76 réponses à ce sujet

[bzombo]

MprezdNZ wrote...

bzombo wrote...


you may want to reread what you posted because i got the same impression, and i think many others did as well. when you accuse a company of "profiteering", there is a stigma with that word that implies your beliefs as well as your opinion of the company you're talking about.

lol, learn to quote properly 

I ignored what was in the box and was reading the rest thinking ...this sounds familiar....

hey no fair, you edited!

silly me for correcting my mistake. :wizard:

[WilliamShatner]

Sadly, as long as a million idiots buy 3 CALL OF DUTY maps for $10 in the first week DLC will always be overpriced and poor value.

[RetrOldSchool]

IMO niether WK nor RtO was poor value and none of them is excessively expensive.

I'd say that (in terms of value) they are in the middle, its not the most value for your money (that would be GTA IV: The ballad of gay Tony and F3: Point Lookout, Broken Steel and The Pitt I think) but its far from the least as well.

I think a reason a lot of gamers are upset is because of the fact that Bioware are in the top when it comes to gaming value, so I guess they feel that anything less than the best DLC-value isnt good enough.

I for one am totally happy with WK & RtO (even though buying RtO did give me the unpleasent surprise of the 360-bug) and I think both are worth the price. However, I can still admit that comparing to the best DLC's, they dont offer the same value for the money.

And that should be some kind of middle ground that possibly both "sides" should be able to acknowledge.
(edit: typos)

Modifié par RetrOldSchool, 26 janvier 2010 - 06:44 .

[MprezdNZ]

Bioware will never have horse armour.



Enough said really.

[traversc]

I agree with Matshelge. These comparisons are frustrating because when comparing the cost and length of the main game versus the DLC, few people stop to consider that perhaps the main game was an exceptional value, not that the DLC is expensive.

What you say is not a reason for main games and DLCs to be incomparable. If you say the main game was a good deal, how much of a good deal? Did you get 2x what you paid for? 3x? Let's say 5x as a conservative estimate (meaning the game should have cost ~$300.) Unfortunately, it would need to be $600-700 value to match the pricing on DLC content. Sorry, it's not THAT good a deal.

There is not one good argument why game content from DA:O and DLCs cannto by comapred. The gameplay is similar and therefore comparable. What is more likely IMO, people make excuses to convince themselves that they were not ripped off or that BW (and other companies) are not being dishonest with their DLC pricing. Because they don't like the inevitable conclusion when they can admit that comparing DLCs to DA:O isn't exactly apples and oranges.

Modifié par traversc, 26 janvier 2010 - 09:54 .

[ladydesire]

traversc wrote...

I agree with Matshelge. These comparisons are frustrating because when comparing the cost and length of the main game versus the DLC, few people stop to consider that perhaps the main game was an exceptional value, not that the DLC is expensive.

What you say is not a reason for main games and DLCs to be incomparable. If you say the main game was a good deal, how much of a good deal? Did you get 2x what you paid for? 3x? Let's say 5x as a conservative estimate (meaning the game should have cost ~$300.) Unfortunately, it would need to be $600-700 value to match the pricing on DLC content. Sorry, it's not THAT good a deal.

Stop trying to say that cost = value; they are not and never will be the same thing.

There is not one good argument why game content from DA:O and DLCs cannot.

I think you forgot to complete your thought here.

The gameplay is similar and therefore comparable.

*bangs head against desk* It's not "similar", it's exactly the same, since there is a seamless transition between game locations no matter if it's a game location that is in the base game or a location added in a DLC (Bioware produced or player-created).

What is more likely IMO, people make excuses to convince themselves that they were not ripped off or that BW (and other companies) are not being dishonest with their DLC pricing. Because they don't like the inevitable conclusion when they can admit that comparing DLCs to DA:O isn't exactly apples and oranges.

The developers don't make less money developing DLC than they do the main game or an expansion, so why should Bioware lose money when trying to sell a DLC? I don't get where people think that EA is raking in piles of money from DA:O and the DLC. Lets say for the heck of it that DA has sold 2 million copies, in all versions; how much do you think that EA has actually gotten from those sales? I'd be surprised if they've taken in more than about $45 million USD, out of a possible $120 million.

Modifié par ladydesire, 26 janvier 2010 - 10:22 .

[wanderon]

traversc wrote...

I agree with Matshelge. These comparisons are frustrating because when comparing the cost and length of the main game versus the DLC, few people stop to consider that perhaps the main game was an exceptional value, not that the DLC is expensive.

What you say is not a reason for main games and DLCs to be incomparable. If you say the main game was a good deal, how much of a good deal? Did you get 2x what you paid for? 3x? Let's say 5x as a conservative estimate (meaning the game should have cost ~$300.) Unfortunately, it would need to be $600-700 value to match the pricing on DLC content. Sorry, it's not THAT good a deal.

There is not one good argument why game content from DA:O and DLCs cannto by comapred. The gameplay is similar and therefore comparable. What is more likely IMO, people make excuses to convince themselves that they were not ripped off or that BW (and other companies) are not being dishonest with their DLC pricing. Because they don't like the inevitable conclusion when they can admit that comparing DLCs to DA:O isn't exactly apples and oranges.

No it's not apples and oranges it's more like cake and icing becuase there is no use for the icing without the cake but cake is fine without icing where as apples and oranges will both stand alone..

The DLC compliments the main game and can't be played without it - comparing the two on play time = pricing value is just silly. DLC pricing is what it is - no doubt there are numerous reasons DLC is priced as it is and I suspect none of those are based on "the evil corporation sticking it to the gamer model".

Buy it or not it's your choice - the value is entirely subjective based on each individuals perspective. I find it to be a great value myself (as a PC gamer who plays nothing but CRPGs). 

[traversc]

sprybry wrote...

wanderon wrote...

Buy it or not it's your choice - the value is entirely subjective based on each individuals perspective. I find it to be a great value myself (as a PC gamer who plays nothing but CRPGs). 

^this^.  everyone's definition of value is their own.  for some, it is simply $/hour of playtime.  for others, it is strictly the quality of play, even if it is short-lived.  for many, it is a balance somewhere between the two.

^not this^.  Quality and quantity are not diametrically opposed; even if you valued quality more than quantity, it still doesn't change the fact that DLCs are overpriced. 

[wwwwowwww]

The only people finishing this game in 50 hours are those not doing everything that can be done or getting all the hints and tips before playing and who are power gamers.

[grieferbastard]

[quote]traversc wrote...
^this^.  everyone's definition of value is their own.  for some, it is simply $/hour of playtime.  for others, it is strictly the quality of play, even if it is short-lived.  for many, it is a balance somewhere between the two. [/quote]
^not this^.  Quality and quantity are not diametrically opposed; even if you valued quality more than quantity, it still doesn't change the fact that DLCs are overpriced. 
[/quote]

No. They're not overpriced. They're just more expensive. Then again we've already had this discussion.

Value has nothing to do with price or even personal affluence. Take ME 2 for example. I was going to pre-order it until I read the reviews. Looks like it's changed to focus a bit more on the console FPS crowed with some RPG elements. Not quite my thing, I'm still enjoying Borderlands as a FPS. I was curious to see if ME 2 would replace Fallout 3 on my computer for a dedicated RPG/shooter but doesn't sound like it. I'll probably pick up ME 2 eventually, when it's about $20 and the DLC is bundled with it. I'll probably never buy DLC for ME 2, it wouldn't be worth the expense to me.

Yet there's a whole ton of people who pre-ordered the game, love it, will buy all the DLC as soon as it comes out. More power to them, I hope the game is a stunning success. May not be geared towards me as a consumer, but not everything has to be.

Clearly the idea that length of gameplay equates to value/cost of product is important to you. It's wrong, and I've shown it's wrong with actual financial data, business reports and a myriad of examples - which is my fault and my waste of time. Obviously this is an important personal belief to you and you're very invested in it. Much like religion and philosophy it's got nothing to do with facts, mathmatics, economics or the like. It's a belief.

You should start a church. Maybe you can buy your DLC tax free then.

[Coldcall01]

traversc wrote...

I agree with Matshelge. These comparisons are frustrating because when comparing the cost and length of the main game versus the DLC, few people stop to consider that perhaps the main game was an exceptional value, not that the DLC is expensive.

What you say is not a reason for main games and DLCs to be incomparable. If you say the main game was a good deal, how much of a good deal? Did you get 2x what you paid for? 3x? Let's say 5x as a conservative estimate (meaning the game should have cost ~$300.) Unfortunately, it would need to be $600-700 value to match the pricing on DLC content. Sorry, it's not THAT good a deal.

There is not one good argument why game content from DA:O and DLCs cannto by comapred. The gameplay is similar and therefore comparable. What is more likely IMO, people make excuses to convince themselves that they were not ripped off or that BW (and other companies) are not being dishonest with their DLC pricing. Because they don't like the inevitable conclusion when they can admit that comparing DLCs to DA:O isn't exactly apples and oranges.

Look in almost all commercial transactions the more you buy the cheaper it gets. Thats how logical business is done. This is called economies of scale.

So you are arguing that we should flip that principle into one where the more you spend the less value you get. Because thats what you are saying more or less.

Lets not forget that Bioware have created a powerful editor for DLCs, and while its apparently hard to use because its complex, one would assume Bioware can knock  together DLCs very quickly using their own editor. The main costbase for the game would have come from the first 1-2 years development, building the editor etc....

So DLCs should be inexpensive compared to the original game, not the other way around.

But hell when EA/Bioware have people like you arguing that they should make it more expensive then us consumers are doomed to poor value. Cheers.

[I saved Star Wars :D]

I'm not sure how you arrive at your figure of 50 hours for the original game. There are lengthy threads on this site marvelling about how many differences there are between origins and how many different ways the game can play and, ultimately, end.



50 hours per play through, perhaps.



In any case, the point is moot. You aren't buying it buying it by the hour, you are buying the package and the experience. The DLC is an addition to this and you are free, as a consumer, to decide whether you wish to purchase it or not. Length is irrelevant.



I have a very nice, thin, designer jacket in my wardrobe which cost me over £60. It has far less material than a heavy coat that I own which cost me £40, for example. I do not view the designer coat as worse value, because I didn't buy it by working out the £ per gramme ratio of the material.



I just liked the coat and was happy to pay £60.



I also just like DA and am happy to buy it. The same applies to DLC.

[DKJaigen]

Coldcall01 wrote...

[

So DLCs should be inexpensive compared to the original game, not the other way around.

But hell when EA/Bioware have people like you arguing that they should make it more expensive then us consumers are doomed to poor value. Cheers.

If you don't like it then don't buy it. its simple as that. and furthermore you obviously think making a dlc l is easy but your completely wrong. You have staff+voice actors+ bug fixing and compatibility issues to take care off and all these things cost money . 5$ is perfectly reasonable for 5-10 hours of extra entertainment (because i don't play the game once)

[wanderon]

Coldcall01 wrote...

traversc wrote...

I agree with Matshelge. These comparisons are frustrating because when comparing the cost and length of the main game versus the DLC, few people stop to consider that perhaps the main game was an exceptional value, not that the DLC is expensive.

What you say is not a reason for main games and DLCs to be incomparable. If you say the main game was a good deal, how much of a good deal? Did you get 2x what you paid for? 3x? Let's say 5x as a conservative estimate (meaning the game should have cost ~$300.) Unfortunately, it would need to be $600-700 value to match the pricing on DLC content. Sorry, it's not THAT good a deal.

There is not one good argument why game content from DA:O and DLCs cannto by comapred. The gameplay is similar and therefore comparable. What is more likely IMO, people make excuses to convince themselves that they were not ripped off or that BW (and other companies) are not being dishonest with their DLC pricing. Because they don't like the inevitable conclusion when they can admit that comparing DLCs to DA:O isn't exactly apples and oranges.

Look in almost all commercial transactions the more you buy the cheaper it gets. Thats how logical business is done. This is called economies of scale.

So you are arguing that we should flip that principle into one where the more you spend the less value you get. Because thats what you are saying more or less.

Lets not forget that Bioware have created a powerful editor for DLCs, and while its apparently hard to use because its complex, one would assume Bioware can knock  together DLCs very quickly using their own editor. The main costbase for the game would have come from the first 1-2 years development, building the editor etc....

So DLCs should be inexpensive compared to the original game, not the other way around.

But hell when EA/Bioware have people like you arguing that they should make it more expensive then us consumers are doomed to poor value. Cheers.

Poor value to whom? This is the point you are consistantly missing - poor value to YOU apparently but regardless of what parameters you wish to use to make that decision coming to the conclusion that it's a poor value to YOU does not in fact mean that it is a poor value to all others.

This is a huge and complex game that many of us will probably spend thousands of hours on before putting it away - I have already played the WK DLC with numerous characters and will probably play it with every character I create.

I played NWN2 for almost 3 years (from the day i came out until I started playing DA:O) and prior to that I was still playing the BG series until I started NWN2 (along with all the other IE games and some NWN1). As a result I judge my gameplay for CRPGs by the number of YEARS I get out of them not by the number of hours in a hurried single playthrough.

[Magic Zarim]

Matshelge wrote...

Problem with this argument is that they can't really charge more then 60$ or 50$ (for pc) for any game. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is only 6 hours long, but noone argues that it's 10 bucks an hour for that game.

So, in Modern Warfare value, Dragon Age is worth 600$.
See how weird it is to use this scale?

Nah, the scale is not weird at all. You are just conveniently omitting the extra variables in the comparission:

-MW2: is focussed on Multiplayer. No match plays out the same, pretty much infinite replayability.
-DA:O: Singleplayer campaign only. Hours of gameplay is the only metric, in conjunction with content quality.

You can absolutely not compare playlengths of different game genres as the "Gameplay-Length" metric impact factor varies heavily between genres.

Come on people, let's get smart and objective here. Stop padding your own agendas by conveniently omitting factors in your arguements.

[RetrOldSchool]

This have really been discussed a lot...
The main problem with comparing game time from a full game to the DLC is that it would mean that a 1 hour DLC from Batman Arkham Asylum should be priced $6 while 1 hour DA:O DLC should be priced $0.50 and that's just not very realistic, nor fair.
Like previously stated, I think the only fair way is to compare the DA:O DLC to other DLC for other games.

That would be the only real way of even remotely being able to compare the "value" of a DLC. Like a lot of people alreay said, the value is very subjective. Then again, you can compare the DLC for DA:O to DLC for other games, especially RPG's and then base your opinion from that.

I do think you can still compare value, even if you don't like a particular game.

For instance I got the Fable 2 DLC's. bought them too early, I liked the game the first ~5 hours but grew bored of it very quickly and therefore I found the DLC's pretty boring. The Knothole Island DLC was 800 MSpoints and included a new town with NPC's, new shops, new appearance options, new property to buy, a couple of quests and a bunch of new dungeons (though very similar).

Imagine a DA:O DLC where you get all that, for 800 MS points! I'd probably be ready to pay 1200 MS points for it though

Now from a content point of view I could probably admit that the content you get for Knothole Island comparing to WK is more when comparing prices. I'd say that based on the content you get from Knothole Island, WK should be priced around 400 MS points and RtO should be priced around 240 MS Points.

However, for me personally, WK was worth more than Knothole Island in terms of personal value, since I find Fable2 tedious while I love DA:O. I would never regret buying WK, but I can regret buying Knothole Island, since I basically only finished it because I felt forced to, thanks to my mistake of buying the DLC without knowing whether I liked Fable2 enough or not.

But you can also compare it to the different themes you can buy from Xbox Live. A ME1 theme is 240 MS points, so if you compare the fact that you get only a Xbox Dashboard theme for 240 MS points, then WK could be priced 1200...

So all in all, value is very subjective, but content wise, I think the only far comparison is between DLC-to-DLC, not DLC-to-game.

[Spell Singer]

Coldcall01 wrote...

Lets looks at it purely on bang for buck terms. I paid £35 for the retail packaged game which comes in a box, dvd, and small game manual. An honest appraisal of gameplay time would be say 50 hours. So in effect one is paying about £2 per hour of game. Now compare the avergae cost of a 1 hour long DLC such as Wardens Keep. It costs $7 US, and Bioware need not print or manufacture any DVDs or packaging materials.

I have clocked so far well over 200 hours on essentially 1.5 play throughs so my €35 dollar investment is costing me under €0.2 per hour compared to say €8 for a movie which costs me closer to €15 including S-bahn fare in and back.  So how does a DLC (Wardens Keep in this case) which I will play for more than an hour suddenly become a bad deal?  Given I will play it 4 times (4 characters are planned) and it took me more than an hour to do the full adventure but lets say 8 hours total over the 4 play throughs...so it costs me €1 per hour of entertianment value...by which time the game itself is probably at €0.05 so yes it is more costly but *shrugs* there is also the additional items which are in use for more than the time in the DLC itself, plus the feats added so assuming you use both the items and the feats (some I do some I don't) then the time has to be increased which will likely bring the cost per entertainment hour down.

All told the DLC if it interests you it is a good deal.  If it doesn't (and I am far from convinced on the Return to Ostagar) then the simple solution is to not buy it.  I didn't buy any of the ME1 DLC as it didn't interest me and it was far too late.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.  This applies to DLC as well.  It costs Bioware money to make that extra content so why should they not charge for it?  And how much less could they charge for the DLC realistically...possibly you can argue for a €1 or €2 reduction in costs but that won't change the situation significantly even using your numbers.

[Valdrane78]

MprezdNZ wrote...

I don't think there really is much info on this. The story and dialogue would have no doubt taken quite a while (including building the world etc). They have been talking about it for 6 years. They haven't really released many games in the past 6 years, so you would guess while it hasn't been a 24/7 project for 6 years there would have been a lot of effort put in over time.

But for cold hard figures I doubt you will find anywhere with info. 

They have also been creating and writing for other games as well, including but not limited to Mass Effect 2 (which was released almost 3 months to the day after DA:O) and SWToR!  So it will have been impossible to have all hands on deck so to speak. 

My best guess is that it starts off small with the writing and story team and increases in terms of man power as the game progresses into coding and building the environments, characters and the voice acting etc etc etc.

Anyways back on the main topic......

I think the prices of the DL content are right where they should be.  Considering you still need a writing team, voice actors, testers amongst other things to create these little 1 hour pices of gaming gems.  I would hazard to guess it takes a good solid month to create atleast 1 hour of gameplay.  In the grand scheme of things, 5$ isn't that much to ask as far as my opinion goes.

[Matshelge]

Magic Zarim wrote...

Matshelge wrote...

Problem with this argument is that they can't really charge more then 60$ or 50$ (for pc) for any game. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is only 6 hours long, but noone argues that it's 10 bucks an hour for that game.

So, in Modern Warfare value, Dragon Age is worth 600$.
See how weird it is to use this scale?

Nah, the scale is not weird at all. You are just conveniently omitting the extra variables in the comparission:

-MW2: is focussed on Multiplayer. No match plays out the same, pretty much infinite replayability.
-DA:O: Singleplayer campaign only. Hours of gameplay is the only metric, in conjunction with content quality.

You can absolutely not compare playlengths of different game genres as the "Gameplay-Length" metric impact factor varies heavily between genres.

Come on people, let's get smart and objective here. Stop padding your own agendas by conveniently omitting factors in your arguements.

Seeing how over 60% of people only play the single player game, and never try the online part, I think its fair to use Modern Warfare.

But if you don't want to use that, use Batman, that game took 10, maybe 12 hours to complete, no online, DLC cost just as much as Dragon Age. So in that case you need to head over to RockSteady Studios and explain how Dragon Age is giving you 5-8 times the value for its 1 hour DLC, and ask why they are not charing 75 cents for their DLC, as it fair in a world where value is only based on length of original game, and then stacked against DLC.

[Peeker2009]

Wow, this discussion is still going on hehe. I'm still sitting on the fence in regards to the value for money issue, but I would like to add a few factors for consideration, some of which may have been said already in this and other threads.

Apart from making a really good game, the developers for DA:O did one particularly smart thing: that is, including the different origins. Wihout them, I think most would agree that the motivation to replay the game would be far less. It was an astute decision, especially for an exclusively single-player game, and benefits the company as well as the player. Not all players will benefit equally, but nothing can be done about that.

This innovation also has consequences when it comes to further content such as DLC or expansions because the percieved "value" of such is automatically multiplied due to the game's replayability - a knock-on effect.

This does make it more difficult to discuss value for money, however. Some will play the game again and again (at least once for each origin), whereas others might only play it once. I myself have played it twice, and am having a break before having another go (I had just played through the whole Gothic Universe before buying DA:O ).

I will say though that I expect my first game will remain the most enjoyable, and that each subsequent play-through will lose a little bit of oomph. Conversely, others may enjoy each play through more than the last. It's all cool.

Therefore, when we are offered extra content, we will all be coming at it from completely different angles, and this becomes clear when we discuss "value for money". In other words, in this discussion will find it hard to get away from the subjective, and we will never even get close to a conclusive argument, no matter what evidence/examples/analogies we try to use to support our points.

For instance, when we make comparisons to hotdogs, movies etc, we are necessarily skating on thin ice. A hotdog doesn't have replay value (except for gastric reflux) and while a movie does, it still lacks the equivalent of this game's different origins. A similar problem occurs when we compare it to other games or other game's DLC, because (afaik) no other gaming company has set up a strategy quite like this before.

Does this mean that any discussion regarding value is fated to be inconclusive? Yes, probably.
Does it mean the argument is pointless? Well, most interesting discussion topics have no final answer, but they are still worth discussing, so not necessarily. It's personal choice.

In the end though, it's as Hamlet really meant to say: to buy or not to buy, that is the question.
In the end he talked himself out of it though .

P.S. I'm personally more interested in discussing the whole DLC model than the prices themselves, but that's not relevant here.

Modifié par Peeker2009, 27 janvier 2010 - 11:58 .

[Coldcall01]

DKJaigen wrote...

Coldcall01 wrote...

[

So DLCs should be inexpensive compared to the original game, not the other way around.

But hell when EA/Bioware have people like you arguing that they should make it more expensive then us consumers are doomed to poor value. Cheers.

If you don't like it then don't buy it. its simple as that. and furthermore you obviously think making a dlc l is easy but your completely wrong. You have staff+voice actors+ bug fixing and compatibility issues to take care off and all these things cost money . 5$ is perfectly reasonable for 5-10 hours of extra entertainment (because i don't play the game once)

I love DAO. Where do i say i dont like it? I'm complaining about the relative pricing of DLC to original game.

Two different issues, and perhaps you are not capable of the nuance necessary to understand the point :-)

[Coldcall01]

wanderon wrote...

Coldcall01 wrote...

traversc wrote...

I agree with Matshelge. These comparisons are frustrating because when comparing the cost and length of the main game versus the DLC, few people stop to consider that perhaps the main game was an exceptional value, not that the DLC is expensive.

What you say is not a reason for main games and DLCs to be incomparable. If you say the main game was a good deal, how much of a good deal? Did you get 2x what you paid for? 3x? Let's say 5x as a conservative estimate (meaning the game should have cost ~$300.) Unfortunately, it would need to be $600-700 value to match the pricing on DLC content. Sorry, it's not THAT good a deal.

There is not one good argument why game content from DA:O and DLCs cannto by comapred. The gameplay is similar and therefore comparable. What is more likely IMO, people make excuses to convince themselves that they were not ripped off or that BW (and other companies) are not being dishonest with their DLC pricing. Because they don't like the inevitable conclusion when they can admit that comparing DLCs to DA:O isn't exactly apples and oranges.

Look in almost all commercial transactions the more you buy the cheaper it gets. Thats how logical business is done. This is called economies of scale.

So you are arguing that we should flip that principle into one where the more you spend the less value you get. Because thats what you are saying more or less.

Lets not forget that Bioware have created a powerful editor for DLCs, and while its apparently hard to use because its complex, one would assume Bioware can knock  together DLCs very quickly using their own editor. The main costbase for the game would have come from the first 1-2 years development, building the editor etc....

So DLCs should be inexpensive compared to the original game, not the other way around.

But hell when EA/Bioware have people like you arguing that they should make it more expensive then us consumers are doomed to poor value. Cheers.

Poor value to whom? This is the point you are consistantly missing - poor value to YOU apparently but regardless of what parameters you wish to use to make that decision coming to the conclusion that it's a poor value to YOU does not in fact mean that it is a poor value to all others.

This is a huge and complex game that many of us will probably spend thousands of hours on before putting it away - I have already played the WK DLC with numerous characters and will probably play it with every character I create.

I played NWN2 for almost 3 years (from the day i came out until I started playing DA:O) and prior to that I was still playing the BG series until I started NWN2 (along with all the other IE games and some NWN1). As a result I judge my gameplay for CRPGs by the number of YEARS I get out of them not by the number of hours in a hurried single playthrough.

Well of course, i am speaking from my perspective and that would relate to my value system.

If you feel you are getting a great deal on the DLCs - good for you. I'm sure there are plenty of folks like you who dont feel the same way about value as i do.

[Isavald]

I seriously don't understand all the pricing complaints about the DLC's or the expansion. Aside from Shale nothing is over 10$ and as it has been stated a thousand times, you don't have to purchase any of them to enjoy the main game.

For me the answer is simple, Warden's keep may have only been around an hour of game play, but did I enjoy it? Was it worth my time to play through? Yes it was, so I hardly regret the 7$ I spent to get it.

If gaming is your hobby and you love the game as much as some of us, then the expenses should just come naturally. 

[ArathWoeeye]

I think the main problem is that people think they actually have a personal effect, a personal power over companies just because they can post in their forums.



Every seller has a buyer. If you find Starbucks too expensive, then you leave at that, you don't go to their door and tell them to lower their prices. But since bioware has forums, let's pretend we are who bioware will ask for pricing.



We, as customers, will simply buy or refuse to buy the game. That's how we show ourselves. If enough people are buying it, then others will simply have to suck it up till prices go down. If sales aren't good enough, bioware will look for means to sell the expansion, probably by lowering the price.