812 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

The ONLY time DLC has been mentioned in this thread in regards to ME prior to this was with Citadel and LotSB, which are both self-contained stories with their own plots and villains. Now you're expanding that to every single DLC to ever be released for both games, regardless of what kind of DLC it actually is (you also left out the MP DLCs for ME3)? You really think that a skin pack or a downloadable set of armor is on the same level as a multi-hour mini campaign with new enemies, weapons, locations, and characters? I figured you weren't totally incompetent, so I admit that this was a bit of a shock to me.

It's all DLC. It's all very relevant to the discussion. Regardless of how minor it may be, that is resources and funds dedicated to a certain piece of post-release content. Not to mention, almost all of that DLC costs money as well. Again, this goes back to the original root of the thread where CDPR is giving away 16 DLC updates for free and two massive expansions at the price of $24.99. To not see the difference in scale is to be blind either by your lack of comprehension or purely being a fanboy.

 

Regardless, your typical tactic of throwing insults shows you have nothing further to add to this discussion and your points and arguments are moot.

[wolfhowwl]

Now that you've declared victory can you finally post your evidence that Awakening was a success?

 

We've been waiting awhile.

[o Ventus]

It's all DLC. It's all very relevant to the discussion. Regardless of how minor it may be, that is resources and funds dedicated to a certain piece of post-release content. Not to mention, almost all of that DLC costs money as well. Again, this goes back to the original root of the thread where CDPR is giving away 16 DLC updates for free and two massive expansions at the price of $24.99. To not see the difference in scale is to be blind either by your lack of comprehension or purely being a fanboy.

 

Regardless, your typical tactic of throwing insults shows you have nothing further to add to this discussion and your points and arguments are moot.

 

There you go again drawing some arbitrary distinction between DLCs and expansions.

 

I also love how you lecture me on size and scale, immediately after you tell me this:

 

 

 

Regardless of how minor it may be, that is resources and funds dedicated to a certain piece of post-release content.

 

Because when Bioware releases different kinds of DLCs (skin packs, weapon packs, and full campaigns), you count them as all the same, but make some distinction when CDPR do it with the Witcher?

 

So again, I ask you, are you REALLY unaware of your own hypocrisy here?

[Revan Reborn]

Now that you've declared victory can you finally post your evidence that Awakening was a success?

 

We've been waiting awhile.

There is no "victory." There is merely reality and whether people accept it or not. Feel free to parse through the various sources of information to come to your own conclusion for the "success" of Awakening. It is immaterial at this point as BioWare's current policy is no expansions whatsoever. My hope is that CDPR will show BioWare the error in their ways and perhaps consider other alternatives rather than what they have grown used to. If you are content with BioWare's current model, then make your point. Otherwise, I see no reason for your condescension and off-topic posts remaining here.

[SnakeCode]

They were not dishonest. They always said, that while small DLCs will always be free, if they release a major piece of content for the game (a proper expansion), they will ask money for it. 

They said it even before releasing The Witcher 2. 

 

What they are offering, is basically something like Dragon Age: Awakening. Or Throne of Bhaal. Why would they not want money for that?

They certainly never said, that 20 hours worth of content will be given away for free. 

 

Yes, I don't get why people are finding this so hard to grasp. CDPR never said they'd never charge for dlc period. They said that in order to charge players it would have to be a large, expansive, quality piece of lengthy content. They just don't believe in charging for superficial, non-story content like armour/weapon packs or new outfits.

 

We're on the BSN though, people here aren't interested in the facts, they've been waiting for ages for a reason to say "See! CDPR are a shady, lying, money grabbing corporation too!"  and now they think they've got one. Some on these boards are eerily invested in seeing this game fail

[Revan Reborn]

There you go again drawing some arbitrary distinction between DLCs and expansions.

 

I also love how you lecture me on size and scale, immediately after you tell me this:

 

 

 

 

Because when Bioware releases different kinds of DLCs (skin packs, weapon packs, and full campaigns), you count them as all the same, but make some distinction when CDPR do it with the Witcher?

 

So again, I ask you, are you REALLY unaware of your own hypocrisy here?

There is nothing arbitrary about any of this. BioWare does not do expansions anymore. They only create DLC, anywhere from a skin pack to as large as the Citadel, of which most, if not all of it, requires money. If you have forgotten the call of the thread, I suggest you read the OP again. This is a chance for BioWare to closely watch competitors who make similar games and have a different DLC policy. 16 free DLC updates with two expansions, of which will last 30 hours, for the price of $24.99 is starkly different from "free" MP updates, which actually aren't free as they fuel the cash shop, and one DLC, which may last 10 hours, that is priced at $14.99

[Shechinah]

I consider the multiplayer updates as free without quotation marks because they are free. You can play them without paying for them, they are freely avaliable for download. If you want to pay for anything related to them as in the crate cash shop then that is optional and by no means a requirement nor are you pressured to, in my opinion. I've gained my portion of multiplayer characters and weaponry through the credits-for-crates method.

 

In my opinion, providing "fuel the cash shops" would have ben allowing those picking the money-for-crates method to skip the crate content lottery but as far as I know, that's not the way they went so I don't see how these updates are "fuel the cash shop" 

 

What content there is in the multiplayer updates are avaliable to you for free.

[wolfhowwl]

There's one other crucial point you are missing. BioWare only had two years to make Mass Effect 3. Not only were they wasting resources and money on a worthless multiplayer, but they adequately prioritize on the things that mattered and thus we received a bag of mixed goods as a result. Did you know that many of the companions were supposed to have larger roles in ME3? Did you know that Anderson was supposed to have a much more pronounced role, but was cut out? A lot of story and characters were cut from ME3 due to time constraints. Making a game as ambitious in scope as ME3 in two years was absolutely ridiculous and EA is largely to blame for it.

 

Either way, this merely goes back to my point that BioWare is misappropriating funds by wasting time on a generic MP that merely copies other games rather than exceling at what they specialize in, storytelling. Yes, a lot of things could have been avoided had BioWare prioritized differently and had more time on ME3.

 

Alleged malinvestment in multiplayer isn't responsible for ME3's problems. People just don't like it so it's a convenient scapegoat.

 

A horde mode isn't going to make your writers come up with dumb stuff like finding a magical mystery weapon under the couch or have a terrible character be your "rival." That is just BioWare's inability to hire or retain good writers. The same thing was responsible for the trashy writing in ME1 and ME2.

 

People complained that their choices didn't matter but that is just the same design philosophy I've seen in every BioWare game I've played. Choices have very rarely been anything more than superficial.

[In Exile]

Yes, I don't get why people are finding this so hard to grasp. CDPR never said they'd never charge for dlc period. They said that in order to charge players it would have to be a large, expansive, quality piece of lengthy content. They just don't believe in charging for superficial, non-story content like armour/weapon packs or new outfits.

 

That's silly. I mean, yes, if you carefully parse their comments and adopt their terminology, CDPR wasn't technically backtracking. But when you look at their chest-thumping rhetoric, their repeated pot-shots at other developers, and their general tendency to act as if they are above the actual financial demands of the industry, it's pretty clear what meaning they wanted fans to draw, i.e., that all of their DLC would be free. 

 

Defending CDPR in this case is like defending Bioware over the ME3 A/B/C ending stuff. It's marketing fluff in either case biting the company in the ass, but the company deserves to be bit because of the over-the-top rhetoric they used to shill their product. 

[Revan Reborn]

I consider the multiplayer updates as free updates because they are free as in, you can play them without paying for them. If you want to pay for anything related to them as in the cash shop then that is optional and by no means a requirement nor are you pressured to, in my opinion.

 

If you are referring to the additional crates you can buy then those are purchasable entirely through credits gained through sessions meaning that you only pay for them with real money if you choose to. What content there is in the multiplayer updates are avaliable to you for free.

You misunderstand. The Multiplayer updates aren't actually free at all. The only reason you have that "belief" is because the cash shop allows the "free" updates to be possible. Money comes from somewhere, and EA never gives anything away for free. Again, you can look to all the DLC ME2 and ME3 has, where you have to pay money to buy just one weapon or a skin pack. There's nothing "free" about any of the multiplayer as some player, maybe not you, is making it possible.

 

Alleged malinvestment in multiplayer isn't responsible for ME3's problems. People just don't like it so it's a convenient scapegoat.

 

A horde mode isn't going to make your writers come up with dumb stuff like finding a magical mystery weapon under the couch or have a terrible character be your "rival." That is just BioWare's inability to hire or retain good writers. The same thing was responsible for the trashy writing in ME1 and ME2.

 

People complained that their choices didn't matter but that is just the same design philosophy I've seen in every BioWare game I've played. Choices have very rarely been anything more than superficial.

You do not undestand how game development works. Studios plot out a roadmap. They have a list of priorities they want to see get into the game. Depending on time and what they are able to do, this list of priorities will fluctuate and things will either make it in or be cut for something else. MP was a high enough priority that part of ME3's funds were dedicated to the feature and another BioWare studio was tasked with getting it done. It may not have impacted the overall writing directly, but it definitely impacted the development of the game as a whole.

 

If you believe the writing in all three ME games are terrible, why are you even here? True reactivity and choice is virtually impossible. To account for every action and variable leads to an over-burdensome and unruly development design. BioWare creates reactivity and choice where it can as well as using illusion. It's not perfect by any means, but at least they try unlike most AAA developers. Again, every aspect of development affects the game, including post-release content such as DLC or expansions.

[o Ventus]

There is nothing arbitrary about any of this. BioWare does not do expansions anymore. They only create DLC, anywhere from a skin pack to as large as the Citadel, of which most, if not all of it, requires money. If you have forgotten the call of the thread, I suggest you read the OP again. This is a chance for BioWare to closely watch competitors who make similar games and have a different DLC policy. 16 free DLC updates with two expansions, of which will last 30 hours, for the price of $24.99 is starkly different from "free" MP updates, which actually aren't free as they fuel the cash shop, and one DLC, which may last 10 hours, that is priced at $14.99

 

And what, pray tell, is the difference between an expansion and DLC?

 

I mean, I know I won't get an answer (I'd figure that all the people who asked before me would have gotten one by now) because you're using fanboy logic, but it never hurts to ask.

[SnakeCode]

That's silly. I mean, yes, if you carefully parse their comments and adopt their terminology, CDPR wasn't technically backtracking. But when you look at their chest-thumping rhetoric, their repeated pot-shots at other developers, and their general tendency to act as if they are above the actual financial demands of the industry, it's pretty clear what meaning they wanted fans to draw, i.e., that all of their DLC would be free. 

 

Defending CDPR in this case is like defending Bioware over the ME3 A/B/C ending stuff. It's marketing fluff in either case biting the company in the ass, but the company deserves to be bit because of the over-the-top rhetoric they used to shill their product. 

This isn't backtracking. It's paraphrased from a YouTube interview I watched with Damien Monnier back in January, months before they announced the expansions. It's always been their stance. At no point have they ever said all dlc should be free or that they'd never charge for something significant. I challenge anyone to show me that they have. 

[Heimdall]

I gave you multiple sources with videos and quotes from the developers explaining just that. If you would actually take the opportunity to read instead of trying to refute every post I make, you might actually learn something.

 

Again, while ME3 MP was developed by Montreal and had its "own budget," it was still a part of the larger ME3 budget overall. EA wanted BioWare to create something besides the main single player, thus that money would have been used for something else ME-related. It likely could have gone to more post-release content as making a MP module was a large financial commitment, not even counting incorporating in the game shop. The point is, whether you like it or not, the MP did have an impact on the development of Mass Effect 3. Perhaps not the story, but in many other intrusive ways with respect to priorities, scheduling, deadlines, etc.

The sources explain that there'll be a guy you can tell what happened in the previous games at the beginning.  They don't prove that those choices will matter a great deal as you claimed.  Did you even read them before you put up the link?

 

That's a lot of supposition on your part.  Show me proof that, a statement from a dev, or an outline of EA's budgetary practices, anything that actually indicates the MP budget would have gone into something ME related.

 

EDIT: Even if it did, that wouldn't change the time or resources that went into vanilla ME3.  Talk all you want about hypothetical expansions, but there's no grounds for the notion that MP had any significant impact on the game's development.

 

Saying that MP had a detrimental affect on ME3's development over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

[Revan Reborn]

That's silly. I mean, yes, if you carefully parse their comments and adopt their terminology, CDPR wasn't technically backtracking. But when you look at their chest-thumping rhetoric, their repeated pot-shots at other developers, and their general tendency to act as if they are above the actual financial demands of the industry, it's pretty clear what meaning they wanted fans to draw, i.e., that all of their DLC would be free. 

 

Defending CDPR in this case is like defending Bioware over the ME3 A/B/C ending stuff. It's marketing fluff in either case biting the company in the ass, but the company deserves to be bit because of the over-the-top rhetoric they used to shill their product. 

Except, all of that is irrelevant as CDPR specifically stated that they would charge for an expansion but not for traditional DLC. They didn't lie and there isn't any backtracking here. People, either due to ignorance or pure hatred, are merely trying to demonize CDPR for whatever reason. Is it because they are more gamer-friendly than most developers? Is it because they try to not resort to excessive corporate greed like every other corporation? I don't know where this irrational hate flows from. Regardless, their DLC and expansion philosophy is something BioWare and others need to closely watch, regardless of you arguing semantics over words.

[heretica]

Uh... Shivering Isles and Awakening ARE expansions. Dragonborn/Dawnguard are not. I always understood them as DLC. 

[wolfhowwl]

There is no "victory." There is merely reality and whether people accept it or not. Feel free to parse through the various sources of information to come to your own conclusion for the "success" of Awakening. It is immaterial at this point as BioWare's current policy is no expansions whatsoever. My hope is that CDPR will show BioWare the error in their ways and perhaps consider other alternatives rather than what they have grown used to. If you are content with BioWare's current model, then make your point. Otherwise, I see no reason for your condescension and off-topic posts remaining here.

 

If its success isn't material then why would you post stuff like "You cannot tell me BioWare did not make a vast amount of money off of Awakening" and act like it was a success to the point of accusing people of dishonesty then?

 

Obviously you were trying to bolster your case for expansions by acting like Awakening was some hit that wasn't followed up on. It isn't very good for your argument if it underperformed or even flopped.

 

Very few people would disagree that Witcher 3's Season Pass as proposed is not good value for money. But if BioWare had already tried the expansion model and failed, well they are a business that wants to stay solvent and goodwill from hardcore gamers doesn't pay the bills after all.

[Mihura]

They were not dishonest. They always said, that while small DLCs will always be free, if they release a major piece of content for the game (a proper expansion), they will ask money for it. 

They said it even before releasing The Witcher 2. 

 

What they are offering, is basically something like Dragon Age: Awakening. Or Throne of Bhaal. Why would they not want money for that?

They certainly never said, that 20 hours worth of content will be given away for free. 

 

 Truth be told, those aren't only BioWare's business practices. Most developers have similar business strategies.

 

• Bethesda has mixed practices: for Skyrim, Dragonborn was definately a proper expansion worth it's price - it basically gave you another area, the size of ~1/5 of the main game and filled it with content similarly to the main game. That's an expansion. However, Dawnguard basically gave you a couple of new areas, a long chain of quests (resembling the guild quests in main game) and some new items - that's comparable to BioWare DLCs. And Hearthfire was basically a cosmetic DLC (build your house, some minor cosmetic options etc.). All of those were priced.
• For Fallout 3, it was one Dragonborn-like expansion (albeit much morebland and forgetable) and 4 that gave a new, singular questline in new areas (like BioWare DLCs) (I'm counting Broken Steel here). 
• Dishonored had 2 short story DLCs.
• BioShock Infinite had 2 short story DLCs and one arena/horde mode DLC.
• Deus Ex: Human Revolution had one short story/mission DLC.
• Dark Souls had a short story DLC, featuring 3 new connected areas.

So yeah, most developers tend to create 10-15$ DLCs, giving the player a 3-5 hour experience in new environment, usually not connected to the main story of the game. 

 

They are dishonest not because they want money for the DLC but because CDPR said they would never do a season pass or any DLC bullshit before the game is even release, somehow here we are.

[In Exile]

Except, all of that is irrelevant as CDPR specifically stated that they would charge for an expansion but not for traditional DLC. They didn't lie and there isn't any backtracking here. People, either due to ignorance or pure hatred, are merely trying to demonize CDPR for whatever reason. Is it because they are more gamer-friendly than most developers? Is it because they try to not resort to excessive corporate greed like every other corporation? I don't know where this irrational hate flows from. Regardless, their DLC and expansion philosophy is something BioWare and others need to closely watch, regardless of you arguing semantics over words.

 

I get that you believe in some metaphysical distinction between "DLC" and "Expansion" with almost religious fervor, but that's a distinction that exists only in your head. Like I said, it's the same kind of mental gymnastics people use to defend Bioware's shady marketing practices (like pitching that strongholds still will feature in the DA:I release or that e.g. that ME3 will have substantially varied endings and give substantial weight to ME1-ME2 consequences). 

 

Prior to CDPR trotting out the phrase "expansion" to distinguish their cosmetic DLC from their content DLC, the phrase fell out of use and we used "DLC" to refer to any add-on content to a game following the base release. CDPR says they won't charge for it, then later say what they meant is that they won't charge for "cosmetic" content but will charge for substantial add-on, which is all OK because the add-on will be super substantial. 

 

I can't speaking for others, but I can't abide rudeness, and CDPR is the epitome of it in their marketing. The company can't go a press release without taking a shot at the industry or competitors. And their fanbase felates them so hard it's a wonder they haven't choked to death already, so it's just fun to watch the mental gymnastics some people go through to keep a company on a pedestal it didn't even try to be on in the first place. 

[Chuvvy]

Lair of the Shadow Broker

Arrival

Overlord

Leviathan

Omega

Citadel

 

If "at least ten or more" is the qualifier here, you're missing at least 4 DLCs.

 

Arrival was worth it for that Asteroid crashing into the mass relay. I'm usually not one that gets excited about big explosions but BW obviously but a shitload of work into that scene and it paid off.

[wolfsite]

Except, all of that is irrelevant as CDPR specifically stated that they would charge for an expansion but not for traditional DLC. They didn't lie and there isn't any backtracking here. People, either due to ignorance or pure hatred, are merely trying to demonize CDPR for whatever reason. Is it because they are more gamer-friendly than most developers? Is it because they try to not resort to excessive corporate greed like every other corporation? I don't know where this irrational hate flows from. Regardless, their DLC and expansion philosophy is something BioWare and others need to closely watch, regardless of you arguing semantics over words.

 

It's because they took shots at other companies for releasing Season passes for there games before the game is released and yet here they are doing the same thing they criticized other companies for doing.

 

All the hate is from people trying to create this imaginary fight between Bioware and CDProjectRed and feel the two can not co-exist.  However again CDPR has been going back on things they said they would not do such as a Season Pass.

[Revan Reborn]

And what, pray tell, is the different between an expansion and DLC?

 

I mean, I know I won't get an answer (I'd figure that all the people who asked before me would have gotten one by now) because you're using fanboy logic, but it never hurts to ask.

Why don't you ask BioWare yourself since you seem to lack the most basic understanding of simple concepts? They have made a clear distinction between expansions and DLC, and even stated DAI would not have an expansion. Since you won't believe anything I say, due to my "fanboy logic," it clearly doesn't matter what I say. You are nothing more than a troll at this point with no purpose other than to defend BioWare to the death I suppose. Who's actually the fanboy here?

 

The sources explain that there'll be a guy you can tell what happened in the previous games at the beginning.  They don't prove that those choices will matter a great deal as you claimed.  Did you even read them before you put up the link?

 

That's a lot of supposition on your part.  Show me proof that, a statement from a dev, or an outline of EA's budgetary practices, anything that actually indicates the MP budget would have gone into something ME related.

 

Saying that MP had a detrimental affect on ME3's development over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

Look. Interpret it how you'd like. I'm assuming you haven't played The Witcher 2, as it should be rather obvious how the choices in the game would impact The Witcher 3. If I remember correctly, The Witcher 2 had 16 different endings and various major plot points throughout the game that could change the experience based on who you sided with and who you killed. If you want to believe the choices made at the beginning of TW3 will have little impact, that's your own prerogative.

 

How about looking at how EA has treated its previous games, such as DAO? There's a game without MP that received an expansion as well as a wealth of DLC. DAII would have received more DLC, and a major chunk of DAI was actually from DLC that never came to fruition. It could have even became an expansion. Who knows? Ever since Mass Effect, EA has figured out more ways of monetizing that budget they give to BioWare. Thus, features like MP replace features such as expansions. Again, going back to the list of priorities. This is how game development works. EA wanted to figure out a way to increase longevity of Mass Effect without having to do an expansion. A MP cash shop was the solution.

[wolfsite]

Why don't you ask BioWare yourself since you seem to lack the most basic understanding of simple concepts? They have made a clear distinction between expansions and DLC, and even stated DAI would not have an expansion. Since you won't believe anything I say, due to my "fanboy logic," it clearly doesn't matter what I say. You are nothing more than a troll at this point with no purpose other than to defend BioWare to the death I suppose. Who's actually the fanboy here?

 

Look. Interpret it how you'd like. I'm assuming you haven't played The Witcher 2, as it should be rather obvious how the choices in the game would impact The Witcher 3. If I remember correctly, The Witcher 2 had 16 different endings and various major plot points throughout the game that could change the experience based on who you sided with and who you killed. If you want to believe the choices made at the beginning of TW3 will have little impact, that's your own prerogative.

 

How about looking at how EA has treated its previous games, such as DAO? There's a game without MP that received an expansion as well as a wealth of DLC. DAII would have received more DLC, and a major chunk of DAI was actually from DLC that never came to fruition. It could have even became an expansion. Who knows? Ever since Mass Effect, EA has figured out more ways of monetizing that budget they give to BioWare. Thus, features like MP replace features such as expansions. Again, going back to the list of priorities. This is how game development works. EA wanted to figure out a way to increase longevity of Mass Effect without having to do an expansion. A MP cash shop was the solution.

 

All this theory without any evidence to support it............. interesting.

[In Exile]

Look. Interpret it how you'd like. I'm assuming you haven't played The Witcher 2, as it should be rather obvious how the choices in the game would impact The Witcher 3. If I remember correctly, The Witcher 2 had 16 different endings and various major plot points throughout the game that could change the experience based on who you sided with and who you killed. If you want to believe the choices made at the beginning of TW3 will have little impact, that's your own prerogative.

 

I haven't replayed TW2 since replaying a bunch of times at release, and I know there was DLC on this point, but the original version of it had a forced cannon regarding a lot of what happened in TW1 (esp. with Triss). TW1 content only featured in brief cameos or dialogue allusions, if it even went that far. It's not unreasonable to think that TW3 would follow TW2 in that regard. There was a great deal of reactive content in TW2, but if TW3 adopts the same design then that content would have little impact at the start of the game (and even throughout it). 

 

All of this is to say that it's perfectly reasonable to expect little variety based on past choices. 

[Hiemoth]

I get that you believe in some metaphysical distinction between "DLC" and "Expansion" with almost religious fervor, but that's a distinction that exists only in your head. Like I said, it's the same kind of mental gymnastics people use to defend Bioware's shady marketing practices (like pitching that strongholds still will feature in the DA:I release or that e.g. that ME3 will have substantially varied endings and give substantial weight to ME1-ME2 consequences). 

 

Prior to CDPR trotting out the phrase "expansion" to distinguish their cosmetic DLC from their content DLC, the phrase fell out of use and we used "DLC" to refer to any add-on content to a game following the base release. CDPR says they won't charge for it, then later say what they meant is that they won't charge for "cosmetic" content but will charge for substantial add-on, which is all OK because the add-on will be super substantial. 

 

I can't speaking for others, but I can't abide rudeness, and CDPR is the epitome of it in their marketing. The company can't go a press release without taking a shot at the industry or competitors. And their fanbase felates them so hard it's a wonder they haven't choked to death already, so it's just fun to watch the mental gymnastics some people go through to keep a company on a pedestal it didn't even try to be on in the first place. 

 

While not in anyway defending some of Bioware's shady marketing, which at times was a bit odd, even all of those were ultimately about thier own games and wasn't trying to attract attention by saying that they were something morally better than the other companies while constantly feeding the image that people were being screwed over by the other companies at a time when the attacks on it were at their worst. I always just felt their behaviour wasn't just rude, it was unprofessional as hell and actively made things difficult for other companies.

 

So their backtracking with the season pass is for me a lot worse than the claims about ME3 endings, which were really bizarre even if I didn't have as a big of a conceptual problem with the endings. What their doing with the season pass is fiscally sensible, but after making difficult for everyone for actually asking money for their work, for them to now do it is one of the most blatant acts of hypocricy I've seen in a while.

[durengo]

I'm fairly certain before even DAI was released that BioWare stated they weren't going to have any expansions such as Awakening. They are going more of the Mass Effect route with shorter experiences, but more frequent DLC as a result. Personally, I hate DLC/add-on content that barely adds to the experience and costs $14.99 each. I'm looking at virtually all of the Mass Effect DLC, of which only a few were noteworthy (Shadow Broker and Citadel in particular).

 

I understand it's probably because of EA and restricted funds that BioWare is going the short and more frequent DLC route. However, in my opinion, it's a waste of the customer's money and a waste of BioWare's efforts and time. Awakening was absolutely amazing. Yes, expansions take more time and they are more costly for development, but it is worth it. You cannot tell me BioWare did not make a vast amount of money off of Awakening. It was universally loved by everyone.

 

So why not give gamers what we really want? CDPR is probably the best developer in the industry because of how gamer-friendly they are today. Not only are we receiving 16 free DLC/add-ons over the course of the game's life, but CDPR is making two expansions at the normal price of most season passes, and we are getting much more bang for our buck.

 

Even BGS admitted that small DLC updates compared to expansions ultimately didn't work. Bloodmoon, Tribunal, Shivering Isles, and Dragonborn were exceptional, while all of the many DLC/add-ons in Fallout 3 are forgettable and I can't even name one. As a longtime BioWare fan since the original KotOR, I encourage you to truly give the fans what they want to remain relevant. TW3 is easily looking like it could be game of the year, and had it been finished in 2014, I think it probably could have beaten DAI as it currently stands.

 

You make amazing games BioWare, and I truly believe Mass Effect is one of the greatest trilogy of games ever made, but you've got to step it up. I honestly have zero interest in the DAI DLC you released and I might pick it up at some point if it goes on sale. That's not the kind of response you should be getting from some of your fans. We should WANT to buy your DLC. Not be indifferent to it.

I love the Witcher Games but to be fair.....

CDPR is not much more gamer-friendly then Bioware.

 

The first statement from CDPR (weeks and months ago) was that all DLCs and all Expansions for the Witcher Wild Hunt would be free.But now they say that only 16 DLCs are free (maybe we can get more then 16 but only 16 are for free) and the 2 Expansions must be bought with the Season Pass.Maybe we get more Expansions as only the  2 but for sure they must be bought too.

 

I have no problem with that  but i hear already the critics.

 

And about the Content of the Witcher Wild Hunt: We get a big free World like in DAI.But the World from The Witcher Wild Hunt will be larger.That means that the Player must walk (Ride) long ways into a empty wilderness and we get many Quests from a Bulletin Board into different villages.

 

Again... i have no Problem with all that.. i love the Witcher .. i buy it .. i play it  ...but i doubt that all the ones they was unhappy with DAI will find a better fate in the Witcher Wild Hunt.