will recap the events of Arrival at the start of ME3 anyway, it's kind of like playing ME2 without importing from ME1, you'll still get to hear about the bits you missed because you were too cheap to buy the content, you just won't experience the content for yourself and will have to take the game's word on it.

Modifié par leonia42, 10 septembre 2011 - 03:05 .

[SalsaDMA]

littlezack wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Greed is becomming more and more appearant in companies these days...

Here's a tip: there has never been some golden age wherein corporations weren't interested in maximizing profits.  If it seems to be more apparent now, then you weren't really paying attention previously.

You should watch some of the old early EA ads and comp0are with now. It's really funny to see how much the focus of the company have changed.

EA has never been a charity, so I'm going to agree with the other guy.

You're right. Not a charity, but as the founder stated:

"
From the beginning, Hawkins had an ambitious view of what games
could be. "We learn by doing," he said, "and computer simulation was
the most efficient way to do this. I wanted to help the world
transition from brain-deadening media like broadcast television to
interactive media that would connect people and help them grow."

Hawkins also wanted to properly credit and compensate the talent
that produced games, giving them the same respect that artists in other
media enjoyed. He envisioned Electronic Arts as a publishing company
that would be known for its quality and professionalism, working with
the best independent talent to make the computer game industry
equivalent with film, books, or music.
"

Earning money for the sake of doing so at any means necesary isn't what I read in that statement, you know...

You mean, the founder of a company said something that made it seem like his company was comitted to a lofty goal? Why, this concept is new and strange to me. There's no way he's exaggerating or saying stuff that makes him look good, is there? What he says must be taken at 100% face value. If he was only interested in making money, I'm sure his statement would have gone like this:

"I'm only interested in making money. Suck it, *******."

As I said, you should see if you can find some of their old advertisements. Their focus is entirely different in those than present day. I'm having trouble finding one now (go figure) but their ads back then showed the same focus that the founder stated in the text. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that their focus these days with their ads is quite, wuite different in portraying what they are standing for. "your mom will hate it" is prob the worst ad line I ever heard yet...

[SalsaDMA]

leonia42 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Wynne wrote...

AnAccountWithNoName wrote...

Im just saying, i don't think something so drastic like killing 300,000 batarians, should be forced upon our Shepards.

How about something drastic like DYING? I didn't like my Shepard agreeing with the Council to go out and fight Geth, but that happened. And not that I wouldn't have saved Joker, but I didn't choose that either. It was Shepard's decision, because all Shepards refuse to leave anyone behind.

Shepard is not our character. The important thing about Arrival is that it is in character for Shepard--what Shepard did was necessary, for every Paragon and Renegade and in between. So accept that it did happen; whether it happened onscreen or not, whether you chose it or not. You did not create Shepard or see every moment of her/his life. Some things are negotiable, others are not. Shepard cannot be an asari. Shepard cannot be a turian. You didn't "choose" to be human, Shepard just is. And Shepard chose to stop the Reapers from invading and destroying everything. That is simply mandatory. 

To put it another way, if I choose not to play ME2, can I safely disregard its events and expect ME3 to cater to that? Hardly, that would be stupid.

But if it really bothers you so much, sure, you can choose not to have your Shepard not kill those 300,000 Batarians. Here is your result.

Ironically, they could have gotten around the issue entirely by not having arrival as a DLC for ME2 and instead put it as the first thing happening in ME3...

And you know what? They probably will recap the events of Arrival at the start of ME3 anyway, it's kind of like playing ME2 without importing from ME1, you'll still get to hear about the bits you missed because you were too cheap to buy the content, you just won't experience the content for yourself and will have to take the game's word on it.

I love it when people talk "dirty" because they lack anything else to say. "You were too cheap" is a really poor comment to attach to commenting on optional non-required content. If I don't want the optional ketchup to my fries, does that make me "cheap" too? Or could it be that I just utilized my option of not getting that part?

On a sidenote, I actually did buy Arrival, although I regret it since it was such a bad DLC, but I could only endure completing the DLC with one of my characters. The rest of my characters I wouldn't walk near that piece of trash with as it was such a poor waste of time for me to be playing it.

[Il Divo]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Now you are just making things up.

Sequals wouldn't be possible? Really? That's the extent of your argument? Come on...

Why? It's a simple and logical conclusion. Mass Effect 2 does not contain the story of Mass Effect 1. So you (the buyer) paid for 1/3 of the product, approximately. Explain to me the fallacy of this argument beyond "sequels have existed for X number of years".

I get that EA driven Bioware is trying to scrape in whatever cash they can, but stop trying to defend them when they are making you pay for something you should have received as part of the original product.

Are you sure about that? Last I checked, Bioware mentioned the idea of story-bridging dlc before the EA purchase. And they've been doing the whole pay to play dlc thing since Neverwinter Nights.  

DLCs should be treated in subsequent productions as if they were optional in the previous games, cause that what they were. If their effect on the universe is not optional, then the DLC should have been part of the package to start with. This means that checking flags and giving extra differentations based on wether or not the player had bought the DLC in the previous game when importing a save is fine, but asuming the DLC to have been bought, despite it not being part of the actual product, is not.

Again, you just reaffirmed the sequel argument. Replace sequel with dlc everywhere in your paragraph and we have the exact same conclusion. Mass Effect 2 assumes the events of Mass Effect 1, regardless if you played it. You have not provided any basis for why dlc cannot continue a story arc, any more than a sequel, expansion, or novel is allowed to.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 septembre 2011 - 03:31 .

[Il Divo]

littlezack wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Doesn't matter that the part wasn't finished at release of ME2, that just means that ME2 was released in an essentially unfinished state, albeit one that was close to finished. In the past companies didn't demand money to patch their games to full status when released in an unfinished state once the product had already been bought. Greed is becomming more and more appearant in companies these days...

So ME2 was released unfinished because it released plot relevant dlc? I find it hilarious that you're comparing the content in a patch to a full dlc, which requires resources dedicated to creating new environments, voice-acting, writing, enemy design, etc. No, the scenarious are not equivalent. If Bioware does not charge for dlc, then it's likely that dlc will not be made.

Bring down the Sky.

Very good DLC. Didn't cost the users a dime./

Uh, no.

On PC, I believe it came free. On XBL, it cost money.

And this, right here. It's also not unusual for games on platforms with separate release dates to include special bundles as an incentive to buy. Ex: When Oblivion was released on PS3, it came with most downloadable content which 360 users paid for.

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 septembre 2011 - 03:36 .

[SalsaDMA]

and of course I found the ad shortly after my post about it.. *sigh*

Anyways, this was their focus back then:



How things have changed...

[SalsaDMA]

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Now you are just making things up.

Sequals wouldn't be possible? Really? That's the extent of your argument? Come on...

Why? It's a simple and logical conclusion. Mass Effect 2 does not contain the story of Mass Effect 1. So you (the buyer) paid for 1/3 of the product, approximately. Explain to me the fallacy of this argument beyond "sequels have existed for X number of years".

I get that EA driven Bioware is trying to scrape in whatever cash they can, but stop trying to defend them when they are making you pay for something you should have received as part of the original product.

Are you sure about that? Last I checked, Bioware mentioned the idea of story-bridging dlc before the EA purchase. And they've been doing the whole pay to play dlc thing since Neverwinter Nights.  

DLCs should be treated in subsequent productions as if they were optional in the previous games, cause that what they were. If their effect on the universe is not optional, then the DLC should have been part of the package to start with. This means that checking flags and giving extra differentations based on wether or not the player had bought the DLC in the previous game when importing a save is fine, but asuming the DLC to have been bought, despite it not being part of the actual product, is not.

Again, you just reaffirmed the sequel argument. Replace sequel with dlc everywhere in your paragraph and we have the exact same conclusion. Mass Effect 2 assumes the events of Mass Effect 1, regardless if you played it. You have not provided any basis for why dlc cannot continue a story arc, any more than a sequel, expansion, or novel is allowed to.  

Make DLC playable without buying the product it is attached to, and you would have a case. However, as long as it is basicly a patch of another product it stands with that product. If the plot doesn't make sense without Arrival DLC, then Arrival DLC is part of the plot and should have been part of core releases and not something you pay EXTRA for.

Imagine ME1 and they ended the game after you did virmire, feros, novaria and Therum. Ilos and the 'real' ending was then released as a paid DLC. Would you consider this proper too? I for sure wouldn't, but your claims are opening up for such marketing scenarios which I can only protest against.