Why would continuing to cut content to work for last gen be so terrible? Was that not the basis on which the original game was advertised and sold? Why should it be changed now?
Many suggestions for reasons were provided for you already: Smaller dev team. Less money. Previous DLC not selling as it was expected. Technical difficulties. Witcher 3.
Why would continuing to cut content to work for last gen be so terrible? Was that not the basis on which the original game was advertised and sold? Why should it be changed now?
Because Developers hate cutting content, and this fanbase is already complaining about DAI lacking
I would rather they do the content they want to do than constantly keep cutting them because they're being held back even more
Well, that would have made more an awkwardly long marketing tag line:
"Buy Dragon Age Inquisition for PC\Xbox One\PS4\PS3\Xbox360! But we might discontinue DLC for the latter two down the line, possibly, at some point."
They aren't obliged to tell you about things that they don't even know will happen, regardless if they know it's possible. It was also possible they're DLC plans would get shut down if JoH didn't sell well enough, but they didn't mention that either.
So if it's not marketable, they should just hide it?
Seriously, that's what you're going with? "We couldn't tell you the truth, then you wouldn't have bought it!"
Like...yeah...exactly....
Because Developers hate cutting content, and this fanbase is already complaining about DAI lacking
I would rather they do the content they want to do than constantly keep cutting them because they're being held back even more
And I'd rather they supported the game for everyone who paid for it.
Some fans are angry it wasn't a true next gen experience. Some fans were really grateful it was available on old gen.
When you get down to it, most of those reasons are "because we want shiny things!" which is fine. Shiny things are great. But less great when they are at someone else's expense.
My point is that we aren't talking about a truth Bioware hid, we're talking about something that they might have known was a possibility, but almost definitely wasn't something nailed down.So if it's not marketable, they should just hide it?
Seriously, that's what you're going with? "We couldn't tell you the truth, then you wouldn't have bought it!"
Like...yeah...exactly....
They didn't paint it that way, but we know it would've
You're still misinterpreting what I said. I'm not arguing that they said oldgen limited them. I'm arguing that they never painted DA:I as having more features (features, not graphics) on newgen. And that's basically exactly how it turned out. Yes, oldgen limited them, but it limited them on newgen too. That's bad, yes, but it means the game is almost the same on all platforms.
When you get down to it, most of those reasons are "because we want shiny things!" which is fine. Shiny things are great. But less great when they are at someone else's expense.
That argument hits both sides equally - you can't argue that "current-gen platform users want more shiny things at someone else's expense" when developing version for old-gens ALSO comes with a cost others have to pay for.
You're still misinterpreting what I said. I'm not arguing that they said oldgen limited them. I'm arguing that they never painted DA:I as having more features (features, not graphics) on newgen. And that's basically exactly how it turned out. Yes, oldgen limited them, but it limited them on newgen too. That's bad, yes, but it means the game is almost the same on all platforms.
Some of the cut features wasn't limited on new gen, that's what I was getting at
They got cut because last gen could handle it
Why would continuing to cut content to work for last gen be so terrible? Was that not the basis on which the original game was advertised and sold? Why should it be changed now?
That's my view. They should stick to their guns. They should have not released the game for oldgen. But they did. So scale the DLC to make it available to all and abandon oldgen for the next game. Doing it halfway through like this is just wrong. It's really simple.
I love awesome content. Who doesn't? But I didn't ask for it at the expense of others. And that's assuming the next DLC is content that only newgen could run. That remains to be seen, but if they're not releasing item packs for oldgen anymore, I'm less than optimistic that's the reason 
Some of the cut features wasn't limited on new gen, that's what I was getting at
They got cut because last gen could handle it
I think we're going in circles. Which content are you referring to?
Are you really going with the idea that they should have lead with a vague possibility that may or may not happen? That's unreasonable.
I don't think that "Last gen consoles are soooo limited that their hands were completely tied and they had no choice if they wanted to release any sort of meaningful content!" and "they had no way to know this was anything more than a vague possibility!" make sense as part of the same argument. It's self-contradictory.
Either they chose this option with other viable options open, or they had no other options and didn't choose to disclose that fact.
It's not like the technical limitations of old gen consoles have changed drastically in the last eight months or something.
I don't think that "Last gen consoles are soooo limited that their hands were completely tied and they had no choice if they wanted to release any sort of meaningful content!" and "they had no way to know this was anything more than a vague possibility!" make sense as part of the same argument. It's self-contradictory.
Either they chose this option with other viable options open, or they had no other options and didn't choose to disclose that fact.
It's not like the technical limitations of old gen consoles have changed drastically in the last eight months or something.
No, but the expectation for quality of delivered product did, especially after Witcher 3 hit the stores and all the new features and goodies in new Fallout 4 saw light of the day.
Are you really going with the idea that they should have lead with a vague possibility that may or may not happen? That's unreasonable.
As is expecting a company policy that ultimately takes advantage of consumers' goodwill to meet no friction along the way.
Its only contradictory if you believe they knew all the details of their DLC long before developing them. We're talking about a game that released last year. It was a vague possibility then. It became certain when they started to dig into the new DLC plans in the past five-6 months probably. There is no contradiction.I don't think that "Last gen consoles are soooo limited that their hands were completely tied and they had no choice if they wanted to release any sort of meaningful content!" and "they had no way to know this was anything more than a vague possibility!" make sense as part of the same argument. It's self-contradictory.
Either they chose this option with other viable options open, or they had no other options and didn't choose to disclose that fact.
It's not like the technical limitations of old gen consoles have changed drastically in the last eight months or something.
What goodwill?As is expecting a company policy that ultimately takes advantage of consumers' goodwill to meet no friction along the way.
I think we're going in circles. Which content are you referring to?
The keep feature in the Crestwood demo was cut and it's entirely possibly that some of it was gonna play a part in the story, the idea of giving companions mount was dropped because of last-gen, the lack of NPCs showing up in areas or things like companions showing up in judgement scenes
The idea of having Skyhold attacked wasn't even considered because it probably would've destroyed past gen
My point is that we aren't talking about a truth Bioware hid, we're talking about something that they might have known was a possibility, but almost definitely wasn't something nailed down.
Are you really going with the idea that they should have lead with a vague possibility that may or may not happen? That's unreasonable.
Well your first point was that you thought it would have made for awkward marketing. That struck me as a really weird tack to take if you wanted to defend this.
But the other thing - this notion that because BioWare hadn't yet decided to ditch last gen when they sold the game, they are not responsible for misleading people when they bought the game - I cannot agree with.
No, I do not think that they should have disclosed, back in October 2014, that they might have to abandon old gen support for DLC if that was not something they had discussed.
But I do think, when they discussed doing that, one of the things they should have taken into consideration was the situation they would be creating: a situation where people bought the game were now stuck with an inferior product. And one that was not advertised to them as such.
They created a situation where people unknowingly bought a game with lesser potential content and support. Regardless of whether they created that situation before launch or six months after it, when they created that situation, they were fully aware that they were doing it.
Personally, I think they shouldn't have done it if it meant nerfing some of their customers products. If it was unavoidable it most definitely should have been reason for some level of compensation - for instance a free copy of DAI on upgrade. And there is absolutely no question that it warranted a clearer explanation and a less gleeful tone than the weird announcement we got.
That as much as anything, is what has me so upset. If they had been willing to discuss their reasons, to be sympathetic to the situation many find themselves in, then I'd be a lot more willing to at least hear them out, you know?
But I find their dismissive attitude...telling. And it absolutely affects my willingness to extend the benefit of the doubt.
This entire thread simply reinforces the following:
Yeah, we may get the itch to drop another couple hundred into more RAM, or an SSD, or a better graphics card from time-to-time because a new/updated game can take advantage of, or even might require it.
And because we can! 
That argument hits both sides equally - you can't argue that "current-gen platform users want more shiny things at someone else's expense" when developing version for old-gens ALSO comes with a cost others have to pay for.
But one of these things was true from the outset, when we all made conscious decisions to spend money on the game, while the other was not, and happened after money was spent.
Next gen players knew they were buying a limited game. Last gen players didn't know they were buying a nerfed version of the game.
Its only contradictory if you believe they knew all the details of their DLC long before developing. We're talking about a game that released last year. It was a vague possibility then. It became certain when they started to dig into the new DLC plans in the past five-6 months probably. There is no contradiction.
But they were the ones making the plans! It's not something they just... stumbled upon, or something.
Working within your technical limitations is just part of game design. The available technology doesn't always accommodate everything a developer thinks would be really awesome.
If they weren't prepared to work within the technical limitations of old gen, that would have been fine. They chose to take our money, though.
No, but the expectation for quality of delivered product did, especially after Witcher 3 hit the stores and all the new features and goodies in new Fallout 4 saw light of the day.
There's two issues here. First, your game is already out. Regardless of how good the DLC is, the odds that it's judged against the 100+ hour core game and found to be so far superior is low. Even if it's people's last taste of DA for a while, it's not going to have a massive impact (see Witch Hunt, after Awakening).
Second, you're alienating members of your fanbase, even those not on last-gen, so any goodwill won via releasing awesome DLC has to overcome that chunk of the fanbase that feels alienated.
But one of these things was true from the outset, when we all made conscious decisions to spend money on the game, while the other was not, and happened after money was spent.
Next gen players knew they were buying a limited game. Last gen players didn't know they were buying a nerfed version of the game.
Ummm if your referring to the base game, yes they did
What goodwill?
Buying a game with the expectation of continued content support rather than it being cut off halfway through.
The keep feature in the Crestwood demo was cut and it's entirely possibly that some of it was gonna play a part in the story, the idea of giving companions mount was dropped because of last-gen, the lack of NPCs showing up in areas or things like companions showing up in judgement scenes
The idea of having Skyhold attacked wasn't even considered because it probably would've destroyed past gen
Alright, I wanted to see if we were on the same page. I agree that that was cut because of oldgen, and I agree that it's bad and they should have released it on newgen only. My point was simply that the game was always marketed as having the same features (besides graphics) on all platforms. Even if something was cut because of oldgen, everyone was still getting the same product. That's all.
Alright, I wanted to see if we were on the same page. I agree that that was cut because of oldgen, and I agree that it's bad and they should have released it on newgen only. My point was simply that the game was always marketed as having the same features (besides graphics) on all platforms. Even if something was cut because of oldgen, everyone was still getting the same product. That's all.
Ah ok
Retour en haut