512 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...

You know, I can tell you're unbiased because you're repeatedly using words to describe the community like "Greedy", "entitled", "soul-crushing", "bitter", "poisoned", etc.

I bought the CE of all 3 ME games, both DA, and even SWTOR. I've spent money on strategy guides, art books, DLC, I have a large collection of ME lithographs, I STILL try to convince everyone I meet to play ME1. I've been a die hard fan of BioWare since I played KOTOR nearly 10 years ago, and to many of the people here, that makes me late to the party. I'm not telling you this because I feel I "deserve" anything from them, I'm telling you because I reward good work. I will purchase whatever they push out, so long as the quality is there.

I feel the quality is going downhill since EA has bought them out...and many of their long term fans would agree. Their priorities have CLEARLY shifted...if nothing else. They are the ones claiming humility right now..."We are but poor, starving artists."

Day 1 DLC MIGHT be an unfortunate but necessary part of the current video game industry...but that's not what Melo said. He said that fans clamour for it...that we demand it. As a consumer, I find it offensive. As someone with a degree in Sociology, I find it to be fallacy. Just because I give them money, doesn't mean I love everything they do.

I recently was forced to agree to Steams new terms of service, otherwise I wouldn't be allowed to play the games I'd already purchased from them. That doesn't mean I hate class action lawsuits, it just means I want to play the games I've already paid for.

It's refreshing to see someone with sense on BSN.

I've seen BioWare do this before. They try to put the blame on the fans instead of themselves. I don't think I've ever seen the company show humility. One could say that the Extended Cut was a form of humility. Personally, I think it was just a response to the epic backlash that soon followed the game's release.

I haven't forgotten the interviews with Mike Laidlaw blaming the fans for not liking DA2. He was always on the defensive in those interviews and it would have been a nice change of pace for him to admit the game has many flaws.

It's one thing when a company or person can't admit they made some mistakes. It's quite another to blame your fans for those mistakes. I take it personally, and if this sort of thing continues after the release of DA3 I will no longer be purchasing anything BioWare and urge others to do the same.

no one will blame themselves for mistakes, its a prideful thing, especially if you worked hard to make something for fans. That is BioWares flaw.

But no one is innocent on the fan side either, thats the problem too, the fans are just as bad in most instances, especially if you have been paying attention to the **** going on here latey. 

I would blame myself and admit my failures if I failed. If I was involved with a team, I wouldn't speak for the whole team, but I could speak for myself, especially if I was in a leadership position. By admitting you made a mistake, you gain trust from your fans. By not doing so, you only gain suspicion and contempt.

How are the fans 'just as bad'? Did they make a product that didn't live up to expectations and then blame others for not enjoying it? Are they all behind day 1 DLC and monetising consumers? I don't think so.

The backlash (which I assume is what you're talking about) towards the company is only a result of the company's failures and a complete absence of humility when confronted with them. It also might have something to do with the company blaming it's fans, but that's just a guess.

A bad guess, since that is a byproduct of abuse and anger from the fans. The fans didn't make the product or monetizing it, but they are the ones driving it, and half of the time have no idea what they want, or want to get more.  Reggie Fils-Aime from Nintendo of America said it best a few months ago:

"One of the things that, on one hand, I love and, on the other hand, that troubles me tremendously about not only our fanbase but about the gaming community at large is that, whenever you share information, the perspective is, ‘Thank you, but I want more.’ ‘Thank you, but give me more.’ I mean, it is insatiable. For years this community has been asking, ‘Where’s Pikmin?’ ‘Where’s Pikmin?’ ‘Where’s Pikmin?’ We give them Pikmin. And then they say, ‘What else?

They say, ‘Ho-hum, give me more.’ So it’s an interesting challenge. I would argue that the gaming community actually is unable to differentiate between a phenomenon and something that is ‘ho-hum.’… until they play it. Until they experience it. Until their friends and their non-gaming associates say, ‘Hey, have you seen X?’

That is also just one part of the equation, as we have seen gaming communities slowly try to usurp control from developers. I am not a big fan of what Brian Fargo is doing with his kickstarter on Wasteland 2, since he is fully admitting that he is trying to go against the grain and just make a game he wants to make. It's admirable, hopeful, and inspiring, but at the same time prideful and naive. And we saw the reaction to his kickstarter page when he showed off the alpha screens of Wasteland 2, only to have people who bough into the kickstarter to say "hey, this looks terrible, cartoonish, nothing like Wasteland 2, a waste of time, and demanding that THEIR imput be heard. 

That case is not even special. Yeah they all bought into it on kickstarter, but at the same time, what do they all know about developing a game, or catering to the demands of fans? To have 5,000 people dictating the vision of one person, who wanted to make something for those 5,000 people to enjoy, is a fallacy. It is just trading a publisher for 5,000 publishers, most of which have no training or ask the right questions, give adequate feedback, or are quick to cry foul when they don't get their way. 

That is why the fans are just as bad. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 20 août 2012 - 06:21 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...

You know, I can tell you're unbiased because you're repeatedly using words to describe the community like "Greedy", "entitled", "soul-crushing", "bitter", "poisoned", etc.

I bought the CE of all 3 ME games, both DA, and even SWTOR. I've spent money on strategy guides, art books, DLC, I have a large collection of ME lithographs, I STILL try to convince everyone I meet to play ME1. I've been a die hard fan of BioWare since I played KOTOR nearly 10 years ago, and to many of the people here, that makes me late to the party. I'm not telling you this because I feel I "deserve" anything from them, I'm telling you because I reward good work. I will purchase whatever they push out, so long as the quality is there.

I feel the quality is going downhill since EA has bought them out...and many of their long term fans would agree. Their priorities have CLEARLY shifted...if nothing else. They are the ones claiming humility right now..."We are but poor, starving artists."

Day 1 DLC MIGHT be an unfortunate but necessary part of the current video game industry...but that's not what Melo said. He said that fans clamour for it...that we demand it. As a consumer, I find it offensive. As someone with a degree in Sociology, I find it to be fallacy. Just because I give them money, doesn't mean I love everything they do.

I recently was forced to agree to Steams new terms of service, otherwise I wouldn't be allowed to play the games I'd already purchased from them. That doesn't mean I hate class action lawsuits, it just means I want to play the games I've already paid for.

It's refreshing to see someone with sense on BSN.

I've seen BioWare do this before. They try to put the blame on the fans instead of themselves. I don't think I've ever seen the company show humility. One could say that the Extended Cut was a form of humility. Personally, I think it was just a response to the epic backlash that soon followed the game's release.

I haven't forgotten the interviews with Mike Laidlaw blaming the fans for not liking DA2. He was always on the defensive in those interviews and it would have been a nice change of pace for him to admit the game has many flaws.

It's one thing when a company or person can't admit they made some mistakes. It's quite another to blame your fans for those mistakes. I take it personally, and if this sort of thing continues after the release of DA3 I will no longer be purchasing anything BioWare and urge others to do the same.

no one will blame themselves for mistakes, its a prideful thing, especially if you worked hard to make something for fans. That is BioWares flaw.

But no one is innocent on the fan side either, thats the problem too, the fans are just as bad in most instances, especially if you have been paying attention to the **** going on here latey. 

I would blame myself and admit my failures if I failed. If I was involved with a team, I wouldn't speak for the whole team, but I could speak for myself, especially if I was in a leadership position. By admitting you made a mistake, you gain trust from your fans. By not doing so, you only gain suspicion and contempt.

How are the fans 'just as bad'? Did they make a product that didn't live up to expectations and then blame others for not enjoying it? Are they all behind day 1 DLC and monetising consumers? I don't think so.

The backlash (which I assume is what you're talking about) towards the company is only a result of the company's failures and a complete absence of humility when confronted with them. It also might have something to do with the company blaming it's fans, but that's just a guess.

A bad guess, since that is a byproduct of abuse and anger from the fans. The fans didn't make the product or monetizing it, but they are the ones driving it, and half of the time have no idea what they want, or want to get more.  Reggie Fils-Aime from Nintendo of America said it best a few months ago:

"One of the things that, on one hand, I love and, on the other hand, that troubles me tremendously about not only our fanbase but about the gaming community at large is that, whenever you share information, the perspective is, ‘Thank you, but I want more.’ ‘Thank you, but give me more.’ I mean, it is insatiable. For years this community has been asking, ‘Where’s Pikmin?’ ‘Where’s Pikmin?’ ‘Where’s Pikmin?’ We give them Pikmin. And then they say, ‘What else?

They say, ‘Ho-hum, give me more.’ So it’s an interesting challenge. I would argue that the gaming community actually is unable to differentiate between a phenomenon and something that is ‘ho-hum.’… until they play it. Until they experience it. Until their friends and their non-gaming associates say, ‘Hey, have you seen X?’

That is also just one part of the equation, as we have seen gaming communities slowly try to usurp control from developers. I am not a big fan of what Brian Fargo is doing with his kickstarter on Wasteland 2, since he is fully admitting that he is trying to go against the grain and just make a game he wants to make. It's admirable, hopeful, and inspiring, but at the same time prideful and naive. And we saw the reaction to his kickstarter page when he showed off the alpha screens of Wasteland 2, only to have people who bough into the kickstarter to say "hey, this looks terrible, cartoonish, nothing like Wasteland 2, a waste of time, and demanding that THEIR imput be heard. 

That case is not even special. Yeah they all bought into it on kickstarter, but at the same time, what do they all know about developing a game, or catering to the demands of fans? To have 5,000 people dictating the vision of one person, who wanted to make something for those 5,000 people to enjoy, is a fallacy. It is just trading a publisher for 5,000 publishers, most of which have no training or ask the right questions, give adequate feedback, or are quick to cry foul when they don't get their way. 

That is why the fans are just as bad. 

Kickstarter has nothing to do with this discussion. Get back on topic. Tell me how BioWare fans are 'just as bad'.

[AlanC9]

Justin2k wrote...

Two thoughts.

Firstly, From Ashes is far better than people give it credit for, as long as you include Javik as part of the DLC and use him.  I used him, and the laser beam rifle throughout the entire game, and it was great.  Yes, the mission sucks, but thats not what the DLC was.. he was the DLC.

Secondly,  I don't care that it comes out on day one.  The only issue I have with Javik, is that he didn't seem like DLC characters such as Kasumi and Zaeed.  He had more conversations and important parts than many of the other characters.  Vega seemed more like a DLC character than Javik.  It's almost certain that Javik was planned right from the beginning to be part of the game.

So, in essence, while I don't care if you give me DLC on the day of release or three months later, cutting content from the game to re-sell as DLC is bad business, and this is evident that is what Bioware did, whatever they tell you.  If Vega was the DLC, they'd get away with it, given he's a weaker character that is more of an afterthought but Javik, the last prothean?  He sells better.

Hmmm... so the problem with From Ashes is that it's too good? Too valuable? Too worth having?

[LinksOcarina]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Kickstarter has nothing to do with this discussion. Get back on topic. Tell me how BioWare fans are 'just as bad'.

I just did. Fan's don't know what the hell they want anymore, and assume they are getting what they want all the time.  That is simply not the case, and that makes fans react poorly to anything they don't like, to the point of blind hatred and snap decisions that make them look foolish in comparison to the developers. It is their own misguided sense of pride, this notion that they know better,  that makes them just as bad. 

And Kickstarter does pertain to this discussion, because the Wasteland 2 example showcases why fans are often clueless about what they know about the industry. Whether or not that game is successful is irrelevent, the reaction by the fans pertaining to it is, because it's not that far from the reaction here, and that is a game being developed now. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 20 août 2012 - 06:38 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Kickstarter has nothing to do with this discussion. Get back on topic. Tell me how BioWare fans are 'just as bad'.

I just did. Fan's don't know what the hell they want anymore, and assume they are getting what they want all the time.  That is simply not the case, and that makes fans react poorly to anything they don't like, to the point of blind hatred and snap decisions that make them look foolish in comparison to the developers. 

And Kickstarter does pertain to this discussion, because the Wasteland 2 example showcases why fans are often clueless about what they know about the industry. Whether or not that game is successful is irrelevent, the reaction by the fans pertaining to it is, because it's not that far from the reaction here, and that is a game being developed now. 

I disagree. I think fans do know what they want and often don't get it. Or they do, but it also includes something they don't want and have to deal with in order to play the game. Like Origin. Having to jump through hoops all the time, and then in the end, the consumer is blamed for that, too. It's these constant attacks on the consumers that drives hatred and contempt.

The Kickstarter example is an entirely different situation. Those consumers are acting as a publisher for that game. They are funding it. It is not the same situation here and you know it isn't. BioWare fans do not fund the games, EA does. Apples and oranges.

Anyway, you can continue to believe that the fans are just as bad as BioWare and EA if you really want to. But I think you're wrong.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 20 août 2012 - 06:54 .

[JaegerBane]

Tipsyfresh wrote...

Dlc that's allowed now couldn't touch the size of actual expansions packs.   Don't be cute.  

Tipsy, no offence, but what's your point? I thought you were protesting about the principle of extra content being made and released for a cost? What has the specifc size got to do with anything?

Furthermore, regardless of what you mean by the above, it isn't correct on many levels - realistically (consider the size of something like the Voyager: Elite Force exp pack vs Lair of the Shadow Broker), literally (textures and audio take up far more space than they once did, you'll find most expansion packs of the past occupied less hd space) and functionally (the difference between DLC and exp pack is its method of delivery - Oblvion's Shivering Isles could be purchased as either).

[LinksOcarina]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Kickstarter has nothing to do with this discussion. Get back on topic. Tell me how BioWare fans are 'just as bad'.

I just did. Fan's don't know what the hell they want anymore, and assume they are getting what they want all the time.  That is simply not the case, and that makes fans react poorly to anything they don't like, to the point of blind hatred and snap decisions that make them look foolish in comparison to the developers. 

And Kickstarter does pertain to this discussion, because the Wasteland 2 example showcases why fans are often clueless about what they know about the industry. Whether or not that game is successful is irrelevent, the reaction by the fans pertaining to it is, because it's not that far from the reaction here, and that is a game being developed now. 

I disagree. I think fans do know what they want and often don't get it. Or they do, but it also includes something they don't want and have to deal with in order to play the game. Like Origin. Having to jump through hoops all the time, and then in the end, the consumer is blamed for that, too. It's these constant attacks on the consumers that drives hatred and contempt.

The Kickstarter example is an entirely different situation. Those consumers are acting as a publisher for that game. They are funding it. It is not the same situation here and you know it isn't. BioWare fans do not fund the games, EA does. Apples and oranges.

Anyway, you can continue to believe that the fans are just as bad BioWare and EA if you really want to. But I think you're wrong.

It is relevent because those people who funded Wasteland 2 have no clue on how to publish a game. It may be an apple or orange comparison, but the point is that the fans are not publishers. they are fans. This is why we see things like fan art, fan edits, fan cuts, fan fics, and so forth pop up all the damn time. And that is the flaw in what Fargo is doing, and what a lot of the opinions of Fans on the internet have when getting into long, sometimes harsh discussions about games like Mass Effect 3. 

Fans should criticize problems, developers should look into that criticism, but both sides have too much pride to do so anymore. Both sides are effectively wrong here. And yeah, I don't mind if you think I am wrong, because it is a mutual feeling.

Thank you though for being cordial about it at least. That was good. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 20 août 2012 - 06:57 .

[Justin2k]

AlanC9 wrote...

Justin2k wrote...

Two thoughts.

Firstly, From Ashes is far better than people give it credit for, as long as you include Javik as part of the DLC and use him.  I used him, and the laser beam rifle throughout the entire game, and it was great.  Yes, the mission sucks, but thats not what the DLC was.. he was the DLC.

Secondly,  I don't care that it comes out on day one.  The only issue I have with Javik, is that he didn't seem like DLC characters such as Kasumi and Zaeed.  He had more conversations and important parts than many of the other characters.  Vega seemed more like a DLC character than Javik.  It's almost certain that Javik was planned right from the beginning to be part of the game.

So, in essence, while I don't care if you give me DLC on the day of release or three months later, cutting content from the game to re-sell as DLC is bad business, and this is evident that is what Bioware did, whatever they tell you.  If Vega was the DLC, they'd get away with it, given he's a weaker character that is more of an afterthought but Javik, the last prothean?  He sells better.

Hmmm... so the problem with From Ashes is that it's too good? Too valuable? Too worth having?

I think it's cut game content.  I think that is proved by the fact Javik was found in pre-leaked scripts.  I enjoyed Javik and the gun very much and perfectly happy to pay for it.  But it is too well integrated into the game to be DLC imo.  Steve, Traynor, Allers, Vega... they all seem like DLC characters from previous games, with limited dialogue and little point.  I believe Javik was part of the design for ME3 all along and thats wrong if the case.  They could have just added value to the box price and less people would object.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Kickstarter has nothing to do with this discussion. Get back on topic. Tell me how BioWare fans are 'just as bad'.

I just did. Fan's don't know what the hell they want anymore, and assume they are getting what they want all the time.  That is simply not the case, and that makes fans react poorly to anything they don't like, to the point of blind hatred and snap decisions that make them look foolish in comparison to the developers. 

And Kickstarter does pertain to this discussion, because the Wasteland 2 example showcases why fans are often clueless about what they know about the industry. Whether or not that game is successful is irrelevent, the reaction by the fans pertaining to it is, because it's not that far from the reaction here, and that is a game being developed now. 

I disagree. I think fans do know what they want and often don't get it. Or they do, but it also includes something they don't want and have to deal with in order to play the game. Like Origin. Having to jump through hoops all the time, and then in the end, the consumer is blamed for that, too. It's these constant attacks on the consumers that drives hatred and contempt.

The Kickstarter example is an entirely different situation. Those consumers are acting as a publisher for that game. They are funding it. It is not the same situation here and you know it isn't. BioWare fans do not fund the games, EA does. Apples and oranges.

Anyway, you can continue to believe that the fans are just as bad BioWare and EA if you really want to. But I think you're wrong.

It is relevent because those people who funded Wasteland 2 have no clue on how to publish a game. It may be an apple or orange comparison, but the point is that the fans are not publishers. they are fans. This is why we see things like fan art, fan edits, fan cuts, fan fics, and so forth pop up all the damn time. And that is the flaw in what Fargo is doing, and what a lot of the opinions of Fans on the internet have when getting into long, sometimes harsh discussions about games like Mass Effect 3. 

Fans should criticize problems, developers should look into that criticism, but both sides have too much pride to do so anymore. Both sides are effectively wrong here. And yeah, I don't mind if you think I am wrong, because it is a mutual feeling.

Thank you though for being cordial about it at least. That was good. 

I agree. I never said they were correct about the criticism towards Wasteland 2, just that they might have stronger feelings and more of an attachment towards the game due to the fact that they are the ones paying for it. It would be like if your friend wanted to open a restaraunt and asked you for a loan. If the restaraunt failed or didn't live up to expectation, you would see it differently than just another customer walking through the front door.

I would say fans who go out of their way just to insult developers instead of offering constructive criticism are wrong and offer very little help. Sadly, this makes up for a lot of the fanbase. But I think those that actually do try to help and offer real constructive criticism shouldn't be thrown in with those who only wish to see it fail.

You're welcome, and my thanks to you for also being polite.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 20 août 2012 - 07:09 .

[JaegerBane]

Justin2k wrote...
I think it's cut game content.  I think that is proved by the fact Javik was found in pre-leaked scripts.  I enjoyed Javik and the gun very much and perfectly happy to pay for it.  But it is too well integrated into the game to be DLC imo.

That logic doesn't follow. All this means is that it was well-integrated - IIRC the number one complaint about Zaeed and Kasumi was that they didn't have proper conversations, so this time they rectified that.

In fact, the simple point that it *was* so integrated is a point *against* the 'cut content' assertion, as content that has been rapidly stripped out at the last minute to sell as an extra would, frankly, be unstable.

This is what annoys me most about the whole 'cut content' argument - the idea devs are running around in the final few days before gold cutting and pasting code is flagrantly ridiculous - it makes me wonder just how many of these complainers have ever worked on a large piece of software. Doing so under such circumstances is *highly* unlikley to result in a running piece of software at all, let alone one that fits together as well as you point out.

[Snypy]

Justin2k wrote...

I think it's cut game content.  I think that is proved by the fact Javik was found in pre-leaked scripts.  I enjoyed Javik and the gun very much and perfectly happy to pay for it.  But it is too well integrated into the game to be DLC imo.  Steve, Traynor, Allers, Vega... they all seem like DLC characters from previous games, with limited dialogue and little point.  I believe Javik was part of the design for ME3 all along and thats wrong if the case.  They could have just added value to the box price and less people would object.

We've covered that already... if you browse a few pages back, you'll see.

How much do you know about programming in general? You can't just make a complex video game such as ME3 and then cut some content out of it as if it was a pie. Your whole argument is, sorry to say, ridiculous.

As for the character being planned many months ahead, that's absolutely true. In fact, when ME3 was still in development, multiple changes were made to the main game so that adding From Ashes would be as seamless as possible. It's also very likely that most dialogues related to the DLC were recorded when BioWare was working on the rest of game. But everything else in the DLC was made and put together after the game went gold. That the reason why it's offered as a DLC.

Although it is your opinion that Javik is absolutely essential to the story, many people don't share it. You're a fan of the franchise (I guess) and you consider him to be an important asset. But there're many players who started off with ME2 or ME3 and they don't really care about this character at all. Actually, I spent more hours than I care to admit playing ME trilogy and I don't think that Javik is so vital. Besides, From Ashes is included in the collector's edition.

Anyway, I don't understand what you're trying to say exactly. I mean, you obviously don't mind paying for the content. So, what troubles you about the Day One DLC? I personally think that it's much better to give players the choice to decide for themselves if the content is worth their money, than to increase the box price.

Modifié par Snypy, 20 août 2012 - 09:35 .

[LandoCalrisian]

They call it DLC, but in reality it's mitigating their losses when people buy the game used.

If you buy used, you don't get the DLC without paying for it with bioware points. This way, Bioware at least gets $10 from 2nd hand buyers. They could have charged $60 for the "full game" and gotten zilch on the used market, instead they charge $50+$10 and still get that $10 from a large portion of the used market (+$10 for online passes if used buyers want to play multiplayer.)

In the future, to further mitigate losses from the used market, they could make the main game $20 but the peel off the Tali, Legion, Prothean and MP content and charge $10 each for those modules, which would give them the same $60 and recoup $40 from the majority of used sales.

If it's a good game, I don't mind paying $60 at launch, so this wouldn't affect me at all. If it means they have the cash to make more $50 million games in the Mass Effect series, that's great and I'd rather that than them doing it on half the budget, reusing voice actors for multiple characters and scaling down FMV scenes.

Sure, it's not nice for people who don't want to pay full price and would rather pick up a second hand copy, but it didn't affect the bottom line for me, and if it was a motivating factor for EA/Bioware to do the multiplayer, it's fine by me as I'm a big fan of the MP and have probably spent 5 times more time on it than the SP.

Modifié par LandoCalrisian, 20 août 2012 - 08:22 .

[Tipsyfresh]

JaegerBane wrote...

Tipsyfresh wrote...

Dlc that's allowed now couldn't touch the size of actual expansions packs.   Don't be cute.  

Tipsy, no offence, but what's your point? I thought you were protesting about the principle of extra content being made and released for a cost? What has the specifc size got to do with anything?

Furthermore, regardless of what you mean by the above, it isn't correct on many levels - realistically (consider the size of something like the Voyager: Elite Force exp pack vs Lair of the Shadow Broker), literally (textures and audio take up far more space than they once did, you'll find most expansion packs of the past occupied less hd space) and functionally (the difference between DLC and exp pack is its method of delivery - Oblvion's Shivering Isles could be purchased as either).

Sorry you thought wrong, didn't bother to read ur later posts cuz it didn't seem like you were paying attention. 

[voteDC]

The moment your fans stop wanting more is when the publishers/developers should start worrying.

[JaegerBane]

Tipsyfresh wrote...

Sorry you thought wrong, didn't bother to read ur later posts cuz it didn't seem like you were paying attention. 

Or in other words you can't think of anything sensible to say so you'll just spit out another insult. Because that, of course, does your argument such a favour.

[JaegerBane]

Snypy wrote...

Anyway, I don't understand what you're trying to say exactly. I mean, you obviously don't mind paying for the content. So, what troubles you about the Day One DLC? I personally think that it's much better to give players the choice to decide for themselves if the content is worth their money, than to increase the box price.

And I'd wager that was what the marketing people at EA thought too, that it was a risk to try and add it into the game and push its price up beyond the normal baseline price for a new AAA game.

Of course, that logic isn't going to fly with a lot of the complainers, as they've made the a priori judgement that they're entitled to everything and anything that was made in the development process - their argument would be that there should be no cost - either on top of the game or sold seperately. We aren't dealing with people who've thought this through, here.

As you say, the idea it was 'chopped out' is downright silly, but unfortunately a lot of the people who are most vocal about this stuff simply haven't got any idea as to how unlikely such an event would have been.

[Tipsyfresh]

Sorry jaeger

I comment how i will, on my own time. There's no need to try and bully people into talking to you. And youre in a thread so everything that has been said is available. And it looks like you definitely tried to insult people that disagree with you (see pixies etc). I mean it's one thing to share your thoughts, but leave it at that.

One reason I am unimpressed by what your saying is because its not interesting or new. The size of data bits and text? Yes technology gets better and we can put bigger things in smaller packages, ok.

Also, on here there have been cries of "it's all about money/business" and "you want it, you'll buy it." great. That is a fine response for why the dlc is made. It's not a fine response for "is this the best business practice for the mutually beneficial relationship between the consumer and a particular business/industry.

I don't care to know how video games are made, but I can purchase them, so I can comment on my satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a product and services. For the people that are making stuff up that they don't understand, yea stop please. But you don't need to dive into techspeak to join in on a discussion about the merits of dlc and day one dlc, you just don't.


Side note, i hope you didn't really dont think that I insulted you. You've done nothing but repeat other people's statements or misconstrue comments that don't agree with you. You've insulted the OP and you constantly claim that people aren't thinking logically, or that they are in fantasy land, or whatever. If you don't want to engage in a discussion without having to make it seem like you are correcting every and anybody, then I can't do anything about that.

I've said that I've bought dlc before and that I will again(if I want to). I've said i dont care about extra guns and whatnot. ONE of my problems is the plot/story related content that's supposedly not central to your gaming experience that you already paid for and when that type of content is released without reviews or any information that might possibly deter the consumer from buying it (see M.Gambles claim about Levi not changing the ending-I think theyre being very clear for legal purposes). (Also see assassin creed 2 -dna strand 13 or 11 or something- got it for free,still thought that was bs tho).

This discussion involves an aspect about qualitative experience that may not ever be figured out(see "gaming as reputable art" and the Trouble that statement has caused). But no where is it wrong to discuss this. Ninja Stan I think brought this up.

[Gogzilla]

Javick was a fully fleshed out character with plenty of content, yet he was not included in the original game.

Not only did this diminish your game experience as a whole to people who did not buy your dlc, you had to change certain elements of the plot once he was out of the game a as major character

Javick seems to be a substantial piece of t content to be turned into day one dlc. More efforts should have been made to include him in the actual game and less at shipping that dlc on time..

[Tipsyfresh]

@siran

I hope you see this.
I didn't know about smaller content being shipped during the age of expansions but Im not surprised. Also I knew what you meant about being streamlined. Sorry for the mix up.


I see what you're saying and I think its valid. But I also know that easier doesn't guanrantee good or fair. Wanting to get content to the consumer as soon as possible is a noble want, but we have ALL seen how this intention can go wrong, whether you're talking about endings to video games or cars (see exploding tires or Toyota brakes)

[Dendio1]

It's sad, but we can't do much more than accept that we have to shell out an extra $10-20 for the complete game. The only other option is to boycott the dlc and miss out

[Siran]

Tipsyfresh wrote...

@siran

I hope you see this.
I didn't know about smaller content being shipped during the age of expansions but Im not surprised. Also I knew what you meant about being streamlined. Sorry for the mix up.


I see what you're saying and I think its valid. But I also know that easier doesn't guanrantee good or fair. Wanting to get content to the consumer as soon as possible is a noble want, but we have ALL seen how this intention can go wrong, whether you're talking about endings to video games or cars (see exploding tires or Toyota brakes)

I'm still reading, and no worries  Just don't think, that we'll find any consensus (not us two, but in general). Certainly, expansion packs weren't as common back then as DLCs are now, maybe that's one of the reasons DLC has such a bad reputation (not saying that it's not justified in some cases). The first DLC I remember was the Secret Missions pack for Wing Commander Prophecy. I vividly recall how I had to download for hours and hours with my 56k modem. But it was a pretty exciting thing, to expand your game for free. Afaik it was a test by Origin (back then it was a company and not the platform we now have) to see how downloadable content was accepted by the customers - see what that got us now...

I guess "From Ashes" is so controversial because of its Day one nature and its scope.

But imho it is
a) separate from the game in a way that it does not vastly diminish your experience if you don't have it
in it's core programmed and developed after the main game was certified. Of course there'll always be discussion of when is a game finished and when does the DLC work begin, but you have to draw the line somewhere and imho it's when BioWare said "ME3 is done,  let's get it certified and work on the DLC stuff we planned". Surely From Ashes had to be planned beforehand including script, content and voice work - all of which is normally done rather early as it does not need any cinematics or even finished gameplay and levels and some of that was put on disc like the model and VO. Maybe Javik was at one part meant to be a major character that was intended to be shipped with the main game. But scripts and games change during development, just as movies do, too - that's why we have so many "cut scenes" as bonus material on DVDs.

ME1 is one example, for those who have the "Last Hours of Mass Effect" - there is an early outline for ME1 that had for instance a large Multiplayer portion in it and trading, your squadmates where individually playable even at a rather late point in the game's development. Only now can we play other characters apart from Shepard thanks to Multiplayer - but was that also "cut content" to be released later? Clearly not. The Shadow Broker story was meant to play a bigger role in ME2 as well according to several lines of dialogue that were present in the original ME2, but got never shown. They didnt have the time and or resources to implement it in time for ME2's release. But, man am I glad they made a DLC out of it! In my opinion, "From Ashes" is no different here.

Modifié par Siran, 21 août 2012 - 06:39 .

[HOUSE MDD]

Ive got no problem with day 1 dlc just dlc that is already installed on the disc, and made chargeable is my problem. Take street fighter x tekken. that started a whole sh*t storm and quite rightly as why should we pay for something that is already on a disc that we bougt and own. hence why in some contrys its now illegal for companys to do this. as lon as dlc is a seperate download and not already on the shipped disc i have no problem with it being day 1 or day 90.

[Tipsyfresh]

@Siran
I just got a few things:

About A) to each their own. But you do say " because of its nature and scope". If by scope you mean importance or integration to the base game's plot, then I think not having it will "vastly diminish your experience". But still that's very subjective.

About all ill say is IF the "script, content and voice work" were done and and no one had the foresight to plan ahead to have it as part of the base, that would seem a bit underhanded to say the least.

Also the comparison to cut scenes from movies- they were cut out(probably not for technical/deadline reasons either) and not added to the movie version later and sold as a different version...oh wait:( . But I still kinda see what you mean.

You are definitely right about not getting a consensus, I'm not interested in that. But that's rare anyway.

[Tipsyfresh]

HOUSE MDD wrote...

Ive got no problem with day 1 dlc just dlc that is already installed on the disc, and made chargeable is my problem. Take street fighter x tekken. that started a whole sh*t storm and quite rightly as why should we pay for something that is already on a disc that we bougt and own. hence why in some contrys its now illegal for companys to do this. as lon as dlc is a seperate download and not already on the shipped disc i have no problem with it being day 1 or day 90.

I read that in Grunt's voice.

Just sayin.