434 réponses à ce sujet

[Joy Divison]

Elhanan wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Or voice your opinion about it. And that's what Joy Division is doing. That's a good thing. You cannot expect people to defend something they do not believe in.

Nope; the quoted part ref 'shady practices', 'and content that is fundemental to the base game' is apparently made as factual, and it is the perception and understanding of such which is shady.

We are all entitled to opinions, but should strive for informed ones.

And you are missing my point.  You are so concerned with defending Bioware's business practices as "completely legit" that you fail to recognzie that how they conduct their business is absolutely irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is whether or not the customer is willing to pay - it's not like there is a "shady" tax or Bioware gets tax credits for conducting a "completely legit" transaction.

You, and numerous other posters, will glady shell out additional money for content which is arguably intrinsic to product you already paid for.  That's fine, it's your money, do what you want with it.  It is, of course, my opinion that such purchasing behavior is a confirmation of PT Barnum's quip that there is a sucker born every minute, but you misunderstand if you think I am trying to build some objective case that you are a poor consumer or Bioware's business practices are shady.  It's just an obervation.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 18 août 2012 - 07:36 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Ninja Stan wrote...

We area already doing this. I would pay extra for seeing a 3D version of the same movie or for the deluxe Ultra AVX version or for seating in the VIP Theatre (think Alamo Drafthouse type layout and services). I saw Pixar's "Up" in both regular 2D and 3D. I also watched Avengers in 2D and 3D. While people might grumble about the extra cost, it seems to be doing good business and keeps people going to the cinema. 

So yes, I see your point, but I think your premise would be a pretty awesome way to encourage multiple viewings of the same movie. One of the cinemas in town has also had screenings of the extended Lord of the Rings movies. It's already happening, and moviegoers seem to enjoy having that kind of choice.

But see, that is where you and I fundamentally disagree. A nice seat? 3-D glasses? A guy coming round with a concession cart so you don't have to get up? I don't mind theaters charging this, or people paying for it... because it changes NOTHING fundamental about the movie. 

When you go to talk to your friends about the movie, the story, the action scenes... you aren't going to also slip in "oh, and wasn't it cool how I got an extra box of Junior Mints right before the Hulk went crazy?" Or, if you did I suppose, people would look at you funny.

Cosmetic or convenience extras don't give a different experience. They are like the weapon packs or the extra armor skins of the DLC world. I don't buy them, but I don't begrudge anyone buying them or developers making them and selling them Day One or including them in promotions (such as the Dead Space armor for DA2). 

But when you start having extra scenes, extra characters, extra content to a movie and then charging extra for it the same day as the original movie itself is released, that's what would make people upset. Story content being edited out and sold for more, instead of cosmetic or creature comforts costing extra. 

If you can show me a single movie that has, on opening night, charged more for a viewing with deleted or extended scenes than the standard version of the film, I'd be surprised. But even if an example could be found, no doubt the movie would have been criticized and berated for comprimising their work and manipulating customers by purposefully not including content and charging more for it.

THAT'S what the problem is. And that's why the comparison to any other industry breaks down - because no other story telling medium has extra content being sold on Day One for more money. And while, as developers and businessmen and women, Bioware is totally within their rights to go with this practice, I'm totally within my rights to say it is a practice that I do not like, will not support and will openly protest at every opportunity.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 18 août 2012 - 07:58 .

[Il Divo]

Joy Divison wrote...

I make the same "straightforward business arrangement" when I spend $9 for a warm beer at a ball game, that does not change the fact that I am being suckered into paying for something with almost a 1000% percent markup.  Just because you agree to the terms of a business arrangement, that does not mean you are not being taken advantage of, squeezed, ripped off, or suckered.

Your own decision, nothing more. Suckered implies you were scammed, which implies you were tricked or weren't aware of the parameters of the deal.

Because what it comes down to is that value is relative. There are games that I'm sure you'd pay full price for that I wouldn't touch and vice versa. Should I accuse you of allowing Bioware to scam you because you might pay $60 for Mass Effect, where I think that's ridiculous?

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 août 2012 - 08:14 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Elhanan wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

Only after reading this thread and being amazed at the number of people who rationalize shady business practices do I realize why Marx was wrong about capitalism's inevitable collapse.

If so many people are going to be sucked in paying extra for content that is fundamental to the base game, then Bioware would be suckers *not* to charge for Day 1 DLC.

Nothing shady except the possible perception and understanding of the nature of Day 1 DLC. The making and selling of it is comepletely legit, and fills the need seen in some Players.

If one does not wish to purchase it, skip it or wait until later; same for the games.

Or voice your opinion about it. And that's what Joy Division is doing. That's a good thing. You cannot expect people to defend something they do not believe in.

Nope; the quoted part ref 'shady practices', 'and content that is fundemental to the base game' is apparently made as factual, and it is the perception and understanding of such which is shady.

We are all entitled to opinions, but should strive for informed ones.

Informed ones? Don't be silly. Let's see.

First we have day-1 DLC as a means to let second hand games make money for EA anyway - AKA Project Ten Dollar. Buyers of new games do not object. It beats me and I do not even buy second hand games. Why should BMW get any money because I sell my car? To me it is nonsense.

Then we have the idea that devs have spare time until release so they can create DLC in the mean-time. If they have spare time then it is bad project management. But of course it is a rationalization, because the idea is to include it on the distribution medium. And charge for it later. That sounds like a good plan for the company. However... Is it content that was already created and cut to make it a DLC or specifically created to be sold as a DLC during waiting for the gold master? Do you think that I care as a customer? Of course not. To me it is obvious that BW wants to make money. Is that wrong? No. Of course not, but quit the silly excuses.

Then we have a good example of Javik. Javik's DLC contains lots of info that is important to the story and its background. Of course a DLC without that quality would have no value to the player. On the other hand, when it is a day-1 DLC then I have no clue whether it is was intended like that or just intended to milk the customer for content that should be included. Should it be included? To me it feels that way, because it seems like the content is not complete without it.

Whether you view the above arguments as valid or not is irrelevant to all those who view it in the opposite way. There is no proof that you or they are right. All those arguments for and aganst day-1 DLC don't make me confident that it is not intended to milk the customer, because BW knows about these arguments and yet they continue with these practices.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 18 août 2012 - 08:43 .

[Elhanan]

Joy Divison wrote...

And you are missing my point.  You are so concerned with defending Bioware's business practices as "completely legit" that you fail to recognzie that how they conduct their business is absolutely irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is whether or not the customer is willing to pay - it's not like there is a "shady" tax or Bioware gets tax credits for conducting a "completely legit" transaction.

You, and numerous other posters, will glady shell out additional money for content which is arguably intrinsic to product you already paid for.  That's fine, it's your money, do what you want with it.  It is, of course, my opinion that such purchasing behavior is a confirmation of PT Barnum's quip that there is a sucker born every minute, but you misunderstand if you think I am trying to build some objective case that you are a poor consumer or Bioware's business practices are shady.  It's just an obervation.

Correct; if there is no market, there is likely to be nothing to sell. But that does not make the practice of selling to them shady; nor the market themselves being suckered.

When I used to go to the theater, I no longer purchase concession products due to price. I get it. But I do not fault those that do purchase popcorn and the like; they made an informed decision.

[Elhanan]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Informed ones? Don't be silly. Let's see.

First we have day-1 DLC as a means to let second hand games make money for EA anyway - AKA Project Ten Dollar. Buyers of new games do not object. It beats me and I do not even buy second hand games. Why should BMW get any money because I sell my car? To me it is nonsense.

Then we have the idea that devs have spare time until release so they can create DLC in the mean-time. If they have spare time then it is bad project management. But of course it is a rationalization, because the idea is to include it on the distribution medium. And charge for it later. That sounds like a good plan for the company. However... Is it content that was already created and cut to make it a DLC or specifically created to be sold as a DLC during waiting for the gold master? Do you think that I care as a customer? Of course not. To me it is obvious that BW wants to make money. Is that wrong? No. Of course not, but quit the silly excuses.

Then we have a good example of Javik. Javik's DLC contains lots of info that is important to the story and its background. Of course a DLC without that quality would have no value to the player. On the other hand, when it is a day-1 DLC then I have no clue whether it is was intended like that or just intended to milk the customer for content that should be included. Should it be included? To me it feels that way, because it seems like the content is not complete without it.

Whether you view the above arguments as valid or not is irrelevant to all those who view it in the opposite way. There is no proof that you or they are right. All those arguments for and aganst day-1 DLC don't make me confident that it is not intended to milk the customer, because BW knows about these arguments and yet they continue with these practices.

Pls read this article and comments of a sim article as the OP:

http://www.gamasutra..._dayone_DLC.php

DLC is seemingly not created or made as some here (and there) believe.

As long as the DLC is optional to playing the vanilla game, it appears to be fine. And while this Javik stuff may be important and informative, it does not appear to be needed to play the game based on other's descriptions. And DLC that is not informative, important, and otherwise enjoyable is unlikely to sell well.

Now if some believe against purchasing Day 1 DLC; don't get it. Nothing wrong with either waiting or making a pre-order for game; based on indv concerns and practices.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Elhanan wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Informed ones? Don't be silly. Let's see.

First we have day-1 DLC as a means to let second hand games make money for EA anyway - AKA Project Ten Dollar. Buyers of new games do not object. It beats me and I do not even buy second hand games. Why should BMW get any money because I sell my car? To me it is nonsense.

Then we have the idea that devs have spare time until release so they can create DLC in the mean-time. If they have spare time then it is bad project management. But of course it is a rationalization, because the idea is to include it on the distribution medium. And charge for it later. That sounds like a good plan for the company. However... Is it content that was already created and cut to make it a DLC or specifically created to be sold as a DLC during waiting for the gold master? Do you think that I care as a customer? Of course not. To me it is obvious that BW wants to make money. Is that wrong? No. Of course not, but quit the silly excuses.

Then we have a good example of Javik. Javik's DLC contains lots of info that is important to the story and its background. Of course a DLC without that quality would have no value to the player. On the other hand, when it is a day-1 DLC then I have no clue whether it is was intended like that or just intended to milk the customer for content that should be included. Should it be included? To me it feels that way, because it seems like the content is not complete without it.

Whether you view the above arguments as valid or not is irrelevant to all those who view it in the opposite way. There is no proof that you or they are right. All those arguments for and aganst day-1 DLC don't make me confident that it is not intended to milk the customer, because BW knows about these arguments and yet they continue with these practices.

Pls read this article and comments of a sim article as the OP:

http://www.gamasutra..._dayone_DLC.php

DLC is seemingly not created or made as some here (and there) believe.

As long as the DLC is optional to playing the vanilla game, it appears to be fine. And while this Javik stuff may be important and informative, it does not appear to be needed to play the game based on other's descriptions. And DLC that is not informative, important, and otherwise enjoyable is unlikely to sell well.

Now if some believe against purchasing Day 1 DLC; don't get it. Nothing wrong with either waiting or making a pre-order for game; based on indv concerns and practices.

It looks like you didn't understand what I wrote. Your "truth" or that of BW is relative. But I do not have the impression you want to understand that. It is more likely that all you want is to defend the company. Which is fine, but do not waste my time.

[Elhanan]

^ You mentioned that Devs create DLC in their spare time awaiting release; info offered by others differs in that matter. I understood what was written, but disagree with it based on other info from Devs.

Believe what you will....

[Laser Beam]

Elhanan wrote...

^ You mentioned that Devs create DLC in their spare time awaiting release; info offered by others differs in that matter. I understood what was written, but disagree with it based on other info from Devs.

Believe what you will....

As you have it seems.

You seem to come form unbiased sources with no motive. 

Modifié par Laser Beam, 19 août 2012 - 12:44 .

[Gatt9]

Elhanan wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Informed ones? Don't be silly. Let's see.

First we have day-1 DLC as a means to let second hand games make money for EA anyway - AKA Project Ten Dollar. Buyers of new games do not object. It beats me and I do not even buy second hand games. Why should BMW get any money because I sell my car? To me it is nonsense.

Then we have the idea that devs have spare time until release so they can create DLC in the mean-time. If they have spare time then it is bad project management. But of course it is a rationalization, because the idea is to include it on the distribution medium. And charge for it later. That sounds like a good plan for the company. However... Is it content that was already created and cut to make it a DLC or specifically created to be sold as a DLC during waiting for the gold master? Do you think that I care as a customer? Of course not. To me it is obvious that BW wants to make money. Is that wrong? No. Of course not, but quit the silly excuses.

Then we have a good example of Javik. Javik's DLC contains lots of info that is important to the story and its background. Of course a DLC without that quality would have no value to the player. On the other hand, when it is a day-1 DLC then I have no clue whether it is was intended like that or just intended to milk the customer for content that should be included. Should it be included? To me it feels that way, because it seems like the content is not complete without it.

Whether you view the above arguments as valid or not is irrelevant to all those who view it in the opposite way. There is no proof that you or they are right. All those arguments for and aganst day-1 DLC don't make me confident that it is not intended to milk the customer, because BW knows about these arguments and yet they continue with these practices.

Pls read this article and comments of a sim article as the OP:

http://www.gamasutra..._dayone_DLC.php

DLC is seemingly not created or made as some here (and there) believe.

As long as the DLC is optional to playing the vanilla game, it appears to be fine. And while this Javik stuff may be important and informative, it does not appear to be needed to play the game based on other's descriptions. And DLC that is not informative, important, and otherwise enjoyable is unlikely to sell well.

Now if some believe against purchasing Day 1 DLC; don't get it. Nothing wrong with either waiting or making a pre-order for game; based on indv concerns and practices.

DLC is created as many of us in this thread assert.  Many of us are familiar with the software development process.  You cannot create a DLC in 3-4 weeks while a game is being certified if you didn't already plan it in advance,  especially when you have voice-actor interactions that carry through the main plot.

You can't just change the gamecode,  or the level maps,  in 3-4 weeks and run it through QA.  Nor can you just suddenly call back all of the voice talent to record more lines without notice. 

Further,  notice how carefully planned the Day 1 DLC is to have the most psychological impact on the end user.  As I said,  Dead Space 2's locked doors staring at you,  or ME3's character whose basis is in a fundamental component of the game's narrative (You can't go 2 minutes in an ME game without hearing the word "Prothean").

Your "Does not appear to be needed" is a really slippery slope as well.  You don't "Need" anything but a pistol to play the game,  so is it ok if they charge you $10 for every other weapon?  You don't even "Need" a gun since there's a melee attack,  so is it ok if they charge you $1 for a clip?  That's what EA's already suggested doing in games.

Publishers are already demonstrating they will not be responsible with DLC,  taking the passive path is irresponsible.  Why would you trust someone with DLC when the Boss has already started tossing around the idea of charging you $1 just to reload your clip?

[Rockworm503]

Skelter192 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...
We are all entitled to opinions, but should strive for informed ones.

Ha, I almost took you seriously for a second.

EDIT: You're a Harrowmont supporter aren't you? If so well...

Isn't he such a bundle of fun?  I think I'd have a brain anurysm if I kep ttaking him seriously.

[slimgrin]

Elhanan wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

And you are missing my point.  You are so concerned with defending Bioware's business practices as "completely legit" that you fail to recognzie that how they conduct their business is absolutely irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is whether or not the customer is willing to pay - it's not like there is a "shady" tax or Bioware gets tax credits for conducting a "completely legit" transaction.

You, and numerous other posters, will glady shell out additional money for content which is arguably intrinsic to product you already paid for.  That's fine, it's your money, do what you want with it.  It is, of course, my opinion that such purchasing behavior is a confirmation of PT Barnum's quip that there is a sucker born every minute, but you misunderstand if you think I am trying to build some objective case that you are a poor consumer or Bioware's business practices are shady.  It's just an obervation.

Correct; if there is no market, there is likely to be nothing to sell. But that does not make the practice of selling to them shady; nor the market themselves being suckered.

When I used to go to the theater, I no longer purchase concession products due to price. I get it. But I do not fault those that do purchase popcorn and the like; they made an informed decision.

Are you for real? lol. If you pay $5 for a tub of popcorn you're an idiot. That's the whole point: the industry wants to cater to dupes, not people expecting quality. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 19 août 2012 - 02:59 .

[Rockworm503]

slimgrin wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

And you are missing my point.  You are so concerned with defending Bioware's business practices as "completely legit" that you fail to recognzie that how they conduct their business is absolutely irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is whether or not the customer is willing to pay - it's not like there is a "shady" tax or Bioware gets tax credits for conducting a "completely legit" transaction.

You, and numerous other posters, will glady shell out additional money for content which is arguably intrinsic to product you already paid for.  That's fine, it's your money, do what you want with it.  It is, of course, my opinion that such purchasing behavior is a confirmation of PT Barnum's quip that there is a sucker born every minute, but you misunderstand if you think I am trying to build some objective case that you are a poor consumer or Bioware's business practices are shady.  It's just an obervation.

Correct; if there is no market, there is likely to be nothing to sell. But that does not make the practice of selling to them shady; nor the market themselves being suckered.

When I used to go to the theater, I no longer purchase concession products due to price. I get it. But I do not fault those that do purchase popcorn and the like; they made an informed decision.

Are you for real? lol. If you pay $5 for a tub of popcorn you're an idiot. That's the whole point: the industry wants to cater to dupes, not people expecting quality. 

There's a reason they say you're not allowed to bring outside food and drink.  Oh and tubs of popcorn here is closer to $10 and I have never bought anything from consessions my adult life.  I smuggle stuff in from the outside.  Who honestly doesn't? 

[Elhanan]

Gatt9 wrote...

DLC is created as many of us in this thread assert.  Many of us are familiar with the software development process.  You cannot create a DLC in 3-4 weeks while a game is being certified if you didn't already plan it in advance,  especially when you have voice-actor interactions that carry through the main plot.

You can't just change the gamecode,  or the level maps,  in 3-4 weeks and run it through QA.  Nor can you just suddenly call back all of the voice talent to record more lines without notice. 

Further,  notice how carefully planned the Day 1 DLC is to have the most psychological impact on the end user.  As I said,  Dead Space 2's locked doors staring at you,  or ME3's character whose basis is in a fundamental component of the game's narrative (You can't go 2 minutes in an ME game without hearing the word "Prothean").

Your "Does not appear to be needed" is a really slippery slope as well.  You don't "Need" anything but a pistol to play the game,  so is it ok if they charge you $10 for every other weapon?  You don't even "Need" a gun since there's a melee attack,  so is it ok if they charge you $1 for a clip?  That's what EA's already suggested doing in games.

Publishers are already demonstrating they will not be responsible with DLC,  taking the passive path is irresponsible.  Why would you trust someone with DLC when the Boss has already started tossing around the idea of charging you $1 just to reload your clip?

Not saying that nobody here understands the concepts of DLC creation, but as the comments mention, further knowledge will help eliminate irrational disdain for it. Others in the comments mentioned seperate teams and other facets of the industry that many - including myself - do not know. Simply passing this further intel along.

But the whole slippery slope business is off target, IMO. Unless the DLC has content which is mandatory for completing the vanilla game, it is apprently not required. And it seems to be up to the indv Player whether Protheans needed further and deeper explantions; some like myself are content with the content already.

From the article comments




"Telling consumers they need to get more educated about how games are made is also not a direction I'd recommend unless you are intentionally trying to engender bad feeling."

I disagree. There is an ignorance about the logistics of game development, and sometimes that ignorance leads to irrational disdain. Since there are things one can rationally disdain (invasive DRM for example), it makes sense to work together to try to bring everyone's knowledge of the discourse up to par so efforts can be efficiently directed. Telling consumers they should be more educated (though what Tom said was "hopefully we can start to better educate our customers", putting the burden on us, which is about as polite as it can be said) about a topic they demonstrably do not understand should not offend anyone or engender bad feelings. It wouldn't surprise me if most people think developers are modifying on-disc data up to the day it hits store shelves, not because of stupidity but because they just haven't thought about how logistically impossible that is. Educating people to understand that the dev team is sitting on its hands for a period of time before the game ships and just as well be putting effort into giving them more content should fruitfully bring everyone to the same understanding of the process -- at which point arguments might still be made against day 1 DLC but would hopefully be more accurate.

Jeffrey Crenshaw

18 Aug 2012 at 12:45 pm PST

Modifié par Elhanan, 19 août 2012 - 04:17 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Elhanan wrote...

Not saying that nobody here understands the concepts of DLC creation, but as the comments mention, further knowledge will help eliminate irrational disdain for it.

Do you really believe that BW is this great company who does not explore how far they can go with what is considered acceptable? Do you really think that they do not push the limits? As a thought experiment: I can bring up the reverse of your quote. Where does your irrational glorification of the company comes from?

[Joy Divison]

Il Divo wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

I make the same "straightforward business arrangement" when I spend $9 for a warm beer at a ball game, that does not change the fact that I am being suckered into paying for something with almost a 1000% percent markup.  Just because you agree to the terms of a business arrangement, that does not mean you are not being taken advantage of, squeezed, ripped off, or suckered.

Because what it comes down to is that value is relative. There are games that I'm sure you'd pay full price for that I wouldn't touch and vice versa. Should I accuse you of allowing Bioware to scam you because you might pay $60 for Mass Effect, where I think that's ridiculous?

No, because the $60 I spend for Mass Effect is neither a 1000% percent markup nor something I can get for $15 at legitimate software vendors.  I am getting a complete product for a price comparable to similar products.  That is not the case when I get taken advatage of buying a $9 warm beer at a sporting event.

[Addai]

You don't need to know the ins and outs of DLC creation or how video game companies do project management, all that's needed is to compare companies that are doing it right- those that are supporting their game franchises without making many of their customers feel exploited- with the developers that aren't. They're all working in the same competitive environment, so excuses about game pricing and the like are moot. Sadly Bioware is among the latter and with these public pronouncements, it's clear they're either oblivious to this fact or don't care. They can't be so dense as to think the negative press is going to go away if they just do enough PR spin.

Modifié par Addai67, 19 août 2012 - 05:44 .

[Elhanan]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Do you really believe that BW is this great company who does not explore how far they can go with what is considered acceptable? Do you really think that they do not push the limits? As a thought experiment: I can bring up the reverse of your quote. Where does your irrational glorification of the company comes from?

I believe that Bioware is a great company, and has numerous awards as evidence to that fact; both as game creators and as employers (eg; Canada Top 100, Alberta Top 100, etc).

I believe a company has the right to sell their product as they deem fit, and to make a profit. If that price is too high, I have the right to pass, wait, etc.

My beliefs are based on factual proof; not rumor, conjecture, and gossip.

[Chromie]

Elhanan wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Do you really believe that BW is this great company who does not explore how far they can go with what is considered acceptable? Do you really think that they do not push the limits? As a thought experiment: I can bring up the reverse of your quote. Where does your irrational glorification of the company comes from?

I believe that Bioware is a great company, and has numerous awards as evidence to that fact; both as game creators and as employers (eg; Canada Top 100, Alberta Top 100, etc).

So does Activision, Blizzard or CDProjekt.

[Elhanan]

Skelter192 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

I believe that Bioware is a great company, and has numerous awards as evidence to that fact; both as game creators and as employers (eg; Canada Top 100, Alberta Top 100, etc).

So does Activision, Blizzard or CDProjekt.

Terrific! Knew of gaming awards, but found nothing of employer accolades. And had no idea they were also in Canada....

[Addai]

Elhanan wrote...

I believe a company has the right to sell their product as they deem fit, and to make a profit. If that price is too high, I have the right to pass, wait, etc.

My beliefs are based on factual proof; not rumor, conjecture, and gossip.

You also have a right to state those beliefs on forums and insinuate that those who don't share them are ignorant.  See how nicely this works out?

Modifié par Addai67, 19 août 2012 - 08:02 .

[Ninja Stan]

Back on topic, please.

[Get Magna Carter]

As a console gamer with no home internet connection and thus no access to dlc I hate it when content designed to be part of the game to the extent that the game feels incomplete or unbalanced without it is dlc-only or (worse) dlc-unlock only (regardless of whether free or charged).
I do feel that both DA2 and ME3 were balanced/structured round the presence of the dlc-only characters leaving me with an "incomplete" version. I would pay more for a version with these on disc but still waiting for a GOTY/Ultimate edition of ME2 (I did buy 2 copies of ME and DA:O to get the on-disc dlc in the second copy).
Still waiting for the UK edition of the Arkham City GOTY to get catwoman on disc - I did not buy the original version or that Capcom vs Namco fighter because of the focus on dlc

[Il Divo]

Joy Divison wrote...

No, because the $60 I spend for Mass Effect is neither a 1000% percent markup nor something I can get for $15 at legitimate software vendors.  I am getting a complete product for a price comparable to similar products.  That is not the case when I get taken advatage of buying a $9 warm beer at a sporting event.

Oh please, now you're just attempting to rationalize what you believe was a worth-while purchase...like any other consumer. Because if that weren't the case, you wouldn't have paid $60 for Mass Effect any more than for that $9 beer. A beer that isn't worth $9 is a beer I'm not going to buy. And last I checked, "complete" product or not, for my $60, Mass Effect 3 had about the same length as Mass Effect 1, with a complete multiplayer mode as well.

At the end of the day, it's not your place to tell anyone else that they're being taken advantage of. I knew what Bioware was offering on the table, I decided it was well worth the cost-benefit analysis. As did you, or you wouldn't be buying warm beer.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 août 2012 - 11:52 .