307 réponses à ce sujet

[Survivalist]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Its not just budgeting though its development time, what that chart shows is that if you add the development time for that content into the main game your extending the development cycle and the entire game takes longer to be completed. Which is really the point, day one DLC could definatly be included into the main game if you wanted to wait a month more for the entire game.

I thought the point of the chart was to show that it is more efficent to have the main game being produced and then have the teams that have nothing to do producing extra content in parrallel, which makes sense. Resulting in more content being produced in the same time. The difference between including it as part of the main game and as day one dlc is largely just terminology. Ok so there maybe some different certification etc but all the content is accessable on release date. Some would argue that all the content should be on the disc but with how the industry is moving (into the cloud) I could accept that I may have to download some of my game on release date.

[Cody211282]

Red Son Rising wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Cody211282 wrote...
I would love to agree with this but they did say arivial was the "true ending" of ME2, you cant say somethings complete then come back and add a major plot point and change when it ends.

I don't recall them ever saying that or anything like that. I remember them saying it was the bridge between the two games, but the ending? 

i avoided mentioning arrival deliberately. its pretty obvious they wanted to do something different for the ending and either ran outta time or didnt figure out how/what to do until well after the main game happened

thats exactly the situation i want to avoid. i dont want dlc that rewrites the game because it was incomplete at launch. i think ME2 was complete and they decided to retcon the ending after launch. and i hate em for it

[edit] sorry for double post. im not a regular rage poster, having a lot of trouble keeping up with the pace

I'm all with you there, I would have loved for them to have left the ending alone. because ether they planned on it or screwed with it later, both are not good signs.

[TheStoner]

Red Son Rising wrote...
i cant do without it. the problem is ppl didnt reserve the CE edition thats obviously made for the fans and BW decided to charge everyone else for that content. its not in the $60 game, its in the $70 version: pay the difference

Luxure wrote...
People still forget that this DLC was supposed to be CE exclusive. But they still **** the bed about it.

It was never made for The CE. Notice how it was never marketed as exclusive and that the exact same thing happend with DA2. This was always going to be day 1 DLC.

[Red Son Rising]

[edit]im ignoring all mention of BW being in it for the money. its ridiculous and unreasonable to expect a business to operate like a charity. if they dont make money they wont make games 

ive always found it funny whe ppl treat gaming like a glorified fanservice. video games are a multibillion dollar industry: none of these companies are in business because they just wanna make ppl smile

its always about the money, welcome to the real world

[quote]Cody211282 wrote...

[quote]Red Son Rising wrote...

[quote]littlezack wrote...
i avoided mentioning arrival deliberately. its pretty obvious they wanted to do something different for the ending and either ran outta time or didnt figure out how/what to do until well after the main game happened

thats exactly the situation i want to avoid. i dont want dlc that rewrites the game because it was incomplete at launch. i think ME2 was complete and they decided to retcon the ending after launch. and i hate em for it

[edit] sorry for double post. im not a regular rage poster, having a lot of trouble keeping up with the pace

[/quote]

I'm all with you there, I would have loved for them to have left the ending alone. because ether they planned on it or screwed with it later, both are not good signs.

[/quote]
i just dont think dlc shud retcon parts of a game. if its poorly planned it will show regardless, trying to patch away the problem just draws attention to it. add to the main game but dont make it irrelevant, arrival did the latter

Modifié par Red Son Rising, 24 février 2012 - 10:32 .

[DomainFairy]

 DLC Smackdown!Had you told me in 1999, while I was rocking out on Rogue Spear, that a game would come along called Counter Strike and that I would have to play the game using a service that had to be online and connected to the mothership at all times, I would have (smacked you in the face with a bag of your own **** and then proceeded to unplug my internet). Back then friends and I were pirating games at a whorish rate, consoles were for racing games and to watch Mario bust a nut trying to save a ****, and everything was right in the world. Gamers were in control. We paid and played when we wanted to and that wasn’t going to change.
At least that’s what we believed back then. Because five years later (2004) the official release of Steam came along and gamers were about to take one in the spicehole. Not really but it felt like that at the time. Throngs of gamers were addicted to (and had pirated) Counter Strike and when Steam came along demanding its persistent connection and other spicehole features it really was game over. Everyone felt like they were kicked in the nuts. The paying and the pirates screamed for boycotts, petitions and internet riots ensued – **** got ugly. How dare they take advantage of us like this, how dare they tell us how to play our games. Steam was getting blasted from all sides. But they gently fondled us into compliancy to the point that now it isn’t even a second thought to lay down a few bucks on many of their 1500 titles. And for the younger folk there is no thought at all, as far as they know Steam was around before grandpa had to wear diapers.
What the **** does this have to do with DLC? For those who have been around the pixelated gaming block a few times it is apparent but for many it feels like their spicehole is being manipulated and the moral of the story is unclear. Before I joined the industry it was unclear to me too. Pay for a map pack? Fuuuhk that! If that **** didn’t have a number “2, 3, 4” after its title it wasn’t getting my money. Even expansion packs were pushing it. We wanted full game sequels so we could continue having – wait for it – fun. The thing is, as with any industry, **** is getting competitive out there and unless you are making CoD, WoW, FIFA (or other awesome but could be perceived as generic games) you are making a niche game (to prove the point just go look at the number of genres there are today compared to even five years age. Can you say “Survival Horror”?). DLC is not a passive-aggressive way for studios and publishers to rape your wallet. It is a legitimate way for them to make a dollar so they can pay the hundreds of souls that it takes to put together the next game you’re going to love and have fun with. And anyone who tells you “It was already baked in to the main game and they just took it out to make $10.” hasn’t shipped a game. It goes like this: The main game goes into what is called “cert” (usually 3-4 months before ship) and if there are no major bugs to fix the team starts on the first DLC with the goal of it hitting day one so those who enjoy the game can keep enjoying it if they choose. And guess what they do when DLC 1 goes into cert? Thats right, they start on DLC 2 (and hopefully 3 but if not then the team gets transferred to awesomegameX). I didn’t know this before and I get it that you, perhaps until now, didn’t either. Just like I don’t get the **** that goes on at other workplaces and this is why you don’t see me roll up to a Home Depot and split the nug stock boy in two with my Grey Warden long sword because I have to pay a ****ton of money for bulbs that my newly purchased lamp didn’t come with. I get it.  And now, just as many of us have accepted Steam and no longer see it as a “necessary evil”, we buy DLC – lots of it. I am to the point that if they came out with a new piece of Borderlands DLC each month (probably week) I would buy it – as long as I was continuing to have fun. Do I buy day one DLC? Not all the time. Why? Because if the game I am playing isn’t that much fun then I don’t want to keep playing it. I think you see where I am going with this and the whole fun thing.
Videogames are a business and business decisions need to be made – not all are good ones (Hey, let’s milk this **** and make a sequel a year! (most studio folk aren’t invited to that decision party)) – but making DLC to help finance the next title is the right business decision. And while twelve years ago I would have never seen DLC coming, I probably should have.
You nugs be good to each other.
Goodnight

darklarke.com/2012/02/24/65/
bioware employee social.bioware.com/3391886/

[Draconis6666]

Tsantilas wrote...

I'm calling bull**** on this. This still doesn't explain why core content ended up being developed separately and sold as DLC rather than being part of the main game. What does different teams being payed have to do with anything? Yeah yeah the DLC content was developed separately and by a different team. So what? What does that have to do with anything?

The game will be out on day 1. The DLC will be out on day 1. Take DLC content-> add into game and release in the core game since they'll both be ready at the same goddamn time. EA wants money. That is all it's about. Or do you expect me to believe that they can't afford to pay the developers unless they get an extra 10 bucks on top of the 60? Greed. End of.

Its not just about paying the devleopers, its also about their obligation as a publicly traded company to increase the share value of their shares for their shareholders. That is their primary responsibilty, its rediculous in that concept to expect them to limit their profits if they dont have to. The shareholders want their shares to be worth more, the value of those shares is determined by how much the corporation can make. Complaining about video game publishers being greedy is silly, there are far worse examples of corporate greed than video game companies. EA and Activsion have relatively low Annnual Profits, meanwhile you have Oil Companies like Exxon who made $10 billion in PROFIT in the first quarter of 2011 alone.

[pavi132]

MrJoshua wrote...

People saying insinuating Bioware/EA is being selfish for charging for Day 1 DLC is funny to me.
Isn't it more of that the fanbase is being selfish wanting it for free?

I have no problem with what has happened with the DLC thing, except for the fact they leaked everything way to early with the CE description a while back. Also, if Prothy isn't an important part of the game that will be disappointing.

But the money thing doesn't bother me at all.
You don't have to buy it.
If you cant afford to buy the DLC, you probably shouldn't be spending your limited funds on a video game in the first place.

It isn't that people think they deserve this DLC for free. It is that they believe that they have already paid for the content DLC when they bought the game. It isn't about trying to get something for free but something you believe you paid for.

[Cody211282]

Red Son Rising wrote...

[edit]im ignoring all mention of BW being in it for the money. its ridiculous and unreasonable to expect a business to operate like a charity. if they dont make money they wont make games 

ive always found it funny whe ppl treat gaming like a glorified fanservice. video games are a multibillion dollar industry: none of these companies are in business because they just wanna make ppl smile

its always about the money, welcome to the real world

Cody211282 wrote...

Red Son Rising wrote...

littlezack wrote...
i avoided mentioning arrival deliberately. its pretty obvious they wanted to do something different for the ending and either ran outta time or didnt figure out how/what to do until well after the main game happened

thats exactly the situation i want to avoid. i dont want dlc that rewrites the game because it was incomplete at launch. i think ME2 was complete and they decided to retcon the ending after launch. and i hate em for it

[edit] sorry for double post. im not a regular rage poster, having a lot of trouble keeping up with the pace

I'm all with you there, I would have loved for them to have left the ending alone. because ether they planned on it or screwed with it later, both are not good signs.

i just dont think dlc shud retcon parts of a game. if its poorly planned it will show regardless, trying to patch away the problem just draws attention to it. add to the main game but dont make it irrelevant, arrival did the latter

Sad thing is the only thing you need to know story wise from ME2 was the Arivial DLC, it basicly wipes out the rest of the games plot. Now I wasn't a big fan of the main plot but  doing what they did destroyed what was left.

Modifié par Cody211282, 24 février 2012 - 10:36 .

[Dragoonlordz]

littlezack wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

teh_619 wrote...

Chargin 870$ for DLC?

That's game development now?

It's just a greedy business direction. Nothing more, nothing less.

You'd do well to not fall for this and support it.

Greed also comes from your end because you want those things but are unwilling to pay for them, two way street.

There is no gun to your head and gaming is a hobby not an oxygen supply. Don't like, don't buy. Move on with your life.

Holy crap, I agree with DL on something. I feel dirty inside.

Now that I think about it in retrospect, I'm surprised you were surprised.

My stance on this is the same as my stance was on Origin. Defending a companies right to develop and distribute their product and not dictated by customers demands, threats or self entitlements telling them how they should do it. Stating that if unhappy about how a product is offered and what it contains then people have the freedom and ability to buy something else they may enjoy more or leave feedback and suggestions in a polite and reasonable way.

I feel they had a right to distribute Origin with their product, I had feedback about improving the product will supply, but defend their right to supply it. Here I am doing the same thing, I consider it Bioware's right to decide how to develop a game and EA's right to distribute it how they like as long as remains within the law which Origin does now and Bioware have with this too.

So my stance is the same we are just on the same side of the fence for once just on different subjects. 

[Red Son Rising]

TheStoner wrote...

Red Son Rising wrote...
i cant do without it. the problem is ppl didnt reserve the CE edition thats obviously made for the fans and BW decided to charge everyone else for that content. its not in the $60 game, its in the $70 version: pay the difference

Luxure wrote...
People still forget that this DLC was supposed to be CE exclusive. But they still **** the bed about it.

It was never made for The CE. Notice how it was never marketed as exclusive and that the exact same thing happend with DA2. This was always going to be day 1 DLC.

when the CE was announced with extra day one dlc it was pretty obvious it would be paid dlc for other editions. its just unreasonable to
1. expect BW to sit on their hands and lose money just to keep dlc exclusive to a tiny number of fans
and 
2. expect BW to give away dlc after charging for it [CE isnt free, ppl paid for that too]

i dont feel bad for ppl that dont want to pay for the day one content. i reserved my CE months ago, im not gonna pretend i empathize with ppl demanding something for nothing and threatening BW for not caving to their unreasonable demands

[TheStoner]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

teh_619 wrote...

Chargin 870$ for DLC?

That's game development now?

It's just a greedy business direction. Nothing more, nothing less.

You'd do well to not fall for this and support it.

Greed also comes from your end because you want those things but are unwilling to pay for them, two way street.

There is no gun to your head and gaming is a hobby not an oxygen supply. Don't like, don't buy. Move on with your life.

Holy crap, I agree with DL on something. I feel dirty inside.

Now that I think about it in retrospect, I'm surprised you were surprised.

My stance on this is the same as my stance was on Origin. Defending a companies right to develop and distribute their product and not dictated by customers demands, threats or self entitlements telling them how they should do it. Stating that if unhappy about how a product is offered and what it contains then people have the freedom and ability to buy something else they may enjoy more or leave feedback and suggestions in a polite and reasonable way.

I feel they had a right to distribute Origin with their product, I had feedback about improving the product will supply, but defend their right to supply it. Here I am doing the same thing, I consider it Bioware's right to decide how to develop a game and EA's right to distribute it how they like as long as remains within the law which Origin does now and Bioware have with this too.

So my stance is the same we are just on the same side of the fence for once just on different subjects. 

You're not defending thier rights because noone is attacking thier rights. If they were I would be defending them with you.

[Draconis6666]

Survivalist wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

Its not just budgeting though its development time, what that chart shows is that if you add the development time for that content into the main game your extending the development cycle and the entire game takes longer to be completed. Which is really the point, day one DLC could definatly be included into the main game if you wanted to wait a month more for the entire game.

I thought the point of the chart was to show that it is more efficent to have the main game being produced and then have the teams that have nothing to do producing extra content in parrallel, which makes sense. Resulting in more content being produced in the same time. The difference between including it as part of the main game and as day one dlc is largely just terminology. Ok so there maybe some different certification etc but all the content is accessable on release date. Some would argue that all the content should be on the disc but with how the industry is moving (into the cloud) I could accept that I may have to download some of my game on release date.

Thats exactly what it shows the point is if you look at that green bar of Development for the day one DLC the red bar below it includes time where NO actual development can take place on the core game. So if you want the content from the DLC added into the main game tyou have to add that Green bar onto the end of the main game's green bar in some form or antoher which increases the size of the green bar in general. The pre production could definatly take place alongside development without any problem. but the Additional Development cannot take place alongside the testing and certification. So for it to be on the disc your definatly looking at a delay for the full game. 

The download argument has more merit of course, but theres also stil the point that those people who were done working on the main game who were moved to work on the DLC did extra work that they wouldnt have done had the DLC not even been created. Extra work beyond whats offered to you on the $60 disc you buy was done, theres no reason to think they should have to give that to you for free. Should they? maybe, some people think so others disagree, in this case they disagree and thats all there is to it. You can chose to pay them or not but they dont have any obligation to change their mind either is all im trying to say.

The fact that they have given day 1 DLC  for free doesnt mean they have to, it arguably sets a precident that they are treating their consumers differently than they have in the past and some people will obviously disagrew this treatment but that still doesnt mean they have to give it to you for free simply because they did before.

If i go to the store and one day there is a buy 1 get one free sale, the next day if i go to the store and they arent doing that sale I shouldnt expect to get one for free simply because i did the day before.

[AlexXIV]

No company can freely decide what they want to do. They always have to please customers and deal with competition and other business situations. And if you think for one minute that anyone at Bioware cares about an angry poster on the BSN then you are also wrong. The only time they will bend over is when they think they'd lose a million dollars or more.

[Draconis6666]

TheStoner wrote...
You're not defending thier rights because noone is attacking thier rights. If they were I would be defending them with you.

People are in a sense though, they are attacking EA and Bioware's right to distribute and charge for their product as they desire. Obviously not everyone against them is doing this but there are plenty of people who are, its one thing to say you disagree with how they have done it its quite another to claim that they cant do it because doing so is unethical or immoral or whtever other word for it you want to use as some people have.

[nitefyre410]

Red Son Rising wrote...

TheStoner wrote...

Red Son Rising wrote...
i cant do without it. the problem is ppl didnt reserve the CE edition thats obviously made for the fans and BW decided to charge everyone else for that content. its not in the $60 game, its in the $70 version: pay the difference

Luxure wrote...
People still forget that this DLC was supposed to be CE exclusive. But they still **** the bed about it.

It was never made for The CE. Notice how it was never marketed as exclusive and that the exact same thing happend with DA2. This was always going to be day 1 DLC.

when the CE was announced with extra day one dlc it was pretty obvious it would be paid dlc for other editions. its just unreasonable to
1. expect BW to sit on their hands and lose money just to keep dlc exclusive to a tiny number of fans
and 
2. expect BW to give away dlc after charging for it [CE isnt free, ppl paid for that too]

i dont feel bad for ppl that dont want to pay for the day one content. i reserved my CE months ago, im not gonna pretend i empathize with ppl demanding something for nothing and threatening BW for not caving to their unreasonable demands

 

So then why put money into a DLC  that you are going  have a small number of fans play... if you knew that Collectors Editions was going to in limit suppy from the start?  Especially one where you are paying a rather  experienced actor who played on  one of broadcast  TV 's longest running most successfully shows.  

Why put out that kind of money for a exclusive Collectors Edition only character?  

Bioware does not have to give me anything for free but when  Bioware ask me as consumer to spend money on their product it best be up to the standards that  I feel my disposable income is worth.  

[TheStoner]

Red Son Rising wrote...

TheStoner wrote...

Red Son Rising wrote...
i cant do without it. the problem is ppl didnt reserve the CE edition thats obviously made for the fans and BW decided to charge everyone else for that content. its not in the $60 game, its in the $70 version: pay the difference

Luxure wrote...
People still forget that this DLC was supposed to be CE exclusive. But they still **** the bed about it.

It was never made for The CE. Notice how it was never marketed as exclusive and that the exact same thing happend with DA2. This was always going to be day 1 DLC.

when the CE was announced with extra day one dlc it was pretty obvious it would be paid dlc for other editions. its just unreasonable to
1. expect BW to sit on their hands and lose money just to keep dlc exclusive to a tiny number of fans
and 
2. expect BW to give away dlc after charging for it [CE isnt free, ppl paid for that too]

i dont feel bad for ppl that dont want to pay for the day one content. i reserved my CE months ago, im not gonna pretend i empathize with ppl demanding something for nothing and threatening BW for not caving to their unreasonable demands

The CE got a hell of alot of extra stuff with it. They would easily be able to sell CEs without the DLC. I'm not demanding something for nothing. I am saying that dlc made before launch should be covered under the price of the main game.

[Cody211282]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Cody211282 wrote...


OK sorry if I seem a bit short with you but Ive had this convo a lot recently so I'm going to bold the peices I want to talk about, to see more of what I'm saying look at my convo with Scary Shepard .

"It also doesnt mean that it SHOULD be added in. Not everything
worked on during the production of a game makes it into the game. They
arent obligated to give you everything they worked on during the
development, and in fact in amost no case wil you get that. "

Very Good point, and I agree a big part of making a good story is editing. But the problem here isn't that it was cut and discarded. It is that it was cut and moved to a diffrent team to be sold as DLC when in fact it should have just been in the main game anyway just like the rest of the side quests. I am also fine with them offering this as incentive to buy new instead of used, that way people who actualy buy the game still get the everything that is in the game.


When you pay them the $60 for the game your paying them for
their work during the game's development cycle your not paying for their
work developing something else that has its own development cycle.

And my problem with this is since it was ment to be day one DLC, and thats how it was planned from the get go, it reaks of having been removed from the main game. No I don't have any proof but with how long it takes to add in something like this and the fact that it was planned to be in the CE it just heavily points to that, or at least thats what I see I could be wrong.

If you as a consumer think it should be included you can chose
to tell them that you think its not worth what they are asking you to
pay for it and refuse to pay. That doesnt mean they are wrong either
though, they are still entitled to sell their work however they want. As
long as people are willing to pay them for it then they are right from
their standpoint. Consumerism is not a black and white thing where one
side is wrong and the other is right.

If you couldn't tell my biggest problem is I fell very ripped off. I understand that they could sell this game mission by mission if they wanted to but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.Also i really should point out that I love the hell out of the free market, what I don't love is people saying that I'm being an entitled brat or that I'm not a fan just because I don't agree with blindly throwing money at any franchise that I have liked in the past.

Very Good point, and I agree a big part of making a good story is editing. But the problem here isn't that it was cut and discarded. It is that it was cut and moved to a diffrent team to be sold as DLC when in fact it should have just been in the main game anyway just like the rest of the side quests. I am also fine with them offering this as incentive to buy new instead of used, that way people who actualy buy the game still get the everything that is in the game.

I would agree with this point if all the work was done during development, but if it isnt which we have no evidence that it was in this case. Then the issue becomes should they delay the entire game to finish this content and put it into the game? Expecialy in the case where DLC is worked on by members of the same team that work on the original game. If you add the DLC content into the main build of the game, that adds development time to the main game. Those people who work on the DLC have to work on the DLC in addition to the content they are already working on. You cant just magicaly insert the content into the game and not increase the development time, everything takes time adding more content adds more time which means yes we probably could have gotten the From Ashes DLC with the game, but we'd be buying the game 2-3 weeks later most likely. Considering that ME 3 was already late in terms of its original development plan its not that hard to see why they wouldnt do this.


And my problem with this is since it was ment to be day one DLC, and thats how it was planned from the get go, it reaks of having been removed from the main game. No I don't have any proof but with how long it takes to add in something like this and the fact that it was planned to be in the CE it just heavily points to that, or at least thats what I see I could be wrong.

You are right here in that it easily could have been, but the problem with this goes back to something I mentioned earlier in that this suspicion makes it nearly impossible for Developers to "win" either way. If they cut content and dont pre plan for it later as DLC then they have to do all the DLC pre production and develeopment after release, at which point people complain that there is "not enough DLC" or "DLC is taking too long". If they attempt to correct this by deciding at the time they cut something "hey this should be DLC later, lets plan for that so we can do the pre production and early development early and get it out to the consumers as soon as possible" people complain that it aws cut from the game for the sole reason of selling it.  There is of course the option that exactly what you say is true also and they cut content simply to sell, but I hope you can see my point in that either way they cant really win.



If you couldn't tell my biggest problem is I fell very ripped off. I understand that they could sell this game mission by mission if they wanted to but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.Also i really should point out that I love the hell out of the free market, what I don't love is people saying that I'm being an entitled brat or that I'm not a fan just because I don't agree with blindly throwing money at any franchise that I have liked in the past.

Agree completely and if thats what you thought I was trying to say, I apoplogize i wasnt attempting to say that you are acting like an entitled brat because you dont want to blindly spend your money. Because indeed thats nothing of the sort its simply being a reasonable consumer. What I was saying is that the problem with the issue is that for every person like you who simply isnt sure that they feel the product is worth the value being asked there are just as many who just want stuff for free because they want it. I was in no way trying to say that you are one of those people, but they definatly exist.  As a business they have to do what they can to make money, as a publicly traded buisness they are even more obligated to do so, they have responsibilities to their share holders to increase the value of those shares. Unfortunately the policies they use to achieve this will never please everyone. You feel that you are being ripped off and thats your right as a consumer, and you are 100% right. If you feel your being ripped off then from  your point of view you are and thats all there is to it. 

I would agree with this point if all the work was done during
development, but if it isnt which we have no evidence that it was in
this case. Then the issue becomes should they delay the entire game to
finish this content and put it into the game? Expecialy in the case
where DLC is worked on by members of the same team that work on the
original game. If you add the DLC content into the main build of the
game, that adds development time to the main game. Those people who work
on the DLC have to work on the DLC in addition to the content they are
already working on. You cant just magicaly insert the content into the
game and not increase the development time, everything takes time adding
more content adds more time which means yes we probably could have
gotten the From Ashes DLC with the game, but we'd be buying the game 2-3
weeks later most likely. Considering that ME 3 was already late in
terms of its original development plan its not that hard to see why they
wouldnt do this.

Well from what I have heard the DLC was done by a diffrent team at the same time as they were finishing up the main game, so why not just fold them in, have them work on it as part of the main game or if needed it have it come out as part of a incentive to buy new instead of used, like the CN did for ME2. Or hell I'm ok with waiting an extra month, I dont want them to take as long as Valve but I'm ok with waiting for a finished product, and if DA2 showed them anything it's to not rush stuff ou the door.


You are right here in that it easily could have been, but the problem
with this goes back to something I mentioned earlier in that this
suspicion makes it nearly impossible for Developers to "win" either way.
If they cut content and dont pre plan for it later as DLC then they
have to do all the DLC pre production and develeopment after release, at
which point people complain that there is "not enough DLC" or "DLC is
taking too long". If they attempt to correct this by deciding at the
time they cut something "hey this should be DLC later, lets plan for
that so we can do the pre production and early development early and get
it out to the consumers as soon as possible" people complain that it
aws cut from the game for the sole reason of selling it.  There is of
course the option that exactly what you say is true also and they cut
content simply to sell, but I hope you can see my point in that either
way they cant really win.

I defently see your point there, and with some people there really is no winning. I don't go into a game expecting to get DLC, and if I see a game has a lot of it I tend to shy away. and honestly waiting 3 or so months for new DLC isn't that bad, I've got work/school/family/friends and other stuff to keep me occupied if I want to wait for some good DLC.

Agree completely and if thats what you thought I was trying to say, I
apoplogize i wasnt attempting to say that you are acting like an
entitled brat because you dont want to blindly spend your money.

I know you wern't but holy **** there is a ton of people who scream this to anyone who questions the day 1 DLC, and these people scare the crap out of me.

[Tsantilas]

Draconis6666 wrote...

Tsantilas wrote...
...snip...

Its not just about paying the devleopers, its also about their obligation as a publicly traded company to increase the share value of their shares for their shareholders. That is their primary responsibilty, its rediculous in that concept to expect them to limit their profits if they dont have to. The shareholders want their shares to be worth more, the value of those shares is determined by how much the corporation can make. Complaining about video game publishers being greedy is silly, there are far worse examples of corporate greed than video game companies. EA and Activsion have relatively low Annnual Profits, meanwhile you have Oil Companies like Exxon who made $10 billion in PROFIT in the first quarter of 2011 alone.

So basically... EA wants more money?  So the chart is a lame excuse? Greed is ok because everyone is greedy?  What is wrong with people?

Someone made a car analogy earlier in the thread but I dont feel like it was a good one.  In this case it feels more like they developed the chairs separately and are selling them at additional cost saying "you can still drive the car sitting on the floor, but if you want seats you gotta pay us an extra 1000 bucks".  I understand selling bonus items like weapons and alternate outfits and stuff as dlc... but story content? Really?  No excuse you throw at me can make something like that make sense.  Would you buy a book if several chapters were sold seperately?  No, you expect to have the whole story.  Not to mention that paying 1/6 of the price extra for less than 1/20 of the content is just plain robbery.

[TheStoner]

Draconis6666 wrote...

TheStoner wrote...
You're not defending thier rights because noone is attacking thier rights. If they were I would be defending them with you.

People are in a sense though, they are attacking EA and Bioware's right to distribute and charge for their product as they desire. Obviously not everyone against them is doing this but there are plenty of people who are, its one thing to say you disagree with how they have done it its quite another to claim that they cant do it because doing so is unethical or immoral or whtever other word for it you want to use as some people have.

That's confusing ethics with politics. You can say someone is immoral for being racist but can also wish to protect thier right to free speech. As such I think that this dlc should come with the game but I'm also a libertarian and want to protect thier right to charge for it.

[Cody211282]

Red Son Rising wrote...

TheStoner wrote...

Red Son Rising wrote...
i cant do without it. the problem is ppl didnt reserve the CE edition thats obviously made for the fans and BW decided to charge everyone else for that content. its not in the $60 game, its in the $70 version: pay the difference

Luxure wrote...
People still forget that this DLC was supposed to be CE exclusive. But they still **** the bed about it.

It was never made for The CE. Notice how it was never marketed as exclusive and that the exact same thing happend with DA2. This was always going to be day 1 DLC.

when the CE was announced with extra day one dlc it was pretty obvious it would be paid dlc for other editions. its just unreasonable to
1. expect BW to sit on their hands and lose money just to keep dlc exclusive to a tiny number of fans
and 
2. expect BW to give away dlc after charging for it [CE isnt free, ppl paid for that too]

i dont feel bad for ppl that dont want to pay for the day one content. i reserved my CE months ago, im not gonna pretend i empathize with ppl demanding something for nothing and threatening BW for not caving to their unreasonable demands

I just think it would have been better handled to have this as the "buy new not used" DLC that has been with everyhitn else(hell I think the only reason this and multiplayers places arent swapped is because they think noone cares about multiplayer). CE guys should get cool stuff from the art depatment like the book, a making of documentry witht he voice cast and writers, a shirt, and maybe some custom stuff to put on your shep, like a bonnett.

But thats just how I see how it should be.

[Cody211282]

Luxure wrote...

People still forget that this DLC was supposed to be CE exclusive. But they still **** the bed about it.

Ya that was never CE exclusive.

[wrdnshprd]

DomainFairy wrote...
<snip>

the problem with his statement is a portion of the playerbase has to pay for the dlc, while another does not (just check twitter and the sticky, thats how the CE is being advertised), and he hasnt justified why this DLC is different than Zaeed or shale..

also, as ive said, it doesnt matter if multiplayer was added.  there are tons of games that include this feature at no extra charge, and on top of that, give us a complete game. 

and another thing, its only speculation that multiplayer was the replacement content for new game incentive .. and if it was, it still doesnt excuse them.. 

story driven content that is released for a game the same day as launch shouldnt be separated into monetized chunks EVER. 

you guys want to release content AFTER LAUNCH.. no problem.. the more the marrier..  but please dont nickle and dime us at launch.

Modifié par wrdnshprd, 24 février 2012 - 10:58 .

[Draconis6666]

TheStoner wrote...

Draconis6666 wrote...

TheStoner wrote...
You're not defending thier rights because noone is attacking thier rights. If they were I would be defending them with you.

People are in a sense though, they are attacking EA and Bioware's right to distribute and charge for their product as they desire. Obviously not everyone against them is doing this but there are plenty of people who are, its one thing to say you disagree with how they have done it its quite another to claim that they cant do it because doing so is unethical or immoral or whtever other word for it you want to use as some people have.

That's confusing ethics with politics. You can say someone is immoral for being racist but can also wish to protect thier right to free speech. As such I think that this dlc should come with the game but I'm also a libertarian and want to protect thier right to charge for it.

Ok valid point, and bad examples of what I was trying to say. I dont remember the exact wording but there have been a few people for sure who have claimed that doing this is Criminal or should somehow be Illegal and thats what I was trying to say, using peoples claims that its unethical or immoral was definatly an incorrect way of pointing this out because your right thats talking about their ethical obligation and not their rights.

[Icematt12]

I only disagree with the production and testing mix part. I supose it depends when QA becomes involved, I have no certain idea, but surely staff are constantly testing/going over their own work not saving it for the last 30% or whatever as shown.

[Cody211282]

wrdnshprd wrote...

DomainFairy wrote...
<snip>

 

and another thing, its only speculation that multiplayer was the replacement content for new game incentive .. and if it was, it still doesnt excuse them.. 

Bigger question, why is it being implemented at the end of this series lifespan, why is it a good idea to put it in a story driven single player game that puts action in the passenger seat to plot.

Why on a limeted time frame did they try to add in a completly new mode to the game when they could have tighted up the single player to the point of cutting dimonds?

I just don't know why multiplayer is in this to start with.