512 réponses à ce sujet

[Shatterhand1701]

Yay. This argument again. I guess the whole "let's complain about the endings" thing was getting a little threadbare so someone needed to bring this lovable chestnut back, huh?

I know this is going to go against the whole "whatever I say is fact and whatever you say is wrong because I don't like it" theme that is so popular here at the BSN, but I just want to say that the following is OPINION, so feel free to disagree, and I won't dismiss you as automatically wrong (I know, WAY against the grain, but a refreshing change of pace, I think):

While Javik appeared to be an interesting addition to the Mass Effect cast of characters and brought with him a lot more information about the Protheans, I personally feel that if he was not present in my game, I wouldn't have missed him. I rarely used him in missions, and oftentimes I found him unpleasant to interact with. I also don't think that if the From Ashes DLC was omitted from an install of ME3, much would be lost from gameplay in a general sense...at least, not enough for me to believe that the Javik content absolutely had to be included right away for everyone. It was "extra" content; it enriched the ME3 experience but it most certainly wasn't "make-or-break" material, which is why I fail to see while people are intent on breaking EA/Bioware's balls about charging $10 for it to be installed. I get just as baffled over people who pitch a fit over microtransactions in MMO's. 95% of them are for cosmetic content that serve little purpose other than "Look at what I was able to afford!" bragging rights, and whatever effect on gameplay the remainder has is often negligible.

As for the whole "The content was on the disc, so it should've been in the game right away" argument, I offer this: a lot of speculation about each new multiplayer pack and the upcoming Leviathan content (and even a possible Omega-based DLC later) has come from files that appeared in gameplay patches for ME3. I'm no video-game developer, but I'm assuming these files are being put in place to make the addition of the DLC content as seamless and problem-free as possible when it's finally released. Wouldn't it be logical, then, to surmise that the Javik-related content that people saw on the CD and used as ammunition in their anti-Day-1-DLC arguments served the same purpose: to allow "From Ashes" to function properly for anyone who CHOSE to purchase it? For CE users, their product keys would unlock the additional content for download and addition to the game's base install.

Again, this is all just opinion; feel free to disagree. In any case, I'm not going to object to Day-1 or any other DLC because I'm allowed the choice whether to purchase/download it or not. I don't feel strong-armed or cheated because it's optional content that doesn't render the game non-functional if omitted.

Enjoy your day, all.

[hoorayforicecream]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Yes, the model was on the disc, so what? The entire mission where you find him, with its associated cutscenes, dialogues, mission planning and design, creation of art assets, or modification of existing ones, not to mention quality assurance testing in house and then Microsoft's own quality testing, had to be done, and that's what you downloaded.

Well, true, but it's the model you're paying for. You're paying to have Javik as a squadmate. You don't pay for that one mission that's merely an excuse for giving you another squadmate (think Zaeed on Omega)

Are you saying you'd be happy with a squadmate that only fires his weapon, has powers that don't necessarily work, won't ever interact with anyone in the story, and potentially causes your game to end up in an incompletable state? Because that's what just having the model amounts to. A squadmate is more than just a model that follows you around and shoots at bad guys. A squadmate has things to say, a story to tell, an opinion to be shared. You miss out on all of that if you just get the model and nothing else.

[upsettingshorts]

AlexMBrennan is just moving the goalposts, like every critic of DLC inevitably does.

The truth is the myth of the "complete game" leads to people wanting every bit of content that they've been made aware ever existed in any state by the release of the game is theirs by natural right.

[Tipsyfresh]

It's not new or enlightening that dlc related content is on disc but that it's there for technical purposes rather than just "hidden" until unlocked with a code. Business practices and models aren't news either. Also why would saying you dont have to buy it render a plea for better business practices (Not even complete change of them) moot or lame or whatever. Either way, That's not the point of why I care about this topic.

[Snypy]

KBomb wrote...

Snypy wrote...
Just because you don't like paying for Day One DLC, the rest of us shouldn't be able to buy it?

That makes no sense. He isn’t asking that day one dlc be free only for him, but for everyone. If it’s free for everyone, why would you still want to fork out cash for it?
 

Josh123914 wrote...
Honestly I have no problem with Day 1 DLC because during the ~2 months between the game going gold and it launching the programmers can't do anything with the game, but I do have a problem with it when you have to pay for it.
In my opinion Day 1 DLC should either be free or not there at all. Before this generation the dev team would use that time to start on expansion packs or the sequel, but they don't do that anymore.

Obviously, EA wouldn't have let BioWare create this DLC to be then offered free of charge to everyone. And Josh123914 said that in this case the DLC shouldn't be available to anyone. I, for one, would rather pay for it, than not have it at all. That's pretty much what I meant.

Modifié par Snypy, 18 août 2012 - 08:08 .

[Zaidra]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Tocquevillain wrote...

"For their Part, EA has issued an official statement that puts the inclusion of Javik in context, sticking to the claim that the DLC was in fact not completed until after the main game went gold:

From Ashes is a 600 MB+ download with all new content, including the mission on Eden Prime, new dialogue options and conversations with Javik, new cinematics, the Prothean weapon, and new appearances for all squad members. All of the above content was completed while the main game was in certification and are not available on the disc.

“As stated previously, in order to seamlessly integrate Javik into the core campaign, certain framework elements and character models needed to be put on disc. We did something similar with Zaeed and Kasumi in Mass Effect 2."

End of story.

Yes, the model was on the disc, so what? The entire mission where you find him, with its associated cutscenes, dialogues, mission planning and design, creation of art assets, or modification of existing ones, not to mention quality assurance testing in house and then Microsoft's own quality testing, had to be done, and that's what you downloaded.

It's almost like that's what I've been telling people in this thread all along, isn't it? Kind of like I know what I'm talking about, having been, you know, part of of the company and being familiar with how things work. Some people, however, prefer to pay less to get more and get upset when the world stubbornly refuses to work the way their fantasies tell them it should. Whether people like it or not, agree with it or not, videogames are made a certain way. It's okay to disagree or to dislike the way it works, but that's a far cry from plugging one's ears and hoping that being louder, more insistent and more indignant will somehow change the way things are done.

Many of them think that bioware is lying, or just don't care about facts. Just remember, there are a lot of people who don't come to these forums who still support bioware.  

and yeah, that's what many of the sensible people on here have been trying to explain.

[Tipsyfresh]

Funny how ea or whoever released an article about their own  dlc practices. If it was as simple as, "it's business" then I don't think a company would take the time to do this. Especially if not many people find this dlc practice at least worthy of scrutiny.

Modifié par Tipsyfresh, 19 août 2012 - 01:24 .

[JaegerBane]

KBomb wrote...
Hah, talk about a strawman. Pot, meet kettle.
 
Stanley, is Jaeger's response the kind of loud and indignant manner you were talking about?


And to answer your question, if I were paying sixty bucks for a hambuger, no. I wouldn’t demand free fries. If I were paying sixty bucks for a combo meal and told that the fry cook only had enough fries made for half the order, and to get the rest of the fries I would have to pay extra for his effort of frying the rest—yeah. I’d want it to be free.

So you've created another completely contrived situation to prove... what, exactly? That you didn't understand what you were purchasing? Is that what you're trying to say? You belived it to be a 'combo meal' and it turned out to be a 'hamburger'?

I guess that’s the kind of conscientious consumer I am. You know, the moral crusading kind as opposed to the kind who will throw their money at anyone for any reason with glee in their eye—the kind who has opened the door for microtransactions and day one dlc.  

And here comes strawman number three. Apparently everyone who buys the DLC did with 'Glee in their eye' etc etc.

No, of course, no-one just looked at what the DLC was, weighed up its cost and chose to put down the cash. They're all raving lunatics who throw money at whatever gets released.

I think this is the problem - all these weirdos have got themselves so wrapped up in this fantasy they have that all this shouting is going to get them free stuff (when under any other situation, they'd be laughed out of the store/restaurant/ect) that they seem to have lost the ability to actually see the situation for what it is.

Furthermore, you've brought out the old chestnut of whining about how other people spend their own money. The kind of ego it must take for someone to honestly decide that they know better and that everyone should follow their practice when it comes to DLC, or it will 'open the door to microtransactions'/the sky is falling/Hannibal is at the gates is staggering, and it would be funny if I didn't suspect that some of these cranks actually feel they've got a justifiable argument.

[JaegerBane]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlexMBrennan is just moving the goalposts, like every critic of DLC inevitably does.

The truth is the myth of the "complete game" leads to people wanting every bit of content that they've been made aware ever existed in any state by the release of the game is theirs by natural right.

Indeed. Though quite why they feel they have this right has never been made clear.

[SP2219]

Shatterhand1701 wrote...

Yay. This argument again. I guess the whole "let's complain about the endings" thing was getting a little threadbare so someone needed to bring this lovable chestnut back, huh?

I know this is going to go against the whole "whatever I say is fact and whatever you say is wrong because I don't like it" theme that is so popular here at the BSN, but I just want to say that the following is OPINION, so feel free to disagree, and I won't dismiss you as automatically wrong (I know, WAY against the grain, but a refreshing change of pace, I think):

While Javik appeared to be an interesting addition to the Mass Effect cast of characters and brought with him a lot more information about the Protheans, I personally feel that if he was not present in my game, I wouldn't have missed him. I rarely used him in missions, and oftentimes I found him unpleasant to interact with. I also don't think that if the From Ashes DLC was omitted from an install of ME3, much would be lost from gameplay in a general sense...at least, not enough for me to believe that the Javik content absolutely had to be included right away for everyone. It was "extra" content; it enriched the ME3 experience but it most certainly wasn't "make-or-break" material, which is why I fail to see while people are intent on breaking EA/Bioware's balls about charging $10 for it to be installed. I get just as baffled over people who pitch a fit over microtransactions in MMO's. 95% of them are for cosmetic content that serve little purpose other than "Look at what I was able to afford!" bragging rights, and whatever effect on gameplay the remainder has is often negligible.

As for the whole "The content was on the disc, so it should've been in the game right away" argument, I offer this: a lot of speculation about each new multiplayer pack and the upcoming Leviathan content (and even a possible Omega-based DLC later) has come from files that appeared in gameplay patches for ME3. I'm no video-game developer, but I'm assuming these files are being put in place to make the addition of the DLC content as seamless and problem-free as possible when it's finally released. Wouldn't it be logical, then, to surmise that the Javik-related content that people saw on the CD and used as ammunition in their anti-Day-1-DLC arguments served the same purpose: to allow "From Ashes" to function properly for anyone who CHOSE to purchase it? For CE users, their product keys would unlock the additional content for download and addition to the game's base install.

Again, this is all just opinion; feel free to disagree. In any case, I'm not going to object to Day-1 or any other DLC because I'm allowed the choice whether to purchase/download it or not. I don't feel strong-armed or cheated because it's optional content that doesn't render the game non-functional if omitted.

Enjoy your day, all.

Javik is an exception because all of his content is present on the disc code.  A programmer successfully unlocks Javik by hacking the game code.

 

With regards to the game not being rendered non-functional by Javik's absence, you could also apply this argument to Garrus and James Vega.  None of these characters are actually essential to the plot of Mass Effect 3.  Why didn't Bioware omit them as well, and sell their content as DLC?

What was stopping them?  Is there some unspoken rule you can only release one piece of DLC on day 1?  It's business, the way you sell it is completely up to you.

The only reason I can think of is that Bioware knew what they were doing with Javik and day 1 DLC was completely wrong and unwelcome.  And they were right.  

[Wulfram]

A "complete game" shouldnt have a random alliance marine guy crashing Shepard's big speech because I haven't bought the DLC.

[SP2219]

Yes the very fact that EA had to come out and attempt to justify themselves was proof enough that they were wrong.

If you have to explain to your audience why something isn't crap, then you have already lost.

But they were too stupid to realize this. A simple apology would have been very welcome.

[BluRay]

[Violation of Rule #6 removed] 

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 19 août 2012 - 08:33 .

[KBomb]

JaegerBane wrote...

*snipped for space*

Do you even read what is being said? Do you pay attention to what you even say, or are you so intent on being pugnacious because someone doesn’t agree with your opinion? You’re the one who brought up the whole McDonald’s and fries argument. If you think it’s a strawman argument and carries no merit, you only have yourself to blame.

You’re the one who is dictating how consumers should act by calling someone “moral crusaders” simply because as consumers, it’s their right to decide if they agree with certain business practices. You’re the one piling on the straw with how we should not question anything because programmers work hard, therefore we should just pay for it proudly. Save your self-righteous vitriol for someone who finds it impressive.
Furthermore, had you actually read anything I stated thus far in the thread, you’d have seen that I never personally stated how I felt about Day one dlc, only what others may be feeling. I guess it’s pretty hard to read from so far up on the soapbox.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlexMBrennan is just moving the goalposts, like every critic of DLC inevitably does.

The truth is the myth of the "complete game" leads to people wanting every bit of content that they've been made aware ever existed in any state by the release of the game is theirs by natural right.

The "myth" of the complete game isn't "myth", one's experience mustn't be hindered and the core game must remain afloat on it's own merits. Stuff like Shale and Warden's Keep made sense as DLC because they didn't add much to the game and Shale was available for free to the majority who purchase the game new, they didn't "complete" the game.


However, one looks at things like Dragon Age 2's Sebastian DLC and suddenly the practices become questionable. Sebastian plays a large role in Dragon Age 2's plot, adds far more exposition into Elthina which has barely any conversations without Sebastian and makes the choices in the game have significantly different impacts. The decision about Anders takes on a more brutal outlook.


The reason people feel entitled to the "complete" game is because we're foolishly throwing money at incomplete products, games which has had content cut that hinder the full game. Weapons, insignificant characters and extra missions? Fine.


Though not taking a stand against modern day one DLC is simply going to hurt us as gamers, look at the business practices applied by Capcom and removing entire features of their games to be sold, such as Versus mode in Resident Evil 5 and the re-releases of all their games despite the features being locked away in their former editions.


BioWare and EA sees this as profitable and is following suit, we're wanting the "complete game" because that used to be our right--a right which companies have violated for extra profits. You may defend it but you cannot deny the industry's egregious and shifting stance on DLC becoming more about twisting the consumer's wrist rather than giving them an option for more content.

Modifié par KBomb, 19 août 2012 - 02:55 .

[ForceXev]

I just read that IGN article, and... wow. They really don't get it at all. It's like they don't even know their own game. Fernando Melo basically says that everyone finishes the game and a different pace -- some blaze through it, and others take their time -- and making the DLC available on Day 1 caters to both types of players. So if you blaze through the game in one day, the DLC is there waiting for you to buy and play right away, and those who take their time can wait and buy the DLC later.

That's all well and good for some DLC, but as everyone knows (except Fernando Melo, apparently) From Ashes is not the type of DLC you play after you finish the game. In fact, if you finished the game and then bought From Ashes, it wouldn't even make any sense at all. You'd be off recruiting a Prothean teammate with your previously deceased Shepard to help you fight an already defeated Reaper force.

The problem with From Ashes is not just that it was Day 1 DLC, but that it was Day 1 DLC that only makes sense if you buy it and play it on Day 1. Fernando Melo says by releasing it on Day 1 "you’re making it available on their time," but that's dead wrong because of the type of content it was. They made DLC that you HAD to buy on Day 1 if you wanted it at all because it made no sense to buy it at any other time, and they made sure that it was the type of content that everyone wanted.

They try to justify it with a lot of smoke and mirrors, but the fact is they pulled a scam with Mass Effect 3, and the worst part is it totally worked and most people don't even realize they were scammed.

Modifié par ForceXev, 19 août 2012 - 03:46 .

[FlamingBoy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Peregrin25 wrote...

I don't get how they made money on day 1 DLC. When I bought my copy of DA:O I had a code for DLC and I didn't have to pay a thing for it. I didn't even buy the Collector's Edition. It just came with an insert with the code for Stone Prsioner and Warden's Keep.

You sure about WK? I didn't get a code for that.

That article says that the majority of DLC sales come from the day 1 stuff, not DA:O total profits. Which is still a bit surprising. Of course, Shale was pretty expensive. I didn't think they'd sell any copies at all at that price.

Like you said, it does not make sense, I need a butload of more sales information before I can actually believe that

this is one of the issues with the videogame industry, they only show you the stats they want you to see and drawn conclusions from them that don't really make any sense, and we accept it because we have nothing else to go on

[DukeOfNukes]

KBomb wrote...

Though not taking a stand against modern day one DLC is simply going to hurt us as gamers, look at the business practices applied by Capcom and removing entire features of their games to be sold, such as Versus mode in Resident Evil 5 and the re-releases of all their games despite the features being locked away in their former editions.

BioWare and EA sees this as profitable and is following suit, we're wanting the "complete game" because that used to be our right--a right which companies have violated for extra profits. You may defend it but you cannot deny the industry's egregious and shifting stance on DLC becoming more about twisting the consumer's wrist rather than giving them an option for more content.

They also cut out Nemesis mode for RE: ORC...which is what had a ton of people excited for the game to begin with, and released it as Day One DLC. They chose to leave out the real ending to Asura's Wrath.

Capcom is the worst offender, without a doubt, and as a result, I'm done with Capcom games until they change their policy. Like you said, BioWare/EA seems to be taking on the same tactics, and so I'm getting ready to make the same move there.

That's what this boils down to. Somebody saw Javik in the planning stages, said "Oh, this content is good. I bet if we put it off until later, we could get people to buy it as DLC." It was a concious decision to take this character and make him as DLC. They sold us an incomplete game, not because they added stuff into it later, but because they made the decision to HOLD BACK for the purpose of selling us later.

I've said elsewhere how DLC can be done right, and be widely celebrated. The best received stuff is gameplay that extends outside of the core experience, rather than content that feels like it should have been part of the main story to begin with. Minerva's Den for BioShock 2. Shivering Isles for Oblivion. Undead Nightmare for RDR. General Knoxx for Borderlands. It's all stuff that adds to the experience of the game, without feeling like it should have been part of it to begin with. Lair of the Shadow Broker...is debatable. Frankly, I felt like it should have been included to begin with...but I'm not really angry that it wasn't. It felt more like it was just a low priority for BioWare, when it REALLY shouldn't have been.

[hoorayforicecream]

KBomb wrote...

The reason people feel entitled to the "complete" game is because we're foolishly throwing money at incomplete products, games which has had content cut that hinder the full game. Weapons, insignificant characters and extra missions? Fine.

But you haven't defined what a complete game is. That's the problem. A "complete" game is an arbitrary designation that varies from player to player. Some want every piece of content that was ever cut from the main game. Some only want everything that was in development until the game was shipped. Some are ok with the way things are now. But these are all valid perspectives on what a "complete" game is. But this brings up other questions.

Is it possible to have a complete game and still have day 1 DLC? The DAO example seems to indicate that you think it is. Which leads me to my thought experiment.

Let's say that Nintendo made a Super Mario Bros. game that had N levels, and then made an additional M levels available via DLC on day 1. In theory, this would be acceptable as long as N is enough to be a "complete" game, right? What is an acceptable value for N then? I posit that for some, there is no acceptable N as long a M is more than 0. For others, N is some arbitrary number that varies with the person. And this is where consensus breaks down. Everyone wants a "complete" game, but nobody agrees what "complete" actually entails.

A lot of this is just different interpretations of a similar situation. A blu-ray disc and a DVD for the same movie come out on the same day, but the BRD has HD video quality and probably fits more extras like deleted scenes onto the disc. This is all additional content to the "complete movie", right? Do you complain that the blu-ray costs more? Is it unfair to the DVD buyers that they could pay a little extra and get all the BRD extras like HD video?

[DukeOfNukes]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Let's say that Nintendo made a Super Mario Bros. game that had N levels, and then made an additional M levels available via DLC on day 1.

You lost me right there. Nintendo is on the record as being anti-DLC in general...let alone Day 1 type shenanigans.

I posit that for some, there is no acceptable N as long a M is more than 0. For others, N is some arbitrary number that varies with the person. And this is where consensus breaks down. Everyone wants a "complete" game, but nobody agrees what "complete" actually entails.

Complete is pretty simple. Uncomprimised, undivided. Making your vision as a whole, and then adding onto it is perfectly acceptable. Dividing that vision to sell off in pieces is incomplete. The issue isn't that they had DLC, or even Day 1 DLC...it's that they had something planned as part of their vision, and they comprimised that by stripping it out and selling it as profit.

A lot of this is just different interpretations of a similar situation. A blu-ray disc and a DVD for the same movie come out on the same day, but the BRD has HD video quality and probably fits more extras like deleted scenes onto the disc. This is all additional content to the "complete movie", right? Do you complain that the blu-ray costs more? Is it unfair to the DVD buyers that they could pay a little extra and get all the BRD extras like HD video?

Not at all the same. For this comparison to work, they would have to release 2 versions of the game that are identical in every way except something cosmetic. Which they do...it's called "PC, PS3, or X360." I'll grant you, day 1 DLC is SIMILAR to having a "theatrical cut" which costs less than the "directors cut"...a practice that's not unheard of, but is rare at this point.

I'd use the comparison of this particular type of DLC as taking Star Wars, cutting out Chewbacca, Han Solo's scene where he shoots Greedo first, and the final scene where they all get medals...then charging 2 bucks (on a $10 ticket) for each of these pieces.

[KBomb]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

But you haven't defined what a complete game is. That's the problem. A "complete" game is an arbitrary designation that varies from player to player. Some want every piece of content that was ever cut from the main game. Some only want everything that was in development until the game was shipped. Some are ok with the way things are now. But these are all valid perspectives on what a "complete" game is. But this brings up other questions.

Is it possible to have a complete game and still have day 1 DLC? The DAO example seems to indicate that you think it is. Which leads me to my thought experiment.

I did give a definition of a complete game.
 

one's experience mustn't be hindered and the core game must remain afloat on it's own merits.

 
I also gave examples of DLC that differs from each other and my views on them.

Stuff like Shale and Warden's Keep made sense as DLC because they didn't add much to the game

 

However, one looks at things like Dragon Age 2's Sebastian DLC and suddenly the practices become questionable. Sebastian plays a large role in Dragon Age 2's plot, adds far more exposition into Elthina which has barely any conversations without Sebastian and makes the choices in the game have significantly different impacts. The decision about Anders takes on a more brutal outlook.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

KBomb wrote...

The reason people feel entitled to the "complete" game is because we're foolishly throwing money at incomplete products, games which has had content cut that hinder the full game. Weapons, insignificant characters and extra missions? Fine.

But you haven't defined what a complete game is. That's the problem. A "complete" game is an arbitrary designation that varies from player to player. Some want every piece of content that was ever cut from the main game. Some only want everything that was in development until the game was shipped. Some are ok with the way things are now. But these are all valid perspectives on what a "complete" game is. But this brings up other questions.

Is it possible to have a complete game and still have day 1 DLC? The DAO example seems to indicate that you think it is. Which leads me to my thought experiment.

Let's say that Nintendo made a Super Mario Bros. game that had N levels, and then made an additional M levels available via DLC on day 1. In theory, this would be acceptable as long as N is enough to be a "complete" game, right? What is an acceptable value for N then? I posit that for some, there is no acceptable N as long a M is more than 0. For others, N is some arbitrary number that varies with the person. And this is where consensus breaks down. Everyone wants a "complete" game, but nobody agrees what "complete" actually entails.

A lot of this is just different interpretations of a similar situation. A blu-ray disc and a DVD for the same movie come out on the same day, but the BRD has HD video quality and probably fits more extras like deleted scenes onto the disc. This is all additional content to the "complete movie", right? Do you complain that the blu-ray costs more? Is it unfair to the DVD buyers that they could pay a little extra and get all the BRD extras like HD video?

crap analogy. that would be closer to the equivalent of saying that console users get ripped off because their games are, or at least were, usually more expensive and have worse graphics compared to their PC counterparts. Should I complain that I can't play Dragon Age 2 on a keyboard if I buy the PS3 version? Different platform, different format. Day 1 DLC rip-off is not an issue of limitations as much as it is awfully convenient for them to nickle and dime players.

I don't see how an issue like the Prothean DLC could be divisive among people who think Day 1 DLC is a rip-off.

[TheKingOf-Kings]

I've read that article on IGN (lol really? I respect the articles contents but after the whole Allers thing and them basically insulting the entire fanbase you would think Bioware would avoid IGN. I know I avoid them now. I used to think Gamespot was bad lol. Back on topic) and while I agree with the points about the team continuing to make new content rather than wait for the game to go gold, there is a reason why Bioware only ever peaked at number 2 on my favourite Dev's list. Because of Nintendo's philosophy "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever". If Bioware(EA) had this mentality, rather than "I NEED MONEY ASAP", then they would be able to reap the benefits of diehard loyalist fanboys who will give Nintendo money forever (like me lol), rather than 3 times and then never again, which a lot of this fanbase has become.

My point is this. Thank you for the EC, From Ashes, Leviathan, hell even LotSB, Overlord, Arrival, Kasumi, Zaeed, BDtS and Pinaccle station. I enjoyed them all. Nintendo would've delayed their game for like a year to put them all in the base game to begin with, but thanks anyway.

I mean, can you imagine an extended cut for Zelda? lolno.

[Tipsyfresh]

TheKingOf-Kings wrote...

I mean, can you imagine an extended cut for Zelda? lolno.

Lol.

[JaegerBane]

KBomb wrote...

Do you even read what is being said? Do you <blah blah blah I am so intelligent I use lots of big words blah blah blah>

Yes, I did, but it seems that you think it means something completely different to what you're actually putting across.

The point about the 'moral crusader' stuff stems from the fact that you started trying to liken this to a sweatshop. The implication being that you couldn't think of a way of putting your argument forward on its own and had to dress it up as some kind of grand commentary on working conditions, when in fact its a lot more simple than that.

The McD's question was to highlight the absurdity of demanding free stuff because your own arbitrary definition of a full product may not match what the merchant's understanding of it is. The fact that you implied that you didn't know what you were buying when you tried to throw the analogy back, and the fact that you can't even answer the question without throwing insults and whining about your opinion makes it pretty clear that you don't have a coherent argument.

Save your self-righteous vitriol for someone who finds it impressive.

How ironic - one minute you're indicating that people should spend their money according to how you think they should and the next, you're accusing someone else of of being self-righteous.

Furthermore, had you actually read anything I stated thus far in the thread,

What has this got to do with the point? Are you suggesting that the post I replied to has some hidden meaning that can only be deciphered by reading the entire thread?

Upsettingshorts is absolutely correct - the 'full game' is what the developers define it as. It may not match your view of what it is but, as a consumer, your place is to decide whether to buy the product on offer, not decide what the product is. Voting with your wallet, as it is known. *Your* wallet, that is - not anyone elses.

we're wanting the "complete game" because that used to be our right--a right which companies have violated for extra profits.

Oh sweet lordy, get off a soap box... 'I KNOW MAH RIGHTS! YOU HAV VIOLATED MAH RIGHTS!' Do you realise how ridiculous you sound? Do you think *anyone*, let alone corporate suits, are going to take this kind of teenage angst seriousy?

[Ninja Stan]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

Complete is pretty simple. Uncomprimised, undivided. Making your vision as a whole, and then adding onto it is perfectly acceptable. Dividing that vision to sell off in pieces is incomplete. The issue isn't that they had DLC, or even Day 1 DLC...it's that they had something planned as part of their vision, and they comprimised that by stripping it out and selling it as profit.

Okay, I get what you're saying, but when did you work on the ME3 team? I don't recall your name or alias anywhere on the team roster or anywhere on the staff gallery. To be able to determine what is "complete" and what is not, you must have been either an executive producer or maybe a team lead? I can only believe that you were let go over your disagreement with the leads about what constitutes a "complete" ME3. So please provide some of your bona fides.

Yes, Javik may have been part of the plan from the beginning. At some point, he was no longer part of the plan for the base game. Him being in some leaked script does not obligate BioWare to adhere to that script. You seeing Javik's name in the game code does not, in any way, constitute a binding contract that Javik needs to be in the base game. You wanting Javik's story does not suddenly confer upon you the ability to dictate what goes on the disc.

I understand that you believe Javik's story is an important part of ME3. But calling a game incomplete because a developer has chosen to sell as DLC content that you feel belongs in the base game in no way removes the company's prerogative to make that decision. As always, you the consumer make the choice to purchase or not purchase. Because companies are entities geared towards making profit.

You can accept that and dislike or disagree with their decision in a respectful, civil manner, or you can continue to whinge about how they were wrong in selling content you want because you feel you shouldn't have to pay for it, and it should have been given to players for free.