Dragon Age DLC

[Hurlshort]

Ok, I know we've bandied around the whole DLC issue in the other Dragon Age topics, and I know a third topic might be excessive, but this topic is less about the game and more about the bizarro sales pitch going on here.

 

For those not in the know, when you make camp in Dragon Age, you have a little place to talk to your companions, buy and sell gear, and craft. It works like the ships in KotOR and ME. You will also notice a guy concerned about his family. He offers you a quest. But before you think about accepting, he hits you with a sales pitch.

 

So in order to do this quest, you have to pay for it separately.

 

Now I'm not typically bothered by DLC. In fact I rarely bother with it, and I think it is a creative way to continue the development cycle of a game.

 

But what bothers me is the fact that Dragon Age has been out for less than a week, and they are already trying to peddle content. That means this was done when the game was done, and they withheld it to milk some more bucks out of the player, and then they put it front and center in the game. It isn't in some tucked away corner, it is staring you right in the face, saying "if you don't buy me, you aren't getting the full experience."

 

So I'm a bit perturbed, to say the least. I'm not someone who gets too wound up over video games, but this did push a button for me.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Hurlshot

[Volourn]

Not a big deal. They content isn't forced on you. You either want it, and pay for it. Or you don't. *shrug*

 

Mountain out of a molehill.

[Tigranes]

Yes Volourn. I did brush my teeth this morning, Volourn. I am studying hard, Volourn.

 

I generally see release-date DLCs as naked profiteering, yes, but I wasn't too bothered by integrating DLC purchases in-game; in fact it is convenient and if you'er giong to sell DLCs you might as well do it that way. I haven't encountered the 'in-game' salesman yet, though, so it remains to be seen just how obnoxious it is. Unless it is quite very obnoxious, I maintain that it's not the mode of delivery that's the problem, but just how making DLCs and selling them is *too* important.

[Slowtrain]

I don't think I've ever heard you this perturbed about a game, Hurlie. For you to talk like this is the equivalent of me running around screaming in outrage.

 

 

AS to your point, I think it stinks. (not your point, this proces of embedding dlc in a game, even as the game ships). But let's be honest, who's surprised. Game development and publishing is just a giant commercial endeavor aimed at getting whatever money it can from gamers, who, for the most part, aren't the most savy consumers on the planet. The technology now exists for this sort of exploitation so it's going to get used. eventually, I'm sure gamers will be paying for each new level and each new cool item as they go.

 

And they will. So the developers and publishers are probably doing the right thing.

[Volourn]

"I generally see release-date DLCs as naked profiteering, yes,"

 

They're selling video games. Of course, it's 'naked profiteering'. They're not doing it as a favor for us. They're doing it to make money. It's up to us as potential customers to decide if what they are selling is worth buying. I simply don't see the difference between them selling a game and DLC. And, this idea that it's a 'rip off' because the DLC - EXTRA content - happened to be finished at the same time (largely because of the delays) is soemhow horrible. And, selling it 'in game' is just good advertising since not every person who buys DA will hear about it otherwise sinc enot eveyrone posts online, and might have been just a 'buy in store' kind of thing so it works as solid advertising.

 

To clal it 'exploitation' is D R A M A for the sake of it. It's not exploitation. It's advertising. And,t here's absolutely nothing wrong with it and the moral outrage is simply laughable.

 

Not criminal. Not immoral. Just good, clean, harmless business.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Volourn

[Nihilus5078]

What the hell is this DLC issue all about? Just curious.

[Slowtrain]

I can't wait for the crpg where you go into the store to buy a +10 sword of head splitting and 10 healing potions and some armor from from the in game vendors and you actually pay real money directly to the pubisher to do so.

 

That day is coming.

[Purkake]

I can't wait for the crpg where you go into the store to buy a +10 sword of head splitting and 10 healing potions and some armor from from the in game vendors and you actually pay real money directly to the pubisher to do so.

 

That day is coming.

 

EA already did it with one of the Need For Speeds. You could unlock cars/tracks/whatnot by paying for them with in-game money or real money.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Purkake

[Slowtrain]

I can't wait for the crpg where you go into the store to buy a +10 sword of head splitting and 10 healing potions and some armor from from the in game vendors and you actually pay real money directly to the pubisher to do so.

 

That day is coming.

 

EA already did it with one of the Need For Speeds. You could unlock cars/tracks/whatnot by paying for them with in-game money or real money.

 

 

I was thinking more like having every vendor in the game be just an UI to the pulbisher's store and any item that you buy costs real money. Spells, potions, alchemical ingredients, hip clothes, even guild memberships and boat rides. Really, it would be an awesome way to make oodles of money.

 

just imagine strolling around the Imperial City in Oblivion and having every vendor there be a UI to ther publsiher. It would be like shopping for realz. And everybody loves shopping!

[Purkake]

Some MMOs do it like that, I think. Microtransactions et al.

[Slowtrain]

Its awesome stuff. Eventually publishers can just the game skeleton away for free and everything in the world will need to be bought. Buy a house. Buy furnishings for your house. Buy a pet. A new horse. A stable. Hire an NPC to come cut the grass. All for real. Sorta.

 

 

heck even mod makers may be able to add in game hooks so you can buy the mod you want directly in game. Just use a paypal account or whatnot.

[Purkake]

That sounds like Sims.

 

If people are willing to pay, I don't see why not. Business is business.

[Slowtrain]

If people are willing to pay, I don't see why not. Business is business.

 

 

I agree.

 

But I won't be buying. Personal choice and so forth.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I agree wholeheartedly that release-date DLC is unethical and I dont like this trend one bit. In fact, this scenario was just what i was worried about when the whole DLC concept was launched a few years ago. Ill pay for extra content, but to take stuff out of the game that should have been in there and try to sell it is as an extra is just bastardly. That some people give in and pay up doesnt make it right, quite the contrary.

 

 

"Welcome to the EA restaurant, if you want cheese on your cheeseburger that'll be $5 extra."

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

The sad thing is this trend is probably not going to end.

 

EDIT: Although Dragon Age without any DLC clearly has enough content to be worth 60$.

Edited November 7, 2009 by WILL THE ALMIGHTY

[Volourn]

"I agree wholeheartedly that release-date DLC is unethical and I dont like this trend one bit. In fact, this scenario was just what i was worried about when the whole DLC concept was launched a few years ago. Ill pay for extra content, but to take stuff out of the game that should have been in there and try to sell it is as an extra is just bastardly. That some people give in and pay up doesnt make it right, quite the contrary."

 

It's not unethical.

 

And, they didn't take stuff that was 'supposed' to be in the game simply to sell it as DLC. That's a myth. And, even if they did do that, it's still not unethical.

 

What *is* unethical is epecting them to do things only your way.

 

They decide to make a game the way they want. if you think the game is worth buying, you buy it as is. Nothing more nothing less. They owe you NOTHING else.

 

People need to get off their moral high horse over video game companies trying to make money. It's a video game. It's not a need. They don't exist to cater to your whim.

 

Don't like it, don't buy it.

 

It shouldn't be a moral issue.

[Kaftan Barlast]

No one is saying they dont have the right to try and make money, but we cant allow them to do it by any means necessary because that will always lead to the consumer being ****ed over in the end.

[Volourn]

How is the consumer having the OPTION to buy more stuff (or not buy) screwing them over? That doesn't make sense AT ALL.

[Purkake]

Good luck convincing people not to buy the DLC, Kaftan!

[Humanoid]

Maybe the EU competition regulator will step in and force competition for the micropayments in game - so you'd have various blacksmiths stalls and the customer would be free to purchase from whichever company will sell you a Longsword +3 for the cheapest vendor.

 

 

Or buy the iLongsword +1 from a certain vendor instead for double the price (it'll have a nice brushed aluminium hilt!).

[Hurlshort]

I agree wholeheartedly that release-date DLC is unethical and I dont like this trend one bit.

 

This is what I'm really getting at. It isn't the DLC that bothers me, it's the release-day stuff. I mean, I JUST paid $60, wait a month or so before you try and hit me up for more money.

[Enoch]

Question: If the Day-one DLC were included in the game for everyone, with the retail cost of the game increased by its price for all buyers, would that be better?

 

It would certainly be a less jarring in-game experience, but it would come at the cost of putting the game's price out-of-reach for some consumers. For whatever reasons, major-release video games all tend to sell at right around the same price point, despite what I assume are wildly varying production costs. DLC adds more price flexibility (a way to sell a bigger game at a higher price), which leads to a more efficient market.

 

 

(Although that's not really why developers are doing this-- the main motivation is almost certainly to give players incentives to buy rather than rent (or pirate).)

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Question: If the Day-one DLC were included in the game for everyone, with the retail cost of the game increased by its price for all buyers, would that be better?

 

No. In that case it should be in the game and not DLC at all.

[alanschu]

I'm a bit baffled by people's sense of entitlement.

 

Hurlshot, play through the game without the DLC. Let me know if you feel you didn't get the "whole experience." I'd be particularly interested in how long it took you to beat the game.

 

 

I know that the optics look bad (I mentioned the same thing on the Paradox forums when people complained about some Day One DLC that was sprite models), enough so that I don't really support Day One DLC. But not because I think it's unethical, or money grabbing, or that they are intentionally leaving content out of the game. I don't support it because I think it creates an unnecessary negative backlash because consumers are irrational and selfish. Not that I blame consumers for being either irrational, or selfish. I fully admit that I'm a selfish gamer (we all are), and would wholeheartedly rather that the DLC was included in the main package of a game that I buy, preferably with no increase in price.

 

 

Here's the thing. I started work there on June 10th. At that point, the main Dragon Age game was in content lockdown. No changes to the content would be made unless something was deemed to be broken and required fixing. The design and programming team were already working on the console versions of the game. Though, a DLC team had been formed to create downloadable content. When I started working, there was no DLC content available to load up. There was some minor hooks that didn't really lead anywhere at that time (Levi was in the camp for example), and they only existed on the PC version of the game. The content of the DLC was created after content lockdown had occurred. Had there not been a team created to work on DLC, it wouldn't have been created.

 

After we had submitted our release candidates, testing and work was still being done on the content in the DLC. This is impossible to do on the main game after it has been submitted for certification.

 

Relating back to Paradox Interactive, CEO Fredrik Wester (who's always been rather upfront and honest on their forums) took a lot of flak from fans claiming that he was gouging them for money by releasing the sprites. He valiantly tried to explain to the rabid masses that the content created by the artists was created after the game content was delivered, and had it not been for the idea of experimenting with DLC, would never have been put on the project to work on downloadable sprites for the game, they would have been put to work on something else. Naturally, fans weren't buying it.

 

 

As for people not liking it... it wasn't exactly a trade secret that there was going to be DLC available on Day One.

 

You can choose not to believe me, and I suspect virtually everyone will choose not to, but the DLC content would not exist if it hadn't been designed to be DLC from the get go. You'd just have the content that is comes with Dragon Age.

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Day One DLC goes away (depending on how true to form people are with their hatred of it. If it gets purchased and downloaded like crazy, well, then I suspect it's here to stay), but I bet it just means that developers sit on the content for a month rather than releasing it on release day. Though I'm not convinced that this would satisfy customers, and think it's just as possible that they accuse developers of sitting on content.

Edited November 7, 2009 by alanschu

[Hurlshort]

It is easy for me to believe that the DLC was developed after the main game was done. As I said, I just think they need to wait a bit after the commercial release to start pushing it, especially if they are going to push it while I'm in the game. Talk about immersion breaker!