454 réponses à ce sujet

[Mallissin]

A DLC that's only an hour and a half? It better not cost more than a few bucks. Even $5 seems like too much.



Does this mean Hammerhead won't be free either? That's suppose to be more than an hour and a half, right?

[Ecael]

Ramikadyc wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Ramikadyc wrote...

Ecael wrote...

Ramikadyc wrote...

Isn't it more likely that Kasumi's lines were recorded at the same time as everyone elses? That makes the most sense--if you have the actress who you want to do the voice of Kasumi already recording lines for the game, why not let her record Kasumi's lines at the same time? Packaging it on the game discs before shipping makes the DLC so much smaller to download when it's finally finished.

Regardless, everything that is currently on the disc that people are claiming is "half the DLC" is only dialogue, with a random placeholder model. This is not half of the content. You can call it "half" or "the majority" or "most of it" all you want, it does not make it so.

How much would you say Return to Ostagar had in terms of original content, considering almost everything was recycled aside from Cailan's body and the limited voice acting?

Here, we have the opposite. Of course they would voice Kasumi along with the others, but unless her loyalty mission involves some novel theme like a royal palace in the middle of space, I doubt we're even going to be downloading more than half the content to enable it - because, like you said, they want a smaller download.

For all we know, the actual character and mission could already been in the files, but hidden. We'll have to see by the file size when the DLC comes out.

Arguing that using the same textures and enemy types that are in the game files isn't a fair argument. That's like me saying that players who play classes who mainly use SMGs are getting 50+ hours of new content from this DLC depending on how often they use the new SMG. Same for the new ability. If you're going to accept one way of thinking, you have to accept the other, because it's the same exact thing.

We'd expect a new mission from DLC to have a different feel and look, but at the same time we expect a new SMG to behave just like the other SMGs. Same with abilities - there's nothing drastically different from what a flashbang will do compared to some other abilities.

A new SMG is not necessary to 'complete the entire game', whereas a complete game will now comprise all missions including that new loyalty mission. People will judge the amount of content they get in terms of playtime gained; new weapons do not add to that time played.

So how do recycled textures and enemies detract from time played, which ultimately determines the amount of content we're getting, then?

I figured I'd get caught up if the quote pyramid became long enough.

I'll have to pause and backtrack a little to answer this one.

Yes, you're right, recycled textures and enemies don't add or subtract from the time played. However -- and this may be a stretch -- you do have to consider that all the dialogue in general (that most of us have never heard of) is inserted into every facet of all the missions we do through the entire game. Sure, it's generic dialogue a lot of the time (like SMGs as weapons), but judging from what I've heard so far, it's still more unique that most of the characters here.

My next playthrough will have Kasumi in my squad the entire game, but I doubt I'll be using the SMG (it'll probably be a Soldier, since it's easiest on Insanity).

[Ramikadyc]

Yeah, I'm killing the pyramid here...

The only point I'm trying to make is that it's a stretch for anyone to believe that half of the content they're getting is already on the disc. If the argument is that half the content includes enemy types and textures, then that would be closer to being correct, but using that argument opens up the door for a counterpoint in which another person claims that using new weapons and squadmates for alternate strategies should also contribute to the amount of content being added if we're saying that unique content is being detracted because of recycling.

The story, the setting, and the weapon and skill make up the majority of what this content is. The level design may use the same textures and enemies we've all seen before, but it's being crafted to be unique in how the player experiences it, just like the same bricks and concrete that are used to make an office building might also have been used to build the two-bedroom house next door--it's not the same structure just because it's made from the same materials.

[Weskerr]

I need more information before deciding. The price does matter to me. If it's a rip-off I won't buy it. I'm also greatly disappointed that she does not have two-way dialogue with you - as I was with Zaeed. Just because it's been done with a previous character doesn't mean it's a good idea to do the same with a new character. Learn from your mistakes - don't continue to perpetrate them.

[Ecael]

Ramikadyc wrote...

Yeah, I'm killing the pyramid here...

The only point I'm trying to make is that it's a stretch for anyone to believe that half of the content they're getting is already on the disc. If the argument is that half the content includes enemy types and textures, then that would be closer to being correct, but using that argument opens up the door for a counterpoint in which another person claims that using new weapons and squadmates for alternate strategies should also contribute to the amount of content being added if we're saying that unique content is being detracted because of recycling.

The story, the setting, and the weapon and skill make up the majority of what this content is. The level design may use the same textures and enemies we've all seen before, but it's being crafted to be unique in how the player experiences it, just like the same bricks and concrete that are used to make an office building might also have been used to build the two-bedroom house next door--it's not the same structure just because it's made from the same materials.

I'll concede that point to you (although I hate house analogies just as much as car analogies!)

I'm just worried we'll be paying for another Return to Ostagar.

[foolish replica]

hmm...i reserve all judgments (as i think everyone should) until this content is" in my hands" so to speak. if i find that said content is "lacking" or not worth its price tag, then AND ONLY then will i join you in raging at bioware...just my opinion.

Modifié par foolish replica, 12 mars 2010 - 02:41 .

[Ramikadyc]

Ecael wrote...

Ramikadyc wrote...

Yeah, I'm killing the pyramid here...

The only point I'm trying to make is that it's a stretch for anyone to believe that half of the content they're getting is already on the disc. If the argument is that half the content includes enemy types and textures, then that would be closer to being correct, but using that argument opens up the door for a counterpoint in which another person claims that using new weapons and squadmates for alternate strategies should also contribute to the amount of content being added if we're saying that unique content is being detracted because of recycling.

The story, the setting, and the weapon and skill make up the majority of what this content is. The level design may use the same textures and enemies we've all seen before, but it's being crafted to be unique in how the player experiences it, just like the same bricks and concrete that are used to make an office building might also have been used to build the two-bedroom house next door--it's not the same structure just because it's made from the same materials.

I'll concede that point to you (although I hate house analogies just as much as car analogies!)

I'm just worried we'll be paying for another Return to Ostagar.

I think it'll be more like The Stone Prisoner, myself. People seem pretty split about whether or not Shale was worth it--some argued the only unique content was the recruiting, personal quest, and dialogue (which was still a lot in the broad scheme of how much dialogue there is) while others said Shale's party contributions over the full course of the game was part of the deal. I'll reserve judgment until I play it, personally. I'm not saying it will definitely be worth the money, since it might very well be mediocre, but I trust BioWare to provide quality for their flagship franchise, and I don't feel like it's worth writing it off as a money-grubbing afterthought given to us by the evil overlords at EA just yet.

[Ecael]

foolish replica wrote...

hmm...i reserve all judgments (as i think everyone should) until this content is" in my hands" so to speak. if i find that said content is "lacking" or not worth its price tag, then AND ONLY then will i join you in raging at bioware...just my opinion.

As stated before in previous posts, it's not so much how good or bad the content is, it's the fact that she's supposed to complete the dirty dozen that BioWare has talked about. Also, we essentially have to pay for it when all the dialogue's already in game.

I wouldn't have a problem with charging for DLC after Kasumi, because that seems to be the last DLC that was originally meant for the game release date.

[shanghaied66]

Pricetag..... should be around tree-fiddy.

[Ecael]

Ramikadyc wrote...

I think it'll be more like The Stone Prisoner, myself. People seem pretty split about whether or not Shale was worth it--some argued the only unique content was the recruiting, personal quest, and dialogue (which was still a lot in the broad scheme of how much dialogue there is) while others said Shale's party contributions over the full course of the game was part of the deal. I'll reserve judgment until I play it, personally. I'm not saying it will definitely be worth the money, since it might very well be mediocre, but I trust BioWare to provide quality for their flagship franchise, and I don't feel like it's worth writing it off as a money-grubbing afterthought given to us by the evil overlords at EA just yet.

If Kasumi's content is similar to The Stone Prisoner, then I just might be satisfied in paying $5 for it.

Although it would be nice if Zaeed/Kasumi had actual recruitment missions...

[rpgchuck]

The Angry One wrote...

ChampDude wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Paid? What? What?

Paid content for something that's half-already in the game?
Screw you EA.

You had to figure the price tags would start being handed out eventually <_<

I had hoped that they'd only do so with content they didn't cut from the game at least.

I love the assumption that she would have been in the game but for teh evil capitalism rearing its ever-ugly head.

You do realize that things are cut from games all the time because they aren't finished? And that chances are, if not for the DLC we would have never seen her?

Google the cut content from KOTOR II sometime. 

[sepir]

Where is the official announcement? All I see is the article saying there has been an official announcement, but no source link in the article.

[foolish replica]

i also think i should say this; doe's anybody remember zaeed's loyalty mission being an hour and a half long?
i'm just saying is all. in my honest opinion, seems kinda long for JUST a loyalty mission, you know? 

just my 2 cents...don't hurt me *cringes*

[Inferno Sock]

Damit, y is it going to cost? i meen realy, comon bioware, Cerberus network!

[skyferret]

Methinks I'll be paying for some map packs instead. I have plenty of humanoid females already.

[crimzontearz]

ok then

this is not evena question of paid DLC vs free DLC or the impact this will have on the fanbase, this is purely an issue of what is ethical against what is uneathical.

let me elaborate here for a moment.

we ALL know that it is totally in Bioware's/EA's rights to rip content from a game and sell it after as DLC, we ALL know Bioware is a great developing team, we ALL know of their track records and faux pas in the past and we ALL know that is is now commonplace for developing companies to nickle and dime the consumers all the time.....

and lastly we ALL know that there always will be  the bioware worshippers ready to bend over and take it like good little ****es regardless of the magnitude of the rip-off who will defend bioware at all cost and there always will be the whiners who will never be appeased by anything 

the core of this conversation has nothing to do about this at all

no

this revolves around two other concepts, Budgeting and return of investment.......and of course the ethics of the balance between the two


- now, let us say EA sets a total budget of 65.000.000 $ to make the retail version of ME2,
- the pricetag of 60$ of the game is supposed to, through volume of sales, return the investment  with a margin of profit for all the resources poured in the developement of all features of the game
- the developing team comes in on budget (exactly on budget for sake of argument)

from here  a few things can happen

- the publishers (EA) decide that X number of features will be witheld from the game to be released on day one gratis to those who buy a new game and paid for those who buy it second hand.......this is ethically sound, it is a way to prevent losses caused by second hand sales, you pay nothing for them for the pricetag of 60$ is supposed to cover the resources spent to make such features.

-The publishers (again EA) decides to withold X features from the game and sell them after as separate DLC..not for free.....sometimes these features are ALREADY in the game you bought and all you do is pay for an activation code. This is not as sound Ethically...the pricetag of 60$ already covered those features, that is an underhanded way to try and milk the customer and have a higher margin of profit, plain and simple. is it legal? of course it is.......is it ethical...no, not really.




Bioware in the past has stated to have two different teams on two different budgets to create DLC (do not ask them about this budget since they will only get mad...not sure why).
If that was true then ALL major DLC packs coming out (aside for the day one small things meant to prevent resale) are made on a totally different budget and therefore they need another influx of money to make a return of investment and a profit .
That DLC SHOULD NOT be free as the 60$  pricetag of the game was not ment to cover it and id not paying for the resources put into it....it is totally ethical, it promotes day one DLC of features that would never make it through the ever so rigid QA hoops that Microsoft puts in place (hence why some DLC comes out on day one....developers puit a DLC team at work BEFORE the game is released so they may release extra features that would never make the feature lock QA deadline) and it means more content for everyone........

in this scenario EVERYONE WINS and everyone is understandably happy if they are educated on this sort of procedures which sadly they are not because developing teams, including bioware, seem to be very touchy about it


the problem here is that there is proof that at least PART of Kasumi  was already in the game, all her idle talk VA is there, the suicide run VA is there, the interface and skills are there, there is even a placeholder model so we KNOW something is not completely Kosher about this situation....

what is ethical and what is not about this? Since we do not know exactly what happened we cannot say but I would have absolutely NO PROBLEM paying for KAsumi if she was made 100% on the DLC budget and of course the opposite is true as well, I'd be mighty pissed if I knew she was basically ripped from the game to be sold later...but what if, like Shale in DAO, she was made partly under one budget, then cut for complications, then re created as DLC? Black and White blend in  shades of grey and quoting Garrus....."Grey...I don't know what to do with grey"

an explanation would be appreciated but I am pretty sure we will not get one because , say it with me, Bioware never owes us anything........ever......at least this is what the uber bioware fans always say.

[Maera Imrov]

Well, for me, the Normandy is already crowded. It's not that I care to pay for it (I don't) but rather, I don't see a reason to, as I really don't care about her, or having yet another person I'll likely not use much. I mostly only drag Legion, Grunt, Garrus, and Thane out of the box as is.



Only thing that would really induce me to buy her would be her having some bearing on Thane-cure.

[adriano_c]

Since this sub-forum has a bit higher traffic...

A link to the thread in the general discussion forum regarding what you would be willing to pay for the 'Kasumi DLC' -

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/1682903/1#1683046

or, vote in the poll directly -

social.bioware.com/573503/polls/3210/

Just thought it'd be interesting to see what other people thought!

[Gamine]

I doubt I'll be getting it, but it's hard to be TOO upset given all the free stuff they gave us.

...unless that was all just to butter us up.

[Cascadus]

KillaKow wrote...
And as for Actiblizzard and Ubisoft... do you have any actuall proof of how they are more greedy? Last I checked Actiblizzard was making such rediculous ammonuts of money off of MW2 and WOW that they don't even have to make more than one game a year anymore. And what's with Ubisoft being greedy? They're the least greedy of the bunch; their DLCs are usually the most fair priced.

Typical fanboy attitude. You're so focused on EA, you're blind to the real threat.

And as for proof? Oh, I'm going to have fun with this... first, Infinity Ward makes Activision millions and turns out the most successful game in gaming history. Activision then proceeds to refuse to pay IW royalties and fires two of IW's heads for 'insubordination' and let's not forget all the complete idiocy surrounding MW2 previous to release, where Activision hiked the game's price for the PC by TEN DOLLARS for NO REASON.

Likewise with the British version of MW2, where they hiked the price up £15.00 again, for no reason other than the fact they knew they could get away with it. Not to mention the fact that Activision has NUMEROUSLY made it clear they don't care about the consumer or the gaming scene in general. The company admits that they're only interested in IPs that can be 'exploited', Kotick then explains he would raise game prices higher if he could.

He also reaffirms his status as 'Satan' when he declared he wants to take the fun out of making games. Finally, let's not forget they're exploiting and whoring franchises out at this point they're making EA make small time. Let's keep something in mind, Guitar Hero has been around since 2005 and they already have SEVEN of them, NOT including DJ Hero and all that other crap.

Modifié par Cascadus, 12 mars 2010 - 04:16 .

[Crossofthorns]

ConVito wrote...

Dammit Bioware! I thought you were all about the fans! Now you spring this on us, a character that was already in game but you cut before release so you could sell it later and make more cash. If BW really cares about its fans, Kasumi will be on Cerberus network and be free just like the Hammerhead.

Maybe Hammerhead will not be free anymore

[atheelogos]

ChampDude wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Paid? What? What?

Paid content for something that's half-already in the game?
Screw you EA.

You had to figure the price tags would start being handed out eventually <_<

I know right. It couldn't be free forever.

[ladyshara]

Art thieves and disguises? Sounds kind of cool. As long as she's got proper dialogue trees I'll be content.

[sepir]

KeeLoGee wrote...

... If anything, the Hammerhead DLC will give me an opportunity to try out the Arc Projector (I don't feel like starting a whole new game to figure out whether the new weapon is worth it or not).

This. Although I keep thinking about playing the infiltrator I started, but I played the game to death already and can't be bothered at the moment.