514 réponses à ce sujet

[robertthebard]

corkey sweet wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

 It honestly doesn't bother me, I just want to know why other people feel this way. 

From Ashes was a nice add-on so I guess it depends on on the individual. 

if its ready to go day one, than its pretty obvious that it should have already been included on the disc. From Ashes was a big rip off. Javik himself, and his squad banter where already on the disc. its clear Biowares intent from the start was to sell this separately at an extra fee. I have no problem with dlc, as long is its used to create new content, and not used to sell things that where taken out of the core game

So you believe, in all honesty, that content is burned onto discs and shipped out when it's ordered?  You believe that 3 million copies can be burned in an hour, or something?  You chose to ignore the fact that, once it goes to be burned onto the discs, there is development time for additional content?  Yep, they put all that stuff on for CE/DDE purchasers, and then figured, "you know, if we dont let everyone have access to the Prothean, we're going to have an uproar, get From Ashes ready to convert to DLC, and we'll throw them a bone".  My how that came back to bite them in the ass, eh?  Your "extra fee" is still less that what somebody else that preordered CE paid, and yet, here you are, raising hell about being ripped off for paying less for more.  "Oh, but you got an Online Pass too":  you want mine, I'm not a very MP candidate, too old for twitch games.  My current GaW is 50%, my total promotions from MP to SP is 0.  Have I played, yeah, I've dabbled, gotten pretty lucky on some unlocks too, but I always come away from MP feeling like I hurt the rest of the team.  My highest rating was just under 70%, maybe way under, don't remember, which I then squandered away by having to play ME 1 and 2 because I wanted to get choices reflected in a specific way.

[wirelesstkd]

Isichar wrote...

If I were to ask which is more important to mass effect which would you say: art or profit? Because the answer seems to jump back and forth quite conveniently for the company. When I decided whether or not I want the ME3 game or the ME3 game with DLC on the opening day which one is the more complete experience? Which one must I buy to fully appreciate mass effect 3 the way it was intended?

Money and Art have a symbiotic relationship. Fat Cat Investors need artists to create something for the public to consume and artists need Fat Cat Investors to fund their creations. Neither is more important: one wouldn't ruly exist without the other. I mean - there would always the struggling artists painting or playing guitar, but without profits the creators that we all love would have had to find something else to do with their lives. So I am happy that there is a profit motive for someone to invest in art and I am happy that teams like Bioware have enough autonomy inside the corporation they exist to be able to exert artistic integrity when it counts.

[Isichar]

wirelesstkd wrote...

Isichar wrote...

If I were to ask which is more important to mass effect which would you say: art or profit? Because the answer seems to jump back and forth quite conveniently for the company. When I decided whether or not I want the ME3 game or the ME3 game with DLC on the opening day which one is the more complete experience? Which one must I buy to fully appreciate mass effect 3 the way it was intended?

Money and Art have a symbiotic relationship. Fat Cat Investors need artists to create something for the public to consume and artists need Fat Cat Investors to fund their creations. Neither is more important: one wouldn't ruly exist without the other. I mean - there would always the struggling artists painting or playing guitar, but without profits the creators that we all love would have had to find something else to do with their lives. So I am happy that there is a profit motive for someone to invest in art and I am happy that teams like Bioware have enough autonomy inside the corporation they exist to be able to exert artistic integrity when it counts.

This is what I hate about asking these questions, because people always try and dodge giving an actual answer to make their beliefs work. Yes both are important, but which would you say was more important in the decision to have Javic as DLC and not part of the original content? Was it a decision to make a profit or a decision to make ME3 a better game? You say the content was given away to another team so that the original team could work on new content? But they had already spent time and effort on Javic to begin with as part of the original intended product.

If they want to blatantly milk me for more money then fine, but I am tired of them putting a twist on it and playing the art card at the same time when it is convenient.

[robertthebard]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Isichar wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Bioware have a history of creating Day 1 additional companions:
DAO:Shale
ME2:Zaeed
DA2:Prince Sebastian

So why would they change their long standing practice for Mass Effect 3? Why is anybody surprised by it? Extra companions are worth their most the earlier in the game you aquire them, Makes perfect sense to me to release it when the majority of the audience are at the start of their game experience. I bet Zaeed got took more missions than Kasumi by most people.

Err you may wanna look up the individual situations, to some extent you can still argue its a bad thing but the circumstances around those DLC's are a bit different. Totalbiscuit talks about that question specifically in one of his mailbox vids.

Not to your average consumer, Day 1 DLC featuring a companion character is all they see. (TBH I have no idea who Totalbiscuit is).

Based entirely on how totalbiscuit is presented in this thread, as somebody that believes paying less overall for premium content than the people that actually bought the premium content, it's not even somebody I'd care to add to my bookmarks.  I don't need more links to warped logic, I can just read BSN for that.

[Isichar]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Isichar wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Bioware have a history of creating Day 1 additional companions:
DAO:Shale
ME2:Zaeed
DA2:Prince Sebastian

So why would they change their long standing practice for Mass Effect 3? Why is anybody surprised by it? Extra companions are worth their most the earlier in the game you aquire them, Makes perfect sense to me to release it when the majority of the audience are at the start of their game experience. I bet Zaeed got took more missions than Kasumi by most people.

Err you may wanna look up the individual situations, to some extent you can still argue its a bad thing but the circumstances around those DLC's are a bit different. Totalbiscuit talks about that question specifically in one of his mailbox vids.

Not to your average consumer, Day 1 DLC featuring a companion character is all they see. (TBH I have no idea who Totalbiscuit is).

Ok well if they don't want to look into the specifics for each DLC's that their choice, they are entitled to their opinions nonetheless.

[wirelesstkd]

Isichar wrote...

This is what I hate about asking these questions, because people always try and dodge giving an actual answer to make their beliefs work. Yes both are important, but which would you say was more important in the decision to have Javic as DLC and not part of the original content? Was it a decision to make a profit or a decision to make ME3 a better game? You say the content was given away to another team so that the original team could work on new content? But they had already spent time and effort on Javic to begin with as part of the original intended product.

If they want to blatantly milk me for more money then fine, but I am tired of them putting a twist on it and playing the art card at the same time when it is convenient.

Profit informs the scale of the art. If someone wants to make a game that would costs
$80 million to develop but there is only a budget of $40 (based on projected
sales), then the scope of the art has to be scaled back. So in that case, profit
is more important. Like it or not, that’s how the system works and I can’t
think of a better system, short of providing massive government grants for the arts
(but then it’s just paid for through taxes).



What I have said I thought happened was that the game budgeted at some amount
of money and it included Javik. I think that at some point in development
(probably early on) they realized that they were over budget and that something
had to be cut. I think that the creative team took a look at what could be cut
and they saw an easy way to pull Javik out by replacing him with a VI. At this
point, even if they had spent development time on Javik, all the money spent
could be shifted to the DLC teams budget so that it didn’t count against the
core game’s budget. This makes sense as the DLC team has less to develop, but
with the added money they could continue to flesh him out.



Is that a profit driven decision? Yes. But the game itself is a profit driven
decision. You take the good with the bad.

Modifié par wirelesstkd, 05 septembre 2012 - 02:02 .

[GiarcYekrub]

Personally my take is Diana Allers was originally to be DLC, she has that DLC feel to her, but was probally added to the main game as compensation for loosing Javik when it became clear that time/budget constraints forced him out

[Isichar]

Higher profit games does not mean the quality is any better, for every plus you could make for the game I could name a negative. For example the ending was very poorly received. Many claimed they felt it was rushed and incomplete. At best you could argue it was meant to be that way but there are plenty of cases of content been cut down and then told it was in our benefit so they could improve on other things.

How much of that money was spent on advertising? and ME3's multiple cinematics and advertisements that held content exclusively for hyping up the game, how much went towards multiplayer to hit a larger range of audience?

Look at portal, its a cheap game and yet I dont think ME3 comes close to been as good and well rounded a game as portal. In fact I would say ME3 ended up been a somewhat unpleasant experience in many ways well cheaper games have done much better in that sense.

[Dessalines]

My feeling with day one DLCs is like having a option with a car. Sure, they can give you four cup holders and a better radio system when they sell you the car. All the capabilities to do it is intergrated in the car already, but they want you to pay for them. There is nothing wrong with it. It is your choice.

[darkway1]

Day one DLC means that they have taken some thing out of the main game and repackaged it,in order to make extra money......from a consumers point of view,it's called being ripped off.

[Isichar]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

Personally my take is Diana Allers was originally to be DLC, she has that DLC feel to her, but was probally added to the main game as compensation for loosing Javik when it became clear that time/budget constraints forced him out

Oh lucky us:mellow:

Since Diana Allers was not exactly... the most well liked character in the game how do you think they could have sold her off as DLC? I know this is offtopic but still. That DLC (no offense to Chobot) would have tanked hard if they tried to charge you to get her character.

Modifié par Isichar, 05 septembre 2012 - 02:10 .

[GiarcYekrub]

darkway1 wrote...

Day one DLC means that they have taken some thing out of the main game and repackaged it,in order to make extra money......from a consumers point of view,it's called being ripped off.

No it really isn't/doesn't

[wirelesstkd]

Isichar wrote...

Higher profit games does not mean the quality is any better, for every plus you could make for the game I could name a negative. For example the ending was very poorly received. Many claimed they felt it was rushed and incomplete. At best you could argue it was meant to be that way but there are plenty of cases of content been cut down and then told it was in our benefit so they could improve on other things.

How much of that money was spent on advertising? and ME3's multiple cinematics and advertisements that held content exclusively for hyping up the game, how much went towards multiplayer to hit a larger range of audience?

Look at portal, its a cheap game and yet I dont think ME3 comes close to been as good and well rounded a game as portal. In fact I would say ME3 ended up been a somewhat unpleasant experience in many ways well cheaper games have done much better in that sense.

I won't argue with you on a lot of those negatives, but that has nothing to do with day one DLC. At the end of the day, the game that shipped wouldn't have been different if they weren't going to create DLC for it. It just would have lacked the DLC option.

[darkway1]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

darkway1 wrote...

Day one DLC means that they have taken some thing out of the main game and repackaged it,in order to make extra money......from a consumers point of view,it's called being ripped off.

No it really isn't/doesn't

Stop kidding yourself and wake up.....Bioware has given a character away in every game,to encourage sales......until mass3 came along......then they charge for it.

[Isichar]

wirelesstkd wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Higher profit games does not mean the quality is any better, for every plus you could make for the game I could name a negative. For example the ending was very poorly received. Many claimed they felt it was rushed and incomplete. At best you could argue it was meant to be that way but there are plenty of cases of content been cut down and then told it was in our benefit so they could improve on other things.

How much of that money was spent on advertising? and ME3's multiple cinematics and advertisements that held content exclusively for hyping up the game, how much went towards multiplayer to hit a larger range of audience?

Look at portal, its a cheap game and yet I dont think ME3 comes close to been as good and well rounded a game as portal. In fact I would say ME3 ended up been a somewhat unpleasant experience in many ways well cheaper games have done much better in that sense.

I won't argue with you on a lot of those negatives, but that has nothing to do with day one DLC. At the end of the day, the game that shipped wouldn't have been different if they weren't going to create DLC for it. It just would have lacked the DLC option.

How can you say that when they could have easily attached Javic onto the original game (And they did) and not charged for him. That additional content definitely adds to the game, and when you view it as been part of the original content then I can say it takes away from the base game to not have it included, again Javic adds a lot of important prespective to the story and what is going on that is important and directly related to the plot. A lot more then much of the content (allers) that was stuck in the game.

When I bought Javic I did so because I wanted the full ME3 experience and I did not feel I would get the full thing with content missing (and it is very relevant content, really changes how you view many of the main themes of the story) how many other people bought the DLC because they felt the same way?

[wirelesstkd]

darkway1 wrote...

Stop kidding yourself and wake up.....Bioware has given a character away in every game,to encourage sales......until mass3 came along......then they charge for it.

With Mass Effect 3 they gave us multiplayer instead. The point of the free character was to push their online pass system. With Mass Effect 3 the multiplayer system accomplished this. For me, I prefer multiplayer to Zaeed anyway.

[RavenEyry]

dreamgazer wrote...

Day One optional DLC? Nothing.

Something of From Ashes' caliber of contextual/thematic relevance? A lot.

There certainly wouldn't have been as much fuss if ashes was included but, say, Grissom station, was the DLC.

[wirelesstkd]

[quote]Isichar wrote...

I won't argue with you on a lot of those negatives, but that has nothing to do with day one DLC. At the end of the day, the game that shipped wouldn't have been different if they weren't going to create DLC for it. It just would have lacked the DLC option.

[/quote]

How can you say that when they could have easily attached Javic onto the original game (And they did) and not charged for him. That additional content definitely adds to the game, and when you view it as been part of the original content then I can say it takes away from the base game to not have it included, again Javic adds a lot of important prespective to the story and what is going on that is important and directly related to the plot. A lot more then much of the content (allers) that was stuck in the game.

When I bought Javic I did so because I wanted the full ME3 experience and I did not feel I would get the full thing with content missing (and it is very relevant content, really changes how you view many of the main themes of the story) how many other people bought the DLC because they felt the same way?

[/quote]

With regard to Javik being neccesary, we will have to agree to disagree. I think he adds value but is not neccesary. You think the game can't be fully appreciated without him. It's a point I don't think we will find common ground on.

With regard to putting him in initially and then taking him out, I'll just say that you'll have to go back and read all my other posts to see where I stand on this. In short, it's my belief that his development was rebudgeted when the project went over budget. Neither of us will ever know for sure, so it's just a point where we have to agree to disagree again.

[wirelesstkd]

RavenEyry wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Day One optional DLC? Nothing.

Something of From Ashes' caliber of contextual/thematic relevance? A lot.

There certainly wouldn't have been as much fuss if ashes was included but, say, Grissom station, was the DLC.

Two things: one, I disagree that there would be no fuss if you could only see a past squadmate/love interest by purchasing a DLC. And two, Grissom accademy added no really valuable information or squadmate, so I don't think it would have been worth the same amount. Besides, developing that mission was probably less expensive than developing all of Javik because it's Javik's interactions with squadmates and missions that makes that DLC cost so much (in terms of development).

Modifié par wirelesstkd, 05 septembre 2012 - 02:35 .

[RavenEyry]

wirelesstkd wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Day One optional DLC? Nothing.

Something of From Ashes' caliber of contextual/thematic relevance? A lot.

There certainly wouldn't have been as much fuss if ashes was included but, say, Grissom station, was the DLC.

Two things: one, I disagree that there would be no fuss if you could only see a past squadmate/love interest by purchasing a DLC. And two, Grissom accademy added no really valuable information or squadmate, so I don't think it would have been worth the same amount. Besides, developing that mission was probably more expensive than developing all of Javik because it's Javik's interactions with squadmates and missions that makes that DLC cost so much (in terms of development).

I didn't say 'no fuss', I said 'not as much'. Plenty of people would have been upset but you must be able to see how much more important to the overall game Javik was compared to Jack. Also, Grissom was just a random example of a side mission. I wasn't badmouthing Jack or anything.

[Isichar]

[quote]wirelesstkd wrote...

[quote]Isichar wrote...

I won't argue with you on a lot of those negatives, but that has nothing to do with day one DLC. At the end of the day, the game that shipped wouldn't have been different if they weren't going to create DLC for it. It just would have lacked the DLC option.

[/quote]

How can you say that when they could have easily attached Javic onto the original game (And they did) and not charged for him. That additional content definitely adds to the game, and when you view it as been part of the original content then I can say it takes away from the base game to not have it included, again Javic adds a lot of important prespective to the story and what is going on that is important and directly related to the plot. A lot more then much of the content (allers) that was stuck in the game.

When I bought Javic I did so because I wanted the full ME3 experience and I did not feel I would get the full thing with content missing (and it is very relevant content, really changes how you view many of the main themes of the story) how many other people bought the DLC because they felt the same way?

[/quote]

With regard to Javik being neccesary, we will have to agree to disagree. I think he adds value but is not neccesary. You think the game can't be fully appreciated without him. It's a point I don't think we will find common ground on.

With regard to putting him in initially and then taking him out, I'll just say that you'll have to go back and read all my other posts to see where I stand on this. In short, it's my belief that his development was rebudgeted when the project went over budget. Neither of us will ever know for sure, so it's just a point where we have to agree to disagree again.

[/quote]

Pretty much. I certainly want to support DLC and what I consider to be good content, and it is not a matter of whether Javic was worth it or not, which I feel he was if based simply on his own merit. But my decision to buy it was not a matter of me wanting to support the company or the series (as I am willing to do in many other ways) but rather having to pay more for what I see as a complete experience. As you said there are details about the game that we dont know and without knowing those details I can only speculate. 

I would like to hope I am wrong and this is ultimately a good thing, but from where I stand and how I view EA this is step in a direction that is made more in the interest of profit then it as a good thing for the consumer. They may have a right to do it legally but I sure as hell dont like it

Same thing as losing access to DLC if I lose my internet connection, sure they may have a right to do it but its a real pissoff for me and does actually limit my ability to play content at my own convenience.

Modifié par Isichar, 05 septembre 2012 - 02:37 .

[darkway1]

Javik was a prothean,they are extinct,of course the Ashes DLC was important...........and it's exactly why Bioware charged for it.......wake up.

[robertthebard]

Isichar wrote...

wirelesstkd wrote...

Isichar wrote...

Higher profit games does not mean the quality is any better, for every plus you could make for the game I could name a negative. For example the ending was very poorly received. Many claimed they felt it was rushed and incomplete. At best you could argue it was meant to be that way but there are plenty of cases of content been cut down and then told it was in our benefit so they could improve on other things.

How much of that money was spent on advertising? and ME3's multiple cinematics and advertisements that held content exclusively for hyping up the game, how much went towards multiplayer to hit a larger range of audience?

Look at portal, its a cheap game and yet I dont think ME3 comes close to been as good and well rounded a game as portal. In fact I would say ME3 ended up been a somewhat unpleasant experience in many ways well cheaper games have done much better in that sense.

I won't argue with you on a lot of those negatives, but that has nothing to do with day one DLC. At the end of the day, the game that shipped wouldn't have been different if they weren't going to create DLC for it. It just would have lacked the DLC option.

How can you say that when they could have easily attached Javic onto the original game (And they did) and not charged for him. That additional content definitely adds to the game, and when you view it as been part of the original content then I can say it takes away from the base game to not have it included, again Javic adds a lot of important prespective to the story and what is going on that is important and directly related to the plot. A lot more then much of the content (allers) that was stuck in the game.

When I bought Javic I did so because I wanted the full ME3 experience and I did not feel I would get the full thing with content missing (and it is very relevant content, really changes how you view many of the main themes of the story) how many other people bought the DLC because they felt the same way?

I just love the "Javik is an essential character, and the game is totally different if you have him than if you don't" arguement.  It's false, of course, but it does make one sound important, until one realizes that I, for example, didn't have to buy Day 1 DLC to get him, he came with DDE game.  Since he was a DLC character, I treated him exactly like Zaeed and Kasumi in ME 2.  You know, you can go talk to them all you want, but they don't add anything, there's no cutscene dialog, no interaction with the crew, etc etc etc.  You run around their room, click on objects, get a line or two, and then move on.  So, I didn't expect any more from him than from them, and it was 6 games in before I figured out, hey, there's a lot more to him than just another squadmate thrown in for DLC purposes.  I played 5 full games with him standing alone in his room, hardly took him anywhere, because I liked having Garrus and Liara, or Tali, you know, people that I have been involved with over the course of the previous two games that weren't DLC, boring cannon fodder.  Yeah, he was absolutely essential to my game play, wasn't he...

[Isichar]

robertthebard wrote...

I just love the "Javik is an essential character, and the game is totally different if you have him than if you don't" arguement.  It's false, of course, but it does make one sound important, until one realizes that I, for example, didn't have to buy Day 1 DLC to get him, he came with DDE game.  Since he was a DLC character, I treated him exactly like Zaeed and Kasumi in ME 2.  You know, you can go talk to them all you want, but they don't add anything, there's no cutscene dialog, no interaction with the crew, etc etc etc.  You run around their room, click on objects, get a line or two, and then move on.  So, I didn't expect any more from him than from them, and it was 6 games in before I figured out, hey, there's a lot more to him than just another squadmate thrown in for DLC purposes.  I played 5 full games with him standing alone in his room, hardly took him anywhere, because I liked having Garrus and Liara, or Tali, you know, people that I have been involved with over the course of the previous two games that weren't DLC, boring cannon fodder.  Yeah, he was absolutely essential to my game play, wasn't he...

Lol well thats one way to view it

What does Garrus add to the game other then some lines of dialogue that is so important he is needed in the game? Oh right he can be killed so I guess you could argue garrus is not essential in the main game too.

Modifié par Isichar, 05 septembre 2012 - 02:45 .

[wirelesstkd]

robertthebard wrote...

Since he was a DLC character, I treated him exactly like Zaeed and Kasumi in ME 2.  You know, you can go talk to them all you want, but they don't add anything, there's no cutscene dialog, no interaction with the crew, etc etc etc.  You run around their room, click on objects, get a line or two, and then move on. 

In fairness, all the characters got the Zaeed treatment in this game <_<. But that's topic for another day, lol...