21 réponses à ce sujet

[henkez3]

I just read an article on Gamespot that more or less hits the nail on the head when it comes to DLC. Now, I'm not directing this as jape at BioWare, or really at DLC, as you'll read in the article, DLC is great when it's done right. BioWare IS mentioned, not Dragon Age however, but Mass Effect and I couldn't agree more with Mc shea's opinion on it. I felt seriously left out on some of the story in ME3 because I didn't buy the comics and so on that were associated with the game. The problem isn't the existance of said comics, it's that their plots intertwines with the main game's plot. Again I'm not out to insult BioWare but perhaps they could find something to learn from the article with regards to DA3.

There are also other great points about the article and it largely deals with what Dark Souls did right with its DLC. It's a great read for consumer and developer alike.

http://www.gamespot....ts-you-6399923/

[Joe Hegarty]

I found the article interesting, though I didn't agree with it all. I think "petty cash grabbing" is very strong and in my experience that's really not the attitude any developer is using when making the content.

However, it's definitely a difficult one for devs and players alike. You want extra-content to be a good value-proposition, otherwise why would you buy it at all? But you also don't want people to feel left out if they don't play it. When I am really into a game/universe I love to get my hands on new content without waiting 2 - 3 years.

That's tricky line to walk if you need to avoid segmenting the community (MP game) and make sure you still have a solid story that makes sense between titles (SP game)

Not really my area, so just an opinion as a player.

Modifié par JoeHegarty, 21 novembre 2012 - 11:13 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, the protheans were very important to ME and ME2's plots. They made us care about the protheans, why sideline it if not for more money?

So we shouldn't release DLC for stuff that people find interesting and care armor? Think clearly about the message you're sending with this current post, because what I interpret you saying is: "If it's something I want and care about, I don't want it to be a part of DLC."

If it's simply a perspective of "This is content I really want," it's not much of an argument against it being DLC. It makes sense for you to want as much as you can get for as little cost as possible, so I understand your perspective. How do you quantify whether or not something is "essential" to the game. I disagree that Javik is essential. I do agree that he's interesting. I'd prefer to make DLC people find interesting instead of uninteresting. So how do we reconcile this?


(And to everyone else, suggest a forum for this to move to. This isn't a DA3 thread, but I don't want to stop the discussion).

[Allan Schumacher]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...No. Making the most ethereal and mysterious race in Mass Effect a DLC was for the money. If Bioware were to sell James as DLC, you can guarantee the sales would have been exponentially less. You can do this whole "Well what is important? Whom defines importance? Is this really reality?" stuff all day, but this is just plain as day.

Indeed, it was for the money.  It's almost like we understood that fans would like to get more details of the protheans.

I'm baffled that people would have preferred us to not make From Ashes though, since that's what the alternative is.

It is to make money, and as such it is specifically created with its own budget and resource allocation and is financially held to account in terms of its financial success.

People have this false equivalence that if the concept of DLC didn't exist, they would have gotten Javik for free.  This is not the case.  They also have this incorrect notion that because DLC exists, content is intentionally stripped from the game in order to populate DLC, and frequently feel that until DLC came along, the idea of bringing cut content into the game just didn't occur.  Except, it did.  All the time.  Expansion packs frequently incorporate ideas that were cut from the original game.  Someone posts a witty picture of the Mona Lisa in 1999 with "expansion packs" that are new paintings, except that they ostensibly refuse to believe that something like Tales of the Sword Coast (the expansion pack for Baldur's Gate) features a ton of content that was cut from Baldur's Gate.  It's even integrated into the main campaign of Baldur's Gate in much the same way that DLC is today as well.


Honestly, if From Ashes were being released today and you're just getting to experience this new content right now, it seems baffling to me that someone would be upset and refuse it because it should have been in the main game.  Interesting content that relates to the story does not strike me as a compelling reason for something to be "essential" to the game.  If that's the case, you're placing a restriction that will prevent players from getting interesting content that relates to the story.  You're forcing us to only create DLC content that people are less interested in playing.

It's important to be clear what one is arguing for.  If you're upset because the idea of Day One DLC pisses you off, then fine.  That's a valid perspective and it's easy to understand that.  If you're upset because you think that the only time we can release interesting content is at release, I really struggle to understand your perspective.


Also, moving this to off-topic.

[Allan Schumacher]

No it isn't. Stop with these false dichotomies. The process is far more intricate than you keep touting. Day 1 DLC isn't always a money grab, but is also isn't always cut content that can only be put in if worked on after the game, like Shale. DLC now is set aside from conception. Developers will plan out what will be in the game, and what will be DLC. Not always, but it is extremely naive to think that this doesn't happen.

You're talking to me like I'm not actually involved with the process. At what point do we start thinking about DLC. I'm sure there are some that think we're already making DLC plans (we aren't, but at this point it's just taking my at my word and if you're already convinced I'm lying about it I don't feel there's anything I can do to convince you otherwise).

This idea that the content would have just been included otherwise is not something that anyone can accurately claim.  At best it's "well I don't actually know what would have happened if the DLC model wouldn't have existed.

Setting aside Javik as DLC from conception as opposed to James, IS A MONETARY DECISION. I can't believe that you believe DLC is and always be this innocent practise just for the fans. It's largely a business decision, and not all DLC is made like Shale was. I have no proof that Javik is not like Shale, but i highly, highly doubt he was. Especially given the insight provided into just how this DLC came to be.

You admit you have no proof, but tell me that I'm naive.

Seriously man. You can't expect us to believe Day 1 DLC is "just for the fans". Money comes into it, and certain decision are bound to be made to maximize the interest in the DLC; decisions that can likely compromise the original intent of certain game content.

I straight up stated that money is a factor. Where did you get the idea that my post is about how Day One DLC is purely a "for the fans" notion?

Sylvius wrote....

Is it? I don't understand that position at all.

I can understand it. People want as much as they can for as little as they can. As consumers, I expect them to have this behaviour.

But do you undertand why everyone is even discussing this issue? If it didn't anoy people then it wouldn't be disussed, there's obviously a reason. Try to look at it from a players perspective not a dev's.

I do look at it from the player's perspective. When it comes to "should DLC be interesting," I am definitely looking at it from the perspective of "The player would much rather pay money for a DLC that is actually good instead of a DLC which is utter schlock." Which is why I don't buy the argument that fans are against the idea that DLC should be interesting and desirable. It's contradictory.

Now if you're point is regarding Day One DLC, I can still understand the fan's perspective. It comes across as something that was tangentially built alongside the game for the idea of milking money from fans, when it could have easily been put into the game for free.

Regardless of the ease of including it with the main release, this fundamentally becomes an economic scarcity issue, where fans are behaving like rational consumers and would like to get as much for their money as they can. Speaking out against it is one way to try to persuade developers to do so.


The unfortunate thing is there are people that don't mind Day One DLC (and there are people that certainly don't mind high quality DLC that they find interesting) too. If I am going to look at it from the perspective of fans, I'm also going to include their perspectives.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 novembre 2012 - 04:29 .

[Allan Schumacher]

The thing is, it's become super-toxic from a PR POV. So I think at this point management has to look at alternatives.

I agree.

Now... if, instead of buying Bioware's Day One DLC, I instead purchased a discount that would give me 50% off all future DLC THAT would be a different story. If Sebastian, Legacy and MotA all were 50% off, I would strongly desire to buy them... even if I wind up spending roughly the same amount anyway.

You're starting to see this with the "season passes" I think.

I suppose one other thing to consider is that while games cost more I'm
guessing they make a hell of a lot more now too. It's a much richer
industry than it used to be.

I think it's safe to say that the COD games and stuff like World of Warcraft make obscene amounts of money that dwarfs what games could make 20 years ago.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 novembre 2012 - 04:54 .

[Allan Schumacher]

The season passes sound great in theory but they're not working like I thought they would. Look at how Saints Row 3 did their "season pass"...talking about shafting the consumer. Also, Borderlands 2 is another game. You're not going to get all the DLC discounted. They conviently look like they're leaving out the new character DLC coming in the season pass. That's ok if they informed me this before I bought it. They don't. If I didn't look this season pass up online, I would've ended up buying it thinking ALL Borderlands 2 DLC is discounted. Based on the description on PSN, they surely make it sound like that...

Yeah I have heard about some season passes not being particularly great value.

What's the issue with the Saints Row pass? (I'm bouncing back and forth between work and forums at the moment and zipping along wikipedia will see me lose 100% of productivity instead of just 99%)

[Allan Schumacher]

THQ is in financial ruin, so I'm sure that contributed to how they handled the season pass in SR:The Third. Still. A lot of these season passes try to be very deceptive on what DLC you actually get in them. Borderlands 2 is a great example.

Hmmm. Not that this excuses it at all, but I do agree that the Saints Row one seems to be more along the lines of "that sucks" rather than a level of malevolence.

The messaging i quickly googled (i.e. not very thorough) for the BL2 one is that the season pass is for 4 new campaigns.

On steam it describes it as: "ncludes access to four brand new individual add-on content campaigns for Borderlands 2 as they become available."

Was there a messaging issue prior to this regarding the Mechromancer? Unfortunately I'm not a DLC person so I'll plead ignorance to not fully understanding that the season passes were more limited than the all the DLC.

[Allan Schumacher]

My concern is, will the perspective of fans who don't have access to DLC at all be considered? For me, it's not a matter of more interesting content that I have to pay for, it's just more interesting content that I'll never get to play.

This is probably going to be less and less the case (I don't know for sure, but it's my impression anyways), which is a crap situation for people like you unfortunately. I see all media (not just gaming) to becoming increasingly digital in its delivery. By the same token, while I know it's not the case in places like Australasia and the likes, I suspect digital infrastructure will likely improve as well.

I'm not sure the reasons why only DAO had the ultimate edition and more recent games haven't gotten them, but my guess is that digital is becoming increasingly common so packaged goods are seeing less return.

I don't have any visibility on how successful DAO Ultimate edition was, unfortunately

[Allan Schumacher]

The problem with this message? I have no idea what I'm buying.

This is definitely true. It's a leap of faith. Does the season pass expire?

Definitely could use some improvement on the messaging. Hopefully as more season passes come online, there's a level of competition in what is offered between them.

[Allan Schumacher]

Further, that price tag in 1985 was completely arbitrary. Atari games were written by one guy in a couple of weeks. C64 games were written by *maybe* 10 guys, often 5 or 6, and it wasn't unusual for it to be 1 or 2. The development cycle for a game was measured in months, not years, and sometimes it was still just weeks. The price of games in 1985 had no correlation to the cost of development, and were completely driven by "Charge what the market will bear".

Prices are always determines by what the market would bear. Otherwise we'd charge more than we do and make more money that way.

When people complain about the cost of DLC for the value it provides, that's market forces at work. Coupled with not purchasing it, it's valuable feedback for adjusting how market forces are influencing the costs.

You are correct in pointing out economies of scale, though your explanation of it is a bit off. Economies of scale are precisely why the cost of games have not gone up, because the increased development costs could be recuperated with volume. This is still what the market will bear, however.

The only reason why prices are less arbitrary now is because the market has been established and there's data to feed into pricing decisions.

[Allan Schumacher]

All i wanted to get across is that Day 1 DLC is not and will not always be about "restoring cut content" (Not just with Bioware, with all devs in general) for a price.

You are right that it's not always going to be cut content. The issue is more along the lines of "would it have still made it into the game if it wasn't being created for DLC?" That the content wouldn't have existed otherwise doesn't mean that it was necessarily cut. It might have just never been created outright.

There's also a very liberal definition of what is determined "cut content." If you want to be technical, for DA3 playable elves and dwarves can be considered cut content. It's content that we wanted to put into the game, but for a variety of reasons will not be making it into DA3. There is way more content left on the chopping block than makes it into the game. Preproduction is all about massive prototyping and coming up with ideas for what should be done in the game and proving out that the concepts are solid. I myself have suggested a lot of things (and I'm not in content creation), some of which is still in in some capacity, but most of which isn't in. THis is because I was suggesting big lists of things I think would be good in the game. Most stuff is cut in preproduction.

DLC does provide an additional revenue model. Resources WILL be put to creating new/original content for DLC, because there's a clearer business model at work and it's easier to justify "lets put some money into this because it'll ultimately pay for itself."

This doesn't mean that without DLC, players would have definitely gotten the content for free.

[Allan Schumacher]

Any in depth discussion on the topic quickly reveals that a sizeable portion of the group in favor of DLC are kids, and as such have little if any disposable income. The opinion that really should be considered in that instance is the Parents, because you are at the mercy of their tolerance. I would imagine that their toleranace for surprise price increases at the register is a great deal lower than the tolerance of their children.

So basically, when considering those fans in favor of it, you need to whack off a fairly significant percentage in order to account for kids who are in favor of it, but very likely do not possess discretionary income.

Where do you come up with the notion that kids are the bigger supporters of DLC? Furthermore, even if they are getting their parents to buy the DLC for them, as a company why would this no longer count?

I'm skeptical that the support is as heavily lopsided towards kids as you think it is, though.

It's increasingly one of the Industry's larger problems, assuming that all consumers are equal. As an example, the 2011 survey by the ESA revealed that kids under 18 years old make up less than 15% of the market*. But are far more likely to be visible on forums than the rest of the market who have less free time to spend on message boards.

This is why we don't consider the forums to be particularly representative of BioWare's fanbase as a whole. If you're concerned that we use only the forums and online social media to determine this type of information, hopefully I can assure you that we don't. It'd be myopic of us to do that.

As a gamer to a gamer, if you ever feel a game company is nickel and diming you and treating you unfairly, the best way to let them know is to not reward them by purchasing their products. That's probably always the strongest message you can send.

The season passes are a massive error in judgement. It'll only take one or two times getting burned by "Preordering" DLC before people quit buying them, especially since the incentive for publishers to make quality DLC is eliminated with this process, and we've already seen ample evidence that the publishers will do the smallest amount of work they think they can get away with.

This is short sighted by publishers, and competition/market forces will rectify this. Burning customers for what could be a preferred revenue stream (it's better to get $30 up front than $40 split over half a year). It's like DLC (or any product) in general. If you get away with making poor quality stuff that ultimately the fan base feels they're getting ripped off, you're going to run out of revenue streams.

If a company will come along and provide one that is of value, it should gain traction barring other influences.

[Allan Schumacher]

I've always found this confusing. If the content is being created at the same time as the rest of the game, finished by the time the game is released (in the case of Day 1 DLC), and parts of it are even present on the disc... then why is it being developed as DLC at all rather than a part of the base game?

Because base content can hit lockdown months before the final game is shipped. Alternatives are to put those people to work on a different project, have them do different work, or the alternative of letting them go.

People can also be outright hired (that otherwise would not have been) to work on stuff like this since there's a clearer indication to the economic viability of the hiring. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be a profitable venture (the DLC could be a flop, just like any other project). When a developer pursues funding for DLC, they can approach a publisher with a clear business case that is more nebulous than asking for additional funding to add more content. Especially since it's easier to provide a counter perspective of "well, why should we use this funding for the content you're asking for, and not a different part of the project?"

Everyone always wants more resources to add stuff into the game. Always. People like to add kickass stuff into games, and scope creep always happens. At some point lines have to be drawn. But if you can create a separate team with a business case, it shifts from being an example of scope creep to a supporting product.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I've always found this confusing. If the content is being created at the same time as the rest of the game, finished by the time the game is released (in the case of Day 1 DLC), and parts of it are even present on the disc... then why is it being developed as DLC at all rather than a part of the base game?

Because base content can hit lockdown months before the final game is shipped.

My understanding is that this is what happened with the Stone Prisoner.  That content was cut from the game because it wasn't going to be ready in time, and then the game was basically finished but had its release delayed, so that created this large-ish period where the main game was just getting polished and the designers were able to go back and finish Stone Prisoner (but not add it back into the main game).

Yes.  DAO in particular had a longer than typical period of content lockdown.  It is still important to note that this was a bit unusual given the circumstances.

[Allan Schumacher]

The Sarendoctrinator wrote...
Thanks for the explanation. It does makes more sense now, though I'm still not happy with the way some companies are handling DLC. If everyone just released ultimate editions like DAO's, which was the only way I got to play The Stone Prisoner and the other awesome missions that came with it, then I probably wouldn't mind DLC at all. More content that you guys otherwise wouldn't have been able to create is great, but if it doesn't become available to everyone, then some fans are going to feel left out. And in the case of plot-important missions like Arrival, very confused when they start the next game unless they watched youtube videos.

I understand your concern and it can suck to be left out.

I find it similar to the idea of supporting older platforms and operating systems, however.  Which doesn't make it any easier for someone such as yourself, but that's the way that I see it :\\

[Allan Schumacher]

CELL55 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

*SNIP*

As a gamer to a gamer, if you ever feel a game company is nickel and diming you and treating you unfairly, the best way to let them know is to not reward them by purchasing their products. That's probably always the strongest message you can send.

*SNIP*

I take issue with this. If, for example, I felt that Bioware was nickle and diming me, I couldn't go spend my money on another Dragon Age or Mass Effect game, as only Bioware makes those. There really isn't anything else quite like those on the market IMO, and boycotting then just seems counterproductive.

A lot of game companies make different games from each other (except games like Sports games and FPS games), so I can't really boycott one company and support its competition now can I? Mass Effect 3 pissed me off to no end, but it's not really similar enough to games like Gears of War or Dead Space that I can turn to alternatives for solace. I can either keep shilling out for Mass Effect DLC and be dissapointed, or I can abstain, and not get any Mass Effect whatsoever. Either way is a poor choice, and I don't really see any middleground or alternatives.

You paint yourself as a slave to game companies though.  I love video gaming, but if I didn't feel I was getting value for my money I would stop.  You're right that the alternative from a pure video game perspective may not be there, but the alternative to playing a video game need not always be "play a different video game."

If you always say that Day One DLC is the worst, but you always buy it, I think you undermine your argument.  You have altered your argument to being more "I would like to get more content for my money" (which is what I expect every consumer to want) as opposed to "I feel I am being treated unfairly."

That being said, I don't find the above scenario implausible... one
time. I truly believe that Shale as D1DLC was just as you describe (and
the fact that it was given free for new purchases makes it seem even
more legit). I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that this exact scenario has
played itself out again, like clockwork, in every game Bioware has
released since DA:O. I think it is much more likely that it happened
once and that Bioware saw this accidental course of events worthwhile to
act as a DRM, and later as a way to add extra revenue.

Perhaps you underestimate how much stuff actually gets cut for videogames as well, or that your assumptions about where the big costs are are not correct.  There is a lot of stuff (not just companions) that often doesn't make it despite a lot of work being done and it being mostly complete anyway.  This is why sometimes a relatively short extension of 2-3 months can make a world of difference.

As I said to Gibb Shepard though, because of the DLC model you are right that development will start to see devs creating content alongside the main game.  Now you as the gamer can feel that that is unfair, but that doesn't mean that the content in the DLC would have been in the game otherwise.

From what little I heard, From Ashes wasn't complete before lockdown, and I have no visibility on when it's work was started and when it was decided to become DLC.  However, even if it was specifically created long before release to be DLC, the alternative to DLC doesn't guarantee "Javik for free."  It would likely mean "No Javik."

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 novembre 2012 - 07:26 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm not sure I buy the logic that companions are viewed as the least critical to getting the game out the door. The amount of money invested in Voice Acting, in animations, in developing combat AI logic, in completing the level designs for the areas specific to that companion... for Bioware to look at all of that and say "nope, never mind, its more important that we have other features, so we'll just give up on finishing up one of the most resource-intensive features (a companion) that we offer."

They are often easy to completely remove from the game without requiring mass rewrites of the story or other system wide changes. Optional side content is often easy to chop as well (although that can provide a balance issue if there is an expectation that the player will accumulate resources based on side content).

Imagine cutting Redcliffe from DAO instead of Shale.  Literally just saying "this content is no longer accessible" without any other changes.

An advantage of cutting Shale is that we pretty must can just say stop. Sure it sucks to lose the money in voice acting or whatever, but those costs are sunk. We don't need to proactively remove Shale's content from the game, since the checks for "is shale in the party" are going to fail simply because Shale isn't in the party.


As an example, DA2 originally had experimented with having "fake intros" to all of the acts. So like Fake Blightlands, we were going to have a fake, exaggerated intro by Varric that depicted one of the key plot points in the upcoming Act.

It was removed because there were issues with pacing, it started to get old, and distracted from some of the seriousness intended with the story.

When we removed those intro components, the game build was completely broken the next day. This is because the entry points into the next acts required them. So when you joined off to Gamlen, the game hard crashed and couldn't be continued. This is because the area transition was going to content that had now been deactivated, and all of the dependencies weren't caught. Some lost most of a day of in game work (teams that don't require legit playthroughs can still work, but like burnthrough QA was blocked and sitting on their hands) as they cleaned up all of the dependencies. If we thought we got them all, but missed an Act 3 one, well someone is working late because the Act 3 breakage wasn't properly detected until 6 PM because burnthrough was already behind schedule due to the build being broken earlier in the day.

I suspect that companions are the FARTHEST thing from the chopping block
late in development, as they represent a huge amount of vested work.
Shale likely was the case because she was a VASTLY different character
type (in terms of combat, animations, equipment, etc.) that was likely
turning into tricky endeavor. By pushing back the ship date by six
months, this could then be accommodated for.

Everything late in development represents a huge amount of vested work.  Late in development cuts always suck.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 novembre 2012 - 07:34 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Publishers are shooting themselves in the foot now with the whole DLC thing. It's increasing the cost of a game from $60 to $70 or $80, for a product the consumer has no option to try beforehand.

No. At best you could argue that it's episodic. You're making the assumption that there aren't people that don't buy DLC that aren't happy with their purchases, and don't feel as though they are missing out because they don't have the DLC. This isn't true. (I'm an example of it. Very rarely do I buy DLC, though I am typically very happy with my gaming purchases).

Furthermore, customers are more than within their right to wait to purchase games until they are a lower price if they aren't convinced the game will be worth the money. I encourage gamers to do this too. I personally look at a new release and gauge my interest level for it, and then determine the price point at which I will buy it. This is often not top price at retail. I suppose if one is starved for gaming (my gaming interests are exceptionally diverse) this may not be the case, but it still comes back to "the alternative to playing one video game need not be play a different video game."

They do what we've seen people increasingly stating they'll do. "I'll wait for the release with all of the DLC packed in". In order to meet their expectations of value, and to determine if the product is worth the expense by waiting for word of mouth, the consumers are deciding in increasing numbers to wait for titles that they didn't feel were "Must have".

Does it? Or is that just what you think it does? Do you have anything to substantiate your perspective? Preferably numbers if possible.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 novembre 2012 - 10:15 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I guess the two situations would have something in common, if people are unable to play the new games coming out because their PC doesn't meet the system requirements. I've never completely understood how it works, so I don't have much experience with that myself. (Or maybe I do, since this is a big reason why I never got into PC gaming.)

It's also equivalent to whole platforms being phased out. The PSX is irrelevant now, for example.

Obviously cutting something as important as Redcliffe or the other main missions isn't an option, but what about some of the optional side quests that don't relate to plot or character development? Are they more difficult to remove from the game, just finished earlier than something like a companion which has more content, or there's already been a ton of them cut from the game already that fans never find out about? A combination of all three?

Side quests do get cut from the game. If we include early developments, tons and tons and tons of things get early prototypes but ultimately are axed for a variety of reasons. Some stuff gets farther along in development to varying degrees, and still doesn't make it in game despite investment of time. Could be scope reasons, a realization that the system wasn't enjoyable, redundancy, and so forth. So yeah, side quest ideas do get cut. Lots of things do. Everything always has an opportunity cost associated with it, in that spending time working on one thing means you're not spending time working on some other thing.

I just used Redcliffe as an example because it illustrates that not all cut content is cut the same way. Even just using characters, imagine cutting Alistair or Morrigan instead of Shale.

[Allan Schumacher]

You're looking at it from an Industry insider's perspective Alan.

I'm also a consumer, and have seen many people that aren't industry insiders pick up Mass Effect 3 and be happy with the game without picking up any of the DLC.

The Consumer doesn't see it as episodic when they hit the register. When they hit the register with their copy of ME3, and they're told "Do you want to buy the DLC with that?", they're not seeing it as episodic. They're seeing it as an additional $10 cost to get the full game.

I think it'd be clearer if you swapped "The Consumer" with "I." You're speaking on behalf of people as though there's a consensus, when there isn't. This is like saying that you're only getting a full meal if you get the gravy with your french fries.

Further, you're dodging the issue of "Pay us more money for "Extra content" for this game you haven't tried and don't know if you like it".

That's because it's a red herring straw man argument. Your argument applies to gaming in general and has no bearing on DLC.

Given the internet backlash about the disc-locked content, it's reasonably safe to assume that the cause of the missed projections was the DLC policy.

This is called seeing what you want to see. In this thread, you have told me that basically you're interpretations of everything is spot on precise. The vast majority of people that like DLC are kids (and therefore we should ignore them), and a host of other obvious conclusions. This is like people that go "Skyrim has a toolset, and it sold really well. Therefore we can conclude that Skyrim's success is related to the presence of the toolset."

For you, it's like the people that enjoy "From Ashes" and have no issues with it being Day One DLC simply do not exist.

Because the gaming industry doesn't operate under anything remotely resembling good sense. One only has to look at the block-buster mentality of the Industry compared to Kickstarter's success to see that the Industry is leaving piles of money on the table while chasing after Call of Duty and World of Warcraft.

I've seen comments like this before, as though the money spent on supporting the kickstarter for a different game is money that BioWare won't see as a result. This is a false dichotomy and not true. That I decided to support Project Eternity has very limited basis on whether or not I'll buy another game that I really want. The only ones that may suffer are the fringe games, but it's just as likely that I don't go to a movie, or skip out on some other luxury, if the issue of lack of funds comes up.

[Allan Schumacher]

That's about what I thought for the side quests. I'm just trying to get a better idea of why it's been so common in recent BioWare games to have companions as DLC (assuming that at least some of these are caused by a lack of time/resources to finish, rather than being created for the purpose of being sold as DLC) compared to games pre-DAO when this didn't happen. Are some character concepts just created later in the development process than others, originally planned to be in the base game until deadlines got too close, and that's why only a portion of their content made it onto the disc?

It's also important to note that information in general is a lot more prevalent. In the past we simply did not hear much about content that was cut. People evidently don't realize that much of Tales of the Sword Coast was content originally considered for the original release of Baldur's Gate.

I believe all players deserve to have this content available to them,
whether their reasons for not using an internet connection are by choice
or out of necessity. No one should have to miss out.

Just curious, but where should the line be?  I don't think anyone is saying "You should have released a PS2 version."  But why not?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 26 novembre 2012 - 05:28 .