196 réponses à ce sujet

[London]

Thanks Zatche for th suggestions. I haven't thought of looking for deals on some of these sites.

[kimgoold]

Nothing you can't buy individually.

Cheers

[akbogert]

Wow, this conversation has gone all over the place.

 

Seeing "season passes" both lauded and vilified, I do think an important distinction should be made. Someone a few pages back described season passes as financing development of DLC, effectively preordering it. This would be true if not for the fact that many season passes never expire, and can be purchased even after all the DLC has been released. That makes most season passes precisely what OP is talking about: a discounted bundle, a break in what you pay when you are willing to buy all of the game's extra content. Some companies offer limited discounts on that pass, which is the only place where the real "preordering/financing" argument holds: the people who get the best discount also do not have the benefit of waiting to see what comes out and how good it is.

 

I bought DA:I at the end of August and have been enjoying it quite a bit, but I too fall in the boat of people who can't personally justify the cost of the DLC. Since the GOTY version is a retail product, it will go down in price in a way that the DLC evidently never will (heck, even on Black Friday or Cyber Monday you can probably get a decent deal on it). So right now, as an owner of the game, I can pay $55 to individually buy the DLC, or $60 to get the GOTY edition with all of that content. It won't be long before I can get that edition for $40, and (in a year or so) probably $30. And when the GOTY edition is $30, the DLC will still all cost $55. I think pointing out that this is odd is perfectly justified.

 

So I bought the game not terribly long before the GOTY edition was announced (and could've bought it even closer to then). For me, having to effectively pay for the game twice in order to have the same content as someone who buys the GOTY today can't be justified on the basis of all that extra time I had to play it. It's one thing to say that to a person who got the game when it came out and has actually been playing for a year -- call it an "early access surcharge." But the closer you get to GOTY release, the less viable an argument that really is. Do you expect me to agree that those two months between when I got it and when the GOTY version came out were worth an extra $50?

 

It's not about entitlement. I bought the game, and am fine having paid what I did for it. What I'm feeling -- and what at least some other people here seem also to be feeling -- is that a pricing model like this disincentivizes DLC purchases for many people who support the game earlier on. With a season pass at, say, $30 (which I've seen for Assassin's Creed, Borderlands, and Bioshock games), I'd happily have paid $90 between the original game and its DLC. Instead, given the choice between buying list price DLC on top of my main game (and having to spend over $100 total) or skipping the DLC entirely, I opt for the latter. Especially with a GOTY edition to underscore how expensive the DLC is for anyone who didn't wait a year to play. Others feel this way too, and feel compelled to explain their reasoning. Can't begrudge us that. 

 

Now since I got the game so long after its release, I can't personally feel "entitled" to anything, but I think there is something to be said for a loyalty argument. The fact that people who support the game the earliest (preordering it or buying it at launch), and whose purchases effectively finance DLC development, end up being the people who have to pay the most to experience everything -- while the people who wait until a year later get the cheapest price, effectively no wait on the last DLC, and the benefit of most major bugs and glitches having already been patched -- seems wrong to me, even if I can't properly identify what makes it wrong.

 

Forget "ought" or "should" here. I just want to know, if the only thing you "get" for supporting the game from the very beginning is not having to wait, is that actually worth $55? And if you say yes, can you at least understand why someone would say no?

[AlanC9]

Since the GOTY version is a retail product, it will go down in price in a way that the DLC evidently never will (heck, even on Black Friday or Cyber Monday you can probably get a decent deal on it). So right now, as an owner of the game, I can pay $55 to individually buy the DLC, or $60 to get the GOTY edition with all of that content. It won't be long before I can get that edition for $40, and (in a year or so) probably $30. And when the GOTY edition is $30, the DLC will still all cost $55. I think pointing out that this is odd is perfectly justified.

Note that Amazon already had a GOTY sale at $40. They might have been accidentally jumping the gun on a Black Friday sale, perhaps. Anyway, it only lasted a week, but it'll come back soon enough, although my bet is that EA will run the next sale themselves.

As for "odd," I don't think anybody's objected to calling it odd. Trading off immediate revenue for long-term revenue is odd.

What I'm feeling -- and what at least some other people here seem also to be feeling -- is that a pricing model like this disincentivizes DLC purchases for many people who support the game earlier on. With a season pass at, say, $30 (which I've seen for Assassin's Creed, Borderlands, and Bioshock games), I'd happily have paid $90 between the original game and its DLC. Instead, given the choice between buying list price DLC on top of my main game (and having to spend over $100 total) or skipping the DLC entirely, I opt for the latter. Especially with a GOTY edition to underscore how expensive the DLC is for anyone who didn't wait a year to play. Others feel this way too, and feel compelled to explain their reasoning. Can't begrudge us that.

I'm pretty sure the logic of the strategy is that most players who didn't buy the DLC at list before now weren't going to buy it at list in the future either. Disincentivizing isn't an issue for something you don't think is going to happen anyway. Obviously there will be a handful of latecomers who would have bought the DLC at list without the GOTY who won't buy it now, but enough to care about?

EA wants to sell DLCs at list. They don't want to train players to wait for the sale. If DLCs aren't worth it at list for you, then you just don't buy DLC.
 

Now since I got the game so long after its release, I can't personally feel "entitled" to anything, but I think there is something to be said for a loyalty argument. The fact that people who support the game the earliest (preordering it or buying it at launch), and whose purchases effectively finance DLC development, end up being the people who have to pay the most to experience everything -- while the people who wait until a year later get the cheapest price, effectively no wait on the last DLC, and the benefit of most major bugs and glitches having already been patched -- seems wrong to me, even if I can't properly identify what makes it wrong.

How is this different from games without DLC? You can get Skyrim fully patched, and with years of modder work, for $5.

Forget "ought" or "should" here. I just want to know, if the only thing you "get" for supporting the game from the very beginning is not having to wait, is that actually worth $55? And if you say yes, can you at least understand why someone would say no?

That's a little odd. Did anybody not understand that you might want to say no? All I ever say was people saying that if you don't want to buy something, don't buy it.

[akbogert]

As for "odd," I don't think anybody's objected to calling it odd. Trading off immediate revenue for long-term revenue is odd.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here.

 

 

I'm pretty sure the logic of the strategy is that most players who didn't buy the DLC at list before now weren't going to buy it at list in the future either. Disincentivizing isn't an issue for something you don't think is going to happen anyway. Obviously there will be a handful of latecomers who would have bought the DLC at list without the GOTY who won't buy it now, but enough to care about?

EA wants to sell DLCs at list. They don't want to train players to wait for the sale. If DLCs aren't worth it at list for you, then you just don't buy DLC.

 

Are you agreeing with me here? Both of us seem to be saying that failure to offer DLC below list price keeps people from buying DLC. 

 

You're probably right that someone who didn't pay list early won't want to pay list later. But that underscores my point: people who wouldn't buy the DLC at list might have bought it at a discount. Instead they're buying nothing. Company therefore loses money it could've made. "Training players to wait for the sale" is the way pretty much all retail gaming has existed for decades. If anything, refusing to ever discount DLC is introducing a new practice to game commerce, trying to train gamers to forget about the concept of depreciation over time (which, good luck, since it's still the norm for every other product, including retail games). EA doesn't train players to wait for sales. Players know to wait for sales. They're trying to train players not to, and a degree (however small) of backlash is the unsurprising result. 

 

How is this different from games without DLC? You can get Skyrim fully patched, and with years of modder work, for $5.

 

This is different from games without DLC because of price and content. If people paid $120 for an unpatched game which was then fixed and sold for $60 a year later, I imagine there'd be similar frustration. (Modding is a nonissue for the many people who play games on consoles)

 

 

That's a little odd. Did anybody not understand that you might want to say no? All I ever say was people saying that if you don't want to buy something, don't buy it.

 

"If you don't want it, don't buy it" really entirely misses the substance of the argument. So if it's all people are saying, that implies they aren't understanding the people they are disagreeing with. 

 

It's possible that, when boiled down, everyone who defends the current pricing strategy truly believes that it is reasonable to pay $55 for the sole benefit of playing the game earlier than other people; if so, can't argue with that -- we all place value differently.

 

The other part of the dissatisfaction I see here is the belief that loyalty is not only taken for granted, but (if you don't value the above "early access" at effectively double MSRP) loyalty is actually punished. With the sole exception of playing after other people, people who wait for the GOTY edition get the absolute best experience and value. The angrier (and, let's use the dirty word) entitled folks are, at core, saying they believe that a company ought to try to secure the best experience for its most devoted and supportive players. It's not purely an economic argument, so it cannot properly be responded to using pure economics.

 

At best, you achieve a stalemate: Person A believes the company ought to look out for its fans, Person B believes the company ought to look out for its bottom line. Anyone who believes these are mutually exclusive is mistaken at best, delusional at worst. Obviously there is disagreement over exactly where the line is, and I've tried to make a case for the fact that offering a discount or bundle on DLC for players who buy the game before the GOTY edition would both be serving loyalty and bring in money from the many people who will otherwise not buy DLC at all.

 

You can't speak for others here, of course, but which part of that do you personally take issue with? Obviously a bundle would reduce revenue from people who are willing to pay full price for everything -- is it that you believe that this loss in revenue would outweigh the new revenue from people buying bundles? Ignoring the spoils packs for a moment, let's say it's the difference between $45 for the three DLCs or $30 for a "season pass" bundle. For every one person who would have bought full, that's a loss of $15. For every one person who would not have bought full, but will buy bundle, that's a gain of $30. So for every two people who would have paid full, you need one person who wouldn't to break even. If you break even, you still come out ahead with the bundle because it benefits earlier players and generates some goodwill. Even if you don't quite break even, the goodwill does have a value. In order for bundling to actually be a bad call for the company, you need more than two people willing to pay full price for every one person unwilling to pay full price, and enough more to offset the goodwill. And that's why I feel that the absence of any kind of discount or bundle is conspicuous and (I said odd before) bad. 

 

Edit: To be clear, this is hardly just an EA or Bioware thing (though Bioware games are somewhat notoriously less likely to see their extra content discounted). And as I said in my earlier post, having come to the game later than others I'm not arguing for myself as much as "on principle." I've been the Day One buyer of a game who felt shafted by DLC pricing models before (it's why I've uninstalled Destiny, knowing the new version would actually be cheaper than buying the DLC for the game I already have). Whatever else this might be, it's not a guy who bought his first Bioware game a couple months ago complaining about how his loyalty has not been appreciated. 

[AlanC9]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

About trading off short-term revenue for long-term revenue? There are two effects from DLC sales. One is that you book a bunch of new revenue from people who don't think the DLCs are worth their list prices. (In my case 50% off would get me to buy Citadel, Trespasser, LotSB, and maybe Leviathan, 75% would get me to buy most of the story DLC, and at 95% I might look at item and appearance packs.) The second effect, though, is that for the next DLC cycle more players will skip buying at list and wait for the sale. So, short-term gain, long-term loss. (It's possible, of course, that EA's just wrong about the amounts of the two effects, and the profit-maximizing policy would be to have DLC sales.)

Are you agreeing with me here? Both of us seem to be saying that failure to offer DLC below list price keeps people from buying DLC.

Yes. Just not enough to matter.

I covered the next bit above-- they're trading more discounted sales for fewer full-price sales.

If people paid $120 for an unpatched game which was then fixed and sold for $60 a year later, I imagine there'd be similar frustration.

I don't see why the dollar amount matters.

"If you don't want it, don't buy it" really entirely misses the substance of the argument. So if it's all people are saying, that implies they aren't understanding the people they are disagreeing with.

So far, there is no substance.

It's possible that, when boiled down, everyone who defends the current pricing strategy truly believes that it is reasonable to pay $55 for the sole benefit of playing the game earlier than other people; if so, can't argue with that -- we all place value differently.

Why would the time other people get the game be of any interest whatsoever? Before me, after me, who the hell cares?

The point of buying at full price is not having to wait to play the game. That's all there is to it. And "the most devoted and supportive players" are the ones who don't wait. It's the less devoted and supportive players who need sale before they buy stuff.

As for me, I'm devoted, but not supportive; I haven't ever bought a Bio product at list, and it's unlikely that I ever shall.

Obviously a bundle would reduce revenue from people who are willing to pay full price for everything -- is it that you believe that this loss in revenue would outweigh the new revenue from people buying bundles?

What I think is not very useful. I don't have the data. EA does have the data, and EA thinks it's true.

[akbogert]

About trading off short-term revenue for long-term revenue? There are two effects from DLC sales. One is that you book a bunch of new revenue from people who don't think the DLCs are worth their list prices. (In my case 50% off would get me to buy Citadel, Trespasser, LotSB, and maybe Leviathan, 75% would get me to buy most of the story DLC, and at 95% I might look at item and appearance packs.) The second effect, though, is that for the next DLC cycle more players will skip buying at list and wait for the sale. So, short-term gain, long-term loss. (It's possible, of course, that EA's just wrong about the amounts of the two effects, and the profit-maximizing policy would be to have DLC sales.)
 

 

I'm not sure what happened there with the formatting, but this is the part that I caught as yours.

 

That makes sense, though I guess my point about norms and training (that people already are used to sales for most other games and things) covers my personal thoughts on the likelihood that it would do significant damage to their later sales. 

 

I could definitely be the odd man out, but my approach to this tends to be suck it up eventually and pay full price for the DLC for the game I already own, but wait for the GOTY edition of subsequent games from the company. It's the main reason I preordered Skyrim but am likely going to wait a year or so for the "full" Fallout 4.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, I had a botched copy-paste. It's corrected now.

FWIW, I think it's more likely than not that EA actually is wrong about the policy. But again, they've got data I don't have.

[akbogert]

Yeah, I had a botched copy-paste. It's corrected now.

FWIW, I think it's more likely than not that EA actually is wrong about the policy. But again, they've got data I don't have.

 

In part, sure. To some extent this is a debate over counterfactuals: they don't have data on the alternate universe in which they offer discounted DLC, so there's no way of knowing for sure whether the current approach or the alternative would actually be better in the long run. 

[Thandal N'Lyman]

Wow!  We had gone over a week without anyone pointlessly whinging that EA "owed" people a discount.

 

As I observed the last time this exact issue (regarding a different game) was debated by folk with ZERO access to any real data:

The ones making these sorts of decision read spreadsheets, not forums.

 

They are the ones who have multiple sources for their "what if" calculations.  They don't have to "debate counterfactuals".  They have the real information about what happens (to the bottom line) when they offer products with this-or-that bundle and/or this-or-that discount.  At the enterprise scale, they don't need to wonder.  And (deducing from their behaviour) that information seems to support a conclusion that EA continues to find it more profitable to offer NEW players a significant discount but not to do so with the individual DLC for those who already own the base game.

 

While others can spin any number of alternative scenarios to support other (apparently preferred) outcomes, the only ones with any hard numbers don't agree.  And they're the only ones who's interpretation of those numbers matters.

[akbogert]

Wow!  We had gone over a week without anyone pointlessly whinging that EA "owed" people a discount.

 

It's really only pointless if you don't acknowledge someone's points. And honestly, if the conversation annoys you so much maybe you should just scroll past it? Why participate in a discussion if your contribution is going to be dismissing the very act of conversing? Eight pages in, it seems at least a few people think there's a point.

 

Moreover, for what it's worth, most of what you said comes back to what I already argued against: there's more to video games than business, which means decisions made purely on the basis of the bottom line are not necessarily the best decisions. No spreadsheet can quantify the value of goodwill or loyalty, especially across years and franchises. Am I saying that this ephemeral thing is equal to business considerations? Not at all. Which is why earlier I pointed both to the business consideration of bundling (the need for a 2:1 or greater ratio between current buyers and new) and the non-economic (call it PR) value. 

 

If you agree with me that EA shouldn't make decisions purely on business, you could say that EA/Bioware have factored in the non-business things as well and still came to this decision. I don't think they weigh it as heavily as they should, but at least that's an understandable difference of opinion.

 

If you disagree, though (and I do see plenty of people who believe video games are nothing but business considerations), then you're quite right that this is pointless, because you and I (and, probably, people who agree with either of us) are drawing different conclusions based on different premises. Even then, I do think there's value in people expressing those divergent premises, but trying to win one side or the other over would indeed be futile. 

[Thandal N'Lyman]

The "pointlessly" was referring to the possibility of achieving the stated goal of getting EA to offer current owners of the base/deluxe/other edition of the game a discount on any DLC they don't currently have.  Or of convincing others to agree that they should. 

 

See the responses to the (almost) identical "$15 DLC Price Poll" topic in the [SPOILERS] forum.

Whingers gonna whinge...

[akbogert]

The "pointlessly" was in regards to the possibility of achieving the stated goal of getting EA to offer current owners of the base/deluxe/other edition of the game a discount on any DLC they don't currently have.  Or of convincing others to agree that they should. 

 

See the responses to the (almost) identical "$15 DLC Price Poll" topic in the [SPOILERS] forum.

Whingers gonna whinge...

 

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but I think the act of convincing others to agree that they should (which definitely is possible, depending on how much thought one has given to it and how firm one's stance on the issue) does have its own value, even if it's merely peace of mind. Solidarity with likeminded individuals, and the knowledge that there is a case to be made for what one believes (even if the case falls on mostly deaf ears) would be enough for me. 

 

And what with this trend growing in popularity (if Destiny is doing it, others are sure to follow), you're likely to see more conversations about this, because it's a decidedly anti-consumer approach to content, and that's going to upset people even if (when?) it becomes the norm. See also: Day One DLC, retailer exclusives, console exclusives, pay-to-win. Right now, retail still offers a bastion of hope for those looking to play extra content for lower prices (they simply have to wait for that GOTY version). But as the industry moves towards mostly (and perhaps eventually, completely) digital, whatever norms have been established for digital content will be the pricing model for all gaming content. EA is a major influence in this industry, and concern over the precedent its model sets is well warranted.

 

All to say: conversations like this are not only inevitable, but are likely to proliferate in the next few years across gaming communities. I totally understand a desire not to engage with those conversations, whether because you don't see the trend as problematic or because you see it as inevitable regardless of your personal feelings. That's completely valid. I'd just suggest (as I did earlier, but then less sincerely) that you don't bother to read/post in those conversations if you don't think doing so has a point. It does seem rather self-defeating to spend time engaging with that which you consider pointless. 

[Pallando]

 

Wow!  We had gone over a week without anyone pointlessly whinging that EA "owed" people a discount.

 

As I observed the last time this exact issue (regarding a different game) was debated by folk with ZERO access to any real data:

The ones making these sorts of decision read spreadsheets, not forums.

 

They are the ones who have multiple sources for their "what if" calculations.  They don't have to "debate counterfactuals".  They have the real information about what happens (to the bottom line) when they offer products with this-or-that bundle and/or this-or-that discount.  At the enterprise scale, they don't need to wonder.  And (deducing from their behaviour) that information seems to support a conclusion that EA continues to find it more profitable to offer NEW players a significant discount but not to do so with the individual DLC for those who already own the base game.

 

While others can spin any number of alternative scenarios to support other (apparently preferred) outcomes, the only ones with any hard numbers don't agree.  And they're the only ones who's interpretation of those numbers matters.

 

 

 

I'm not sure that "if they're doing it (with the data they have), then it's the best thing to do" is a great argument. 

EA's marketing is not omniscient, and the company is well-known for being responsible of bringing down studios, and failing at things (remember the SimCity debacle?).

 

It seems that usually, large companies like EA prefer short-term revenue over long-term benefits...

[AlanC9]

But that's the thing -- EA refusing to have DLC sales is the opposite of that. You get the increased sales money right now, in exchange for a long-term deterioration in the average price you can sell DLCs for.

In effect, the GOTY is an attempt to get some of the benefits of a sale without paying the long-term costs.

[Pallando]

But that's the thing -- EA refusing to have DLC sales is the opposite of that. You get the increased sales money right now, in exchange for a long-term deterioration in the average price you can sell DLCs for.

In effect, the GOTY is an attempt to get some of the benefits of a sale without paying the long-term costs.

 

I'm a bit tired these days...

 

Yes, it's true that on paper selling discounted DLCs to new players while keeping the full price for previous buyers seems like a way to broadly adjust the offer so that it should match the demand. However, as some people pointed out, the value of the game decreases as time passes by, and playing the game earlier justifies the higher price point at launch, and the lower price point 1 year later. The same could apply to DLCs. I'd even say that it applies more to DLCs. For two reasons:

1. People now see that the price of the game+DLCs has dropped. So if they wait 6 months from now, why would they pay the same price as what people pay today? If I have to wait to buy the DLC, the discount has to be really worth it...
    
2. More importantly, story DLCs tie into the game. As time goes by, players are less inclined to still play it, and less so to buy additional content. Why would anyone who bought the game last year buy Descent in 6 months? Odds are that many will play other games by then...

So by keeping a high price point for too long, I do think they're losing sales in the end. Because as time goes by, the value of DLCs decreases, faster than that of a full game...

I don't know if I'll still play DAI in 6 months, but if I do, I'd pay less to play Descent than what I'd pay today (I'd say 4-5€ next year against 8-10€ now).

 

Also, it could be about the incentive they give players to always wait for the GOTY, considering BioWare DLCs nearly never go on sales. I've only seen JoH discounted by 33%, but it never happened for DAO, DA2 or ME DLCs. 

EA could have done the same policy as with BF3 or BF4. Or what others did with Season Passes and such (Shadow of Mordor, Deus Ex Human Revolution Director's Cut discount, ...) in the past couple of years. Instead, they tell the players that you should definitely wait 1 year before buying the game if you want the whole experience for a reasonable price.

[akbogert]

Yeah, the failure of DLC to depreciate while retail games do is the part that sticks out like a sore thumb. And it worries me as retail gives way to an increasingly all-digital landscape. If full games go the way that this DLC is going with their prices, gaming is going to become a lot less viable an entertainment option for people like me.

 

Just as an addendum to this discussion of the DA:I DLC, which might be partly obscured by the recency of the release:

 

I haven't played Mass Effect. I want to. But there was a lot of DLC released across the trilogy. I want to play those games in their entirety, and the last one was released over three years ago. Getting the games themselves at a reasonable price is not hard. But the DLC isn't cheaper. And the idea of being charged, years after the fact, the same price as people on day one, is off-putting in the extreme. That would be true of every retail game -- if three years after release, it was still $60, people would call BS. And it's true of DLC. The cost of DLC is the reason I'm still not interested in buying the ME games today. I'm not saying that's common -- probably plenty of folks happily just bought the trilogy pack and didn't care about extras -- but I've read enough about the characters and missions in ME DLC to know I'd be really missing out without them. So I'm one lost sale because of the absence of a discount. This far out, I don't think reducing the price on this content would really be losing EA sales. I think if anything, there'd be no change, and in the few cases like mine it might actually incentivize buying something they've probably stopped expecting sales on.

[AlanC9]

Yeah, the failure of DLC to depreciate while retail games do is the part that sticks out like a sore thumb. And it worries me as retail gives way to an increasingly all-digital landscape. If full games go the way that this DLC is going with their prices, gaming is going to become a lot less viable an entertainment option for people like me.

That strikes me as unlikely. This looks to me like a standard razor-and-blades strategy, where the DLCs are providing all of the profits. And you csn't sell a blade to someone without a razor.
 
And I think you're making a serious mistake about ME. Though now that the DAI GOTY exists, I'm kind of wondering why there's no ME Ultimate Edition; surely the same strategy would apply to both franchises. Perhaps it's a deliberate pricing experiment?

[akbogert]

That strikes me as unlikely. This looks to me like a standard razor-and-blades strategy, where the DLCs are providing all of the profits. And you csn't sell a blade to someone without a razor.
 
And I think you're making a serious mistake about ME. Though now that the DAI GOTY exists, I'm kind of wondering why there's no ME Ultimate Edition; surely the same strategy would apply to both franchises. Perhaps it's a deliberate pricing experiment?

 

Not sure. When I saw the trilogy collection I almost bought it on the spot, until I did a bit of reading and realized it didn't come with DLC. It seems really weird. Pretty much every big franchise I can think of comes out with an ultimate edition at some point. It'd be less weird if there were "full" versions of the individual games, but there aren't. But I've looked over what comes with the games, and I've read discussions about the best/most important DLCs (esp. for ME2 and 3) and it looks like I'd have to still buy a lot.

 

Even if one buys the trilogy (presumably the most cost-effective way to get the base games), I believe the following are not included and must still be purchased:

For PS3

Arrival: $7

From Ashes: $10

Leviathan: $10

Omega: $15

Citadel: $15

TOTAL: $57

 

For 360

Bring Down the Sky: $1

Kasumi: $7

Overlord: $7

Lair of the Shadow Broker: $10

Arrival: $7

From Ashes: $10

Leviathan: $10

Omega: $15

Citadel: $15

TOTAL: $82

 

That's a lot of money to be paying for add-ons to games that are last-gen and years old (also, why such a raw deal for 360 owners?).

[DAOnut]

All DLC are now on sale (for the PC version) directly from the Origin/EA store!!  It seems to run about 1/3 off.  I have just purchased multiple copies for myself and family, for the continuing adventures of the Inquisitor.

 

This is most likely their black friday sales, but I thank all the supporters who tried to ask for a more reasonably priced dlc package.

(and an arrow in the dangle bag for the naysayers - haters are going to hate)

[AlanC9]

Looks like there's no sale on Bio points for ME DLCs. I guess this really is a pricing experiment.

@ akbogert: I was suggesting that you buy the games without DLC.

[akbogert]

All DLC are now on sale (for the PC version) directly from the Origin/EA store!!  It seems to run about 1/3 off.  I have just purchased multiple copies for myself and family, for the continuing adventures of the Inquisitor.

 

This is most likely their black friday sales, but I thank all the supporters who tried to ask for a more reasonably priced dlc package.

(and an arrow in the dangle bag for the naysayers - haters are going to hate)

 

Haven't heard any indication that EA will be bringing the holiday spirit to console gamers, have you?

 

 

Looks like there's no sale on Bio points for ME DLCs. I guess this really is a pricing experiment.

@ akbogert: I was suggesting that you buy the games without DLC.

 

Far too many people have said far too many good things about the DLC (LotSB and Citadel alone are almost always considered "essential").

 

If EA will not make their content affordable even years down the line and a console generation later, I will simply not be playing most of their games, regardless of how good they may be.