100 réponses à ce sujet

[Spindlecog]

Pseron Wyrd wrote...

ddevil459 wrote...
...Shivering Isles for Oblivion...

And what did Bethesda release before Shivering Isles? Nine DLCs.

This is not an either/or matter.  Bioware can release both DLCs and expansions, just as Bethesda did.

People seam to be unable to read this simple post, in fact if bethesda were to annonce a Fallout 3 sequel tomorrow they would still ignore the facts in front of them

[bjdbwea]

I will buy an expansion (on a DVD), but I don't buy DLC, let alone such as that available for DA so far. But as long as the money flows with DLC, a real expansion won't have much priority, will it?

[Rhys Cordelle]

Complaining about DLC is pointless. You don't have to buy it. But some of us crazed fans will buy anything Bioware offers us, so why shouldn't they make a few bucks with this sort of thing if there is a market for it? And if they're going to pay people to do the voice acting, additional map creation, writing, etc. then they're gonna have to charge us enough that it will still be profitable for them. The only alternative is that this stuff just doesn't get made.

[Rayne Myria Solo]

Eduku,



If your gaming computer doesn't connect to the internet, you're going to have a really hard time downloading and authorizing the free DLC you will get with whatever copy of DAO you buy. If it can't connect, sometimes your savegames with Shale, and or Warden's Keep items don't load, you might want to seriously think about that before you buy the game, if you haven't already.

[Rayne Myria Solo]

Rhys,



Exactly. It's much like an MMO. The dev team has to be paid, the servers kept on (yes, we have servers, the social site/character upload/screenshots are running (mostly) on one now. They have voice actors to pay, writers to pay, map makers to pay, equipment makers to pay. You have to look at it the same way. When they released the short little DLC for Mass Effect 1 they still had to pay Jennifer Hale and Mark Meer to voice Shep for the few lines he/she has, and the others as well (even though most of them are likely on contract for ME2). a disk-based expansion probably won't happen with DA, as Georg said, it costs them more to deal with, to keep shelf space, and it's less likely to sell as well in this current climate, they're'll be an expansion, but it will likely be a DLC.

[soot60188]

< 20 dollars for DLC? fine by me. Heck i waste more money on my weekly intake of ordering out pizza and it's far more expensive.



I love this game. Just amazing.

[purplesunset]

I had thought of starting a new thread, but my opinion is not worth anymore than anyone else's so I'll just put this here:

Game developers look at a game from a completely different perspective compared to fans.

Let me use a (somewhat humorous but still pertinent)  analogy: A turkey vendor looks at a turkey from a different angle compared to the family using it for Thanksgiving Dinner.

To the turkey vendor, the turkey is just his meal ticket, his paycheck, his source of income. To the family using it for thanksgiving dinner, the turkey is about intangible things such as the family getting together and being grateful for their blessings,  etc.

Similarly, a game developer  looks at a game as his meal ticket. On the other hand, the fans who enjoy the game are the ones who love it for the intangible things. They're the ones who are truly passionate about the game. Look at how modders can put in hours and hours for a non-monetary reward.

Maybe this would help those of you who are against DLC learn how to accept it.  The sooner you learn to accept this as a reality, the less evil game companies will seem in your eyes.   I assure you, they are  NOT trying to be evil, they're just doing what they feel they must do in order to survive financially.

[Morte]

Would you folks rather have:

a) Three bits of DLC like WK for $7 each

A 8 hour adventure in the style of "Wyvern Crown of Cormyr" and "Pirates of the Sword Coast" for $21, with enough story and character development to invest the players in the decisions they make

c) Both of the above

I'd go for ©. However, I fear we'll get (a) twice over because the margins are better and there's less risk involved. This would be understandable but sad.

[In my dream world we get a linked trilogy of 8 hour DLC adventures with recurring companions.]

Modifié par Morte, 22 novembre 2009 - 05:28 .

[AwayFat head]

DLC's should be illegal to make, nuff said. Expansions on the other hand are the best!

[SleeplessInSigil]

Personally, I love the DLC model and think it's for the better that the age of monolithic Expansions is over.


Since Expansions, by nature, require the base game, the developers can't really enhance the engine or change the mechanics too drastically or anything.

With DLCs, you have choice, because you can simply ignore them since they are optional after all (as far as the main story progression is concerned) and save your money for a full-fledged sequel instead, OR forgo the first installment altogether and buy just the sequel only, if so inclined.



Really, what would you rather have BioWare do, go straight to work on an Expansion that uses the SAME engine and media resources as DA:O or start on a whole new-&-improved system for the sequel, trickling down smaller DLCs for the original game as they go?

Modifié par SleeplessInSigil, 23 décembre 2009 - 03:38 .

[dwwilson57]

While I'm not going to throw my lot in with the DLC model, I'm not going to bewail it as the coming darkness, either. So far it's worked pretty well for me: I wanted Warden's Keep so I bought it; I'm on the fence for Return to Ostagar so I may or may not buy it.



Label me a fanboy, but I AM willing to throw my lot in with Bioware since they've repeatedly proven to me that they are making games that a) I care about playing and that they care about developing. All the "it's all about the money making scheme" black-ops end-of-the-gaming-industry" posts seem to me to be very much a case of straw-man.

[blazin130791]

do you even know what the term "straw-man" means?



im kiddin

[Bryy_Miller]

Bio-Boy 3000 wrote...

Georg Zoeller wrote...

If you check into the history of bioware expansion packs, you'll notice that none of them was announced right around launch.

Our expansion packs tend to be large, costly and full of awesome and before undertaking such things, it kinda makes sense to let the game release, watch how it does, see what people like instead of rushing head-first into battle.

I'm not confirming or denying anything, that is not my place, all I'm saying is that there is little reason to jump to any conclusions about expansion packs at this point, especially not when seen judged based on the timelines of previous games.

But think of how awesome this site would be if you offered Day 1 Expansion for Mass Effect 2? That entertainment alone would be worth $5 admission charge that you could have for the spectacle.

Wait. Did you really just do this? Was your response to "we can't do this" ... "do it"?

[Emeraq]

DLC, easy as 123

as simple as do ray mi

DLC, 123, baby you and me.....



I'll support both DLC and Expansions, thank you very much.

[Bryy_Miller]

AwayFat head wrote...

DLC's should be illegal to make, nuff said.

Your ridiculous statement needs some back-up, I think.

[blazin130791]

i think it is stupid to say you only want one or the other. more is allways better if its of something you enjoy and if you dont want to buy it, then simply don't.



unless people mean that they need to concentrate on one or the other to deliver quality.

[Bryy_Miller]

BioWare would honestly be stupid to do DLC Only or Expansion Only in today's gaming environment. Maybe in ten years when we no longer buy games from stores, but not now.

[Psython]

I would rather have no content released at all and just have bioware work fully on a sequel. Honestly, I would rather have a new game with new characters and a new story than play a version 1.5 expansion. I think expansions can work for rts games and multiplayer shooters, but not so well for rpgs.

[Jman5]

I don't know what the big deal about DLC is. If you don't want to buy it, then don't. It's the same story with Expansion packs.



Hell, I got Shale's card sitting right on my desk, and I haven't even bothered activating him yet. I'm just not a DLC guy. I don't think I've ever spent money on DLC content, but that's just personal preference. I can see why a lot of folks would and that's great for them.

[Bryy_Miller]

Shale is worth it.

[Legacy_QuEsT]

Georg Zoeller wrote...

Actually, we say 'Shale has a 15$ value, but we're giving it to first time buyers for free'. And let's be clear here, shale is an expensive piece of content - voice acting for interacting with every follower and many plots in the game is not cheap, neither is the other content tied to him.

Anyway, everything I had to say on the original topic has been said. I'll leave people to their conspiracy theories for now.

aha! conspiracy theory that Shale is a "Him" confirmed  thanks so much my friend

[peregrinefalcon46]

Nothing wrong with expansion packs, but I like DLC too.



Sometimes all you really want is a DLC snack instead of an expansion pack lunch or a release-day feast.



Really looking forward to the upcoming DLC, and WHEN they announce an expansion I'll definitely be excited then too.

[enderandrew]

It seems absolutely no one in this thread understands the Shale pricing.



Shale costs $15 today, but is included free with every new game purchase. The purpose of this is to curtail used copies of the game. If Gamestop is going to try and sell a copy of DA:O used for $40, but then it costs you $15 to get Shale, then it is cheaper to pay $50 to just purchase the game new from EA/Bioware.



They're creating addition perceived value with new game sales because EA does not profit from used game sales. DA:O DLC will be expensive because DA:O always included fully voiced lines. I do enjoy good writing and story, but I felt the existing DLC to be extremely disappointing so far.



I'd prefer a massive expansion pack but Bioware is neither confirming of denying one.



I purchased the DLC because I want an expansion pack. I assume that by pre-ordering the collector's edition, and by purchasing the DLC, I'm convincing EA that there is enough interest in the game to necessitate an expansion pack.



As for work on Dragon Age 2, I doubt it will be called Dragon Age 2 in the end. I suspect it will just have a subtitle, like Origins, and won't be connected to the protagonist from DA:O. So writers working on a new DA title don't have to know anything about potential expansions, because the "sequel" likely won't be a directly connected sequel.

[AsheraII]

images1.wikia.nocookie.net/dragonage/images/8/80/ThedasMap.jpg
Let's seeeeee, bottom right is a small piece of land called "Ferelden". I highly doubt any other parts of the map will be available through DLC.. As expansions however..
Expansion 1: The Tevinter Imperium & Antiva
Expansion 2: Rivain, Par Vollen & Seheron
Expansion 3: Anderfels & Orlais

The last one looks the smallest in mapsize, but would be sort of a conclusion to Dragon Age: Origins and at the same time heralding the sequel game, which obviously won't be called "Dragon Age: Origins 2", but will be be named "Dragon Age: < something else>. No, it WON'T be called DA:O 2. DA:O is a the introduction to Thedas: introducing the map, key figures and lore.

Seriously, a business plan like this is pretty obvious with the information available. At the same time, each Expansion will have it's own DLC's to improve upon the lore, add side tracks and everything, making Thedas as a whole more "colorful" (in a good way, not in the happy-happy-joy-joy way of turning everything pink).

Many people have noticed that some party members give more of an epic feeling lorewise than the player character itself. This all fits into that scheme, of introducing Thedas. Did you ever consider that the "origins" part of the game name isn't just about where your character hails from, but also to introduce where some main storyline characters for future games come from? I wouldn't be amazed if in future games, the player would be refered to as a historic character, named The Warden, of unknown origin and unknown sex. If given a codex entry in future game, it will probably state something like:
"Not much is known about The Warden. Some say he was a human noble, some say he was a Dalish sorceror. Some even claim he was a dwarf. Regardless, all historians agree that he was a Grey Warden who probably hailed from the backwater country of Ferelden." And then some more yadayada about accomplishments.
So we will be epic after the conclusion of this specific game, not during the game. We will be shrouded in mystery, but at the same time named in one breath with all famous names who are going to (re)shape Thedas.

Now what future games will exactly evolve around I can't say. There might even be some RTS planned, the diversity in styles of countries certainly allows for that much. But the non-player characters we encounter during DA:O, some of whom we (will) even group with, will definitely play a major role in it. The taint makes our PC relatively short lived: many characters will outlive us, simply because of the ticking timebomb in our blood. Soo much to do, yet soo little time.

[enderandrew]

I assume each new nation is a full-on game. I'm sure they can flesh out more areas of Ferelden in an expansion pack.