It's been stated that there won't be any DLC companions.
True, but when one of the devs posted a list of NPC favorite foods, there were 10 items on the list. That may mean
1) a single multi-component item is being counted as two
2) a companion that was once slated as DLC got promoted
3) the list includes the favorites of someone who isn't a follower
4) the devs can't count
5) a Bethany/Carver situation
6) none of the above
The saying that D1 dlc could have been in the main game is interesting, because it simply perception. I remember Fast Jimmy saying that Perception is reality to some gamers. That strikes me as the case here. What is to prevent Bioware or any company from cutting out content from the game, turn that content over to a different team. Have that team work on it and then sit on that dlc for a month to six weeks and then sell it?
The only thing that changes is the perception. The other point that may change is the number of sales for the delayed dlc.
I'd prefer to not get into a discussion about perception on this part of the board, as it's kind of a can of worms on its own, and I'm personally fighting the urge to take the thread further off topic by debating it further myself.
If we wanted to discuss that notion in more detail, feel free to start up a thread in off topic (and feel free to link it here when it's up, if one feels it is relevant).
I have to say, I didn't really keep more than the occasional peripheral glance on DA:I after I was thoroughly disappointed by DA2. However, I am hearing more and more good news about this game and the way the series is going and slowly but surely it creeps upwards on my list of anticipated games.
The fact that there won't be day 1 DLC goes a long way to convince me to buy this game shortly after release, rather than as a budget version.
Good on you BW!
To be fair, my stance is that perception is reality for EVERYONE, not just some gamers.
But otherwise, I agree. Because there is no transparency other than the developer's word, the perception that the game was hacked and sold apart can only be averted with belief by the consumer that they aren't being cheated. Some fans will always believe a developer, others wouldn't believe their own mother, let alone a company trying to earn money from them. Where the vast majority comes down can vary based on past experience, method of marketing and overall presentation. As well as being truthful, of course. Bioware stating that no content for From Ashes was on the disc until players proved otherwise was a poor choice, for example.
Out of curiosity, how much of the From Ashes was on the disc to begin with? I was under the impression the only parts on the disc where the character loadout screen and group implementation, but all the actual content was on the DLC. How is my perception wrong?
Then to the actual response. I cannot state enough how much I dislike the perception argument as it essentially, at least when I see it thrown around, that the actual facts don't matter, only the perception of the loudest complainers does. The reason I dislike it isn't because it doesn't have a point or sense to it, we act based on our perceptions after all, but that it never actually addresses how such misunderstandings could corrected or avoided. Instead it argues that because of wrong perception of things, Bioware should mainly listen to those who refuse to accept their explanations on the matter or the several points made for it because they are convinced that it is all a lie, despite actually never really being able to prove it, even if this causes those who understand or accept to lose something they were willing to pay more for. The argument never leads to anything constructive, anything that can be improved upon, instead it just pushes for things to be taken away.
And I cannot admit that I completely understand why so many seem to be convinced that somehow that removing that Day 1 DLC will make that content appear in the game being sold, as it most likely won't. So they will end up getting the same game they would have gotten with the Day 1 DLC, or companion in this case.
I personally have no problem with D1 dlc. If the game I receive can be played from beginning to end without the d1 dlc then I have received my money's worth. I look at dlc day one or otherwise as something I may or may not purchase. The only point I am concern with is did I receive a game that I can play to conclusion.
Out of curiosity, how much of the From Ashes was on the disc to begin with? I was under the impression the only parts on the disc where the character loadout screen and group implementation, but all the actual content was on the DLC. How is my perception wrong?
Then to the actual response. I cannot state enough how much I dislike the perception argument as it essentially, at least when I see it thrown around, that the actual facts don't matter, only the perception of the loudest complainers does. The reason I dislike it isn't because it doesn't have a point or sense to it, we act based on our perceptions after all, but that it never actually addresses how such misunderstandings could corrected or avoided. Instead it argues that because of wrong perception of things, Bioware should mainly listen to those who refuse to accept their explanations on the matter or the several points made for it because they are convinced that it is all a lie, despite actually never really being able to prove it, even if this causes those who understand or accept to lose something they were willing to pay more for. The argument never leads to anything constructive, anything that can be improved upon, instead it just pushes for things to be taken away.
And I cannot admit that I completely understand why so many seem to be convinced that somehow that removing that Day 1 DLC will make that content appear in the game being sold, as it most likely won't. So they will end up getting the same game they would have gotten with the Day 1 DLC, or companion in this case.
Then to the actual response. I cannot state enough how much I dislike the perception argument as it essentially, at least when I see it thrown around, that the actual facts don't matter, only the perception of the loudest complainers does. The reason I dislike it isn't because it doesn't have a point or sense to it, we act based on our perceptions after all, but that it never actually addresses how such misunderstandings could corrected or avoided. Instead it argues that because of wrong perception of things, Bioware should mainly listen to those who refuse to accept their explanations on the matter or the several points made for it because they are convinced that it is all a lie, despite actually never really being able to prove it, even if this causes those who understand or accept to lose something they were willing to pay more for. The argument never leads to anything constructive, anything that can be improved upon, instead it just pushes for things to be taken away.
There will be less content available at release as a result of this decision, which is going to be unfortunate for those that are okay with it.
Now, having said that, DLC in and of itself is still relatively new and while I will agree that because a voice is loud doesn't mean that it's large (nor does it mean that it's not large), experimentation is going to happen. If we spend the time that would've gone towards a Day One DLC on something that is a bit larger for our first DLC (whenever that is), maybe that ends up being more ideal? If it's something where we look and go "whoa, our sales sure are lower and this wasn't worth the effort" then we'll have to look more deeply. It'd probably end up coming into the muddy area of determining how much good will is compromised because of those that are anti-day one DLC, compared to those that are okay with Day One DLC but have moved on before picking up other DLC.
I'm sure it'll be complicated to filter through all this, so I'm kind of hoping it's ostensibly superior/inferior just to keep it simple.
Out of curiosity, how much of the From Ashes was on the disc to begin with? I was under the impression the only parts on the disc where the character loadout screen and group implementation, but all the actual content was on the DLC. How is my perception wrong?
If we spend the time that would've gone towards a Day One DLC on something that is a bit larger for our first DLC (whenever that is), maybe that ends up being more ideal? If it's something where we look and go "whoa, our sales sure are lower and this wasn't worth the effort" then we'll have to look more deeply. It'd probably end up coming into the muddy area of determining how much good will is compromised because of those that are anti-day one DLC, compared to those that are okay with Day One DLC but have moved on before picking up other DLC.
I don't have exact percentage numbers or file sizes or anything, but from my understanding it was all combat animations, character renderings and interactions with any character outside to the actual recruitment mission. Someone could, according to YouTube, change one variable in the PC config files and have Jahvik as a selectable companion and able to hear all of the banter that occurred in the Thessia mission, where he comments on how the Protheans uplifted the Asari.
How much that is to you, personally, and if it constitutes the DLC "being on disc" is, of course, up to you to decide
This is correct but there was really no other way for the devs to do it. The way the UE3 works is that it streams entire files in and out of memory. Therefore, things like squad mate banter is divided up by level, not by squad mate. If there were one file with all banter of the game for each squad mate, all audio information of the entire game would have to be loaded for each level, which is obviously not ideal.
However, since banter is divided by level, you cannot simply insert a new companion later on. This would require the user to download basically the entire game again with updated level files which include the new squad mate. Therefore, there really is no choice but to already include that part of the squad mate into the main game before release. That is also why you don't see new squad mates for the entire game in later DLCs (e.g. why Wrex is only a squad mate in Citadel in ME3 and why Liara is only in LotSB in ME2).
Of course, this goes not only for banter but also for animations, scripting, etc.
The only thing a DLC can handle (in UE3 anyway) are self contained levels (like Javik's recruitment mission, which was what you downloaded with From Ashes).
Now, whether this means that it's better to have pre-planned squad mate DLC or to have no permanent squad mates in DLC in the first place, that I will leave up to everyone to decide for themselves but from a technical point of view, there is not much of a choice beyond those two options.
Also, not sure how Frostbite handles this but I guess similar restrictions would apply.
I'm not sure this sort of question is actually subject to rational analysis. You're never going to have a case of two identical games with different DLC policies, and there aren't enough games released to let the differences average out. There are a lot of business problems like this, IIRC.
The risk is that if DAI does only average in sales it may not be worthwhile for Bioware to release any dlc because it is not cost effective. Maybe moving on to a new IP would be more advisable after that. So they would be no new content for those who wanted it on D1. Or by the time the dlc comes out many gamers may have finished the game and moved on. Therefore sales for the dlc are not there.
So with this decision Bioware kinda rolls the dice. So I can only hope for an excellent well selling game so there will be a reason to release more content. Maybe even an expansion.
I don't have exact percentage numbers or file sizes or anything, but from my understanding it was all combat animations, character renderings and interactions with any character outside to the actual recruitment mission. Someone could, according to YouTube, change one variable in the PC config files and have Jahvik as a selectable companion and able to hear all of the banter that occurred in the Thessia mission, where he comments on how the Protheans uplifted the Asari.
How much that is to you, personally, and if it constitutes the DLC "being on disc" is, of course, up to you to decide
I'll leave the perception argument alone, as per Allan's comment. But as to your last comment... I, personally, am very unlikely to buy any DLC. Ever. I think the cost - value ratio is entirely too slanted towards "cost" for my own tastes. So when I see DLC that was planned, months in advance, to be D1DLC, I see content that wasn't just not finished on time, but was selected to be finished after going Gold BEFORE Gold certification was even in sight.
Now... is that wrong? That's going to depend on your own personal tastes and thoughts. I, personally, would rather pay more up front for a superior finished product than buying content piecemeal. I feel like it segments the population into those who buy what instead of offering a strong base product all fans can share equally. Yet I'm obviously not the average gamer.
Does that make companies that charge for D1DLC the devil? No, of course not. But it makes it very easy for anyone who shares some part of the same viewpoint to see it as a money grab, even if the devs can deliver facts that cast that perception in doubt. Mostly because "facts" are very rarely as clear cut as people give them credit for.
Raw numbers and statistics can be framed to tell very different stories depending on the context and filters they are presented with. Anecdotal evidence even moreso. A developer saying, for example, that a character was not fully fleshed out until too far into development is a statement that could be rife with omitted information, likely no on purpose, but still obscuring the "truth." For instance, could the companion not be finished because they were changed fundamentally from one role to another? Was such a change worth it for players to wind up needing to pay extra? Could the character not be finished because some other content, like side quest content, was being finished instead? Is it possible said side quest could have been omitted with no harm to the game, but was bumped up because the devs knew there was no way anyone would pay extra for this side quest, but that they WOULD pay for an extra companion?
And so on. Given how much can be read into the intent of even the most benign of contents, the best bet for a business to be in is to not be under the scrutiny microscope at all. Which is why I am glad Bioware has stated they are staying away from D1DLC companions. It shines a bit of a negative light on an area where Bioware likely could NEVER give a deep enough answer to assuage all people's concerns, so forgoing the amount of revenue it generates for the goodwill of those to think they bought a complete game must have seemed like a move Bioware was interested in doing for this release. Which makes me, personally, happy.
On the first comment, didn't hitting that switch cause major problems in actual game structure, as it was coded depending on the actual content from the DLC being present? My recollection was it being simpler than that, as evident of my initial comment, but if anyone can provide any concrete evidence as to how that switch can be hit and everything is there, they should feel free to.
As for the second part, I kind of feel your whole argument obfuscates the main issue here. Bioware, the company which makes the game, is saying that if that the stuff they published as Day 1 DLC would not have made it in the game if it had not been published in such a manner. If you will never buy DLC, good for you by the way, then it is something that in no provable, and I stress this, provable way adds or removes anything from the game you just bought. To those who are willing to pay for it, it adds something. Nothing was demanded of you, nothing concrete was taken for you. Yet because you have an apparent conviction that you lost something because of that decision, despite not having any ability to be able to prove that, you feel it is something that should not be done?
And for the sake of clarity, is your argument that Bioware should listen more to those people who are convinced that they lost something, despite not having any concrete evidence of it, than those people who were satisfied with what they got? And for your complicated point about context and filters is kind of misleading, as all that is speculation provided instead of an actual argument. Do you know they chose that side mission? Were you in the room when that decision was made? Sure it was possible, yet based on our level of information, it was equally possible that that did not happen. Because it is a fabricated hypothetical scenario created in order to justify why not believing the producers of the game is justified and how you ripped off by Day 1 DLC as you still have not presented concrete evidence. Which again leads to my problem with the perception argument, as you yourself are not discussing how to correct these possibly false perceptions and are instead constructing scenarios on the basis of those scenarios.
I'm not sure this sort of question is actually subject to rational analysis. You're never going to have a case of two identical games with different DLC policies, and there aren't enough games released to let the differences average out. There are a lot of business problems like this, IIRC.
It certainly is tricky, which is why I'm not going to complain that I have to determine it.
I'd love to have alternative universes for me to do experiments with 
I seem to be in the minority, but I have absolutely no qualms about D1 DLC and never had any, even knowing that a lot of the material contained in the DLC shipped on the game disk.
If I were writing a scientific paper for a journal that would be published in January, I would need to submit the data by September. I've got a related experiment that won't be done by September's deadline, but I can have it done in time for the Appendix, since I'll have 3 months to work on it. Yes, I have to do the groundwork in August, but that extra experiment will keep me working for three months instead of sitting on my hands. The material I submitted for the main journal is not incomplete. I just did something else besides.
I seem to be in the minority, but I have absolutely no qualms about D1 DLC and never had any, even knowing that a lot of the material contained in the DLC shipped on the game disk.
If I were writing a scientific paper for a journal that would be published in January, I would need to submit the data by September. I've got a related experiment that won't be done by September's deadline, but I can have it done in time for the Appendix, since I'll have 3 months to work on it. Yes, I have to do the groundwork in August, but that extra experiment will keep me working for three months instead of sitting on my hands. The material I submitted for the main journal is not incomplete. I just did something else besides.
The risk is that if DAI does only average in sales it may not be worthwhile for Bioware to release any dlc because it is not cost effective.
Yet you do not charge extra for people to read your addendum/appendices. If you did in the academic world, it would be considered unethical. If you do so in the entertainment world... less so. But still debatable.
I wasn't speaking on how stable said content was, just how much was on the disc.On the first comment, didn't hitting that switch cause major problems in actual game structure, as it was coded depending on the actual content from the DLC being present? My recollection was it being simpler than that, as evident of my initial comment, but if anyone can provide any concrete evidence as to how that switch can be hit and everything is there, they should feel free to.
One does not need to prove feelings. And, shocking thought this may be, the vast majority of humans make their purchasing decisions on emotion and feeling. Just like they do voting/political decisions. Burden of proof is not required in the court of free markets.As for the second part, I kind of feel your whole argument obfuscates the main issue here. Bioware, the company which makes the game, is saying that if that the stuff they published as Day 1 DLC would not have made it in the game if it had not been published in such a manner. If you will never buy DLC, good for you by the way, then it is something that in no provable, and I stress this, provable way adds or removes anything from the game you just bought. To those who are willing to pay for it, it adds something. Nothing was demanded of you, nothing concrete was taken for you. Yet because you have an apparent conviction that you lost something because of that decision, despite not having any ability to be able to prove that, you feel it is something that should not be done?
I don't need to understand the decision making process of Bioware in determining how D1DLC content is picked, designed and released. As I said before, while I'd like to view myself as a rather reasonable person who could be satisfied with enough information, the reality is 1) the level of information required to prove any of the above speculation would never be forth coming and is, quite frankly, not public information anyway and 2) even every shred of evidence possible would not convince everyone, simply because of confirmation bias and, more practically, the sheer impossibility of providing that level of information to the possible market of video game consumers who may have said impressions, which could be thousands or possibly even millions of people.And for the sake of clarity, is your argument that Bioware should listen more to those people who are convinced that they lost something, despite not having any concrete evidence of it, than those people who were satisfied with what they got? And for your complicated point about context and filters is kind of misleading, as all that is speculation provided instead of an actual argument. Do you know they chose that side mission? Were you in the room when that decision was made? Sure it was possible, yet based on our level of information, it was equally possible that that did not happen. Because it is a fabricated hypothetical scenario created in order to justify why not believing the producers of the game is justified and how you ripped off by Day 1 DLC as you still have not presented concrete evidence. Which again leads to my problem with the perception argument, as you yourself are not discussing how to correct these possibly false perceptions and are instead constructing scenarios on the basis of those scenarios.
While we don't charge for appendices, we certainly do charge for updates and new editions, whether necessary or not. Legal publishing's even worse.
That depends on the release schedule for the DLC, doesn't it? If most of the work for the first DLC is done before sales figures are in, might as well finish it up.
When do DLCs typically start releasing?
My personal guess would be 2-6 months from release. Maybe a little sooner, but certainly no later.
That depends on the release schedule for the DLC, doesn't it? If most of the work for the first DLC is done before sales figures are in, might as well finish it up.
When do DLCs typically start releasing?
Depends for Bioware it has been the first day for some of the dlc. The question is if Bioware waits 30 or more for the first dlc how many gamers will still be playing? Will gamers start up a new game for the dlc. If the dlc can be played at anytime during the game like Legacy and MotA then any save game file would do.
Retour en haut