Dragon Age DLC

[Slowtrain]

Especially if you don't what to purchase each player that you want in your video hockey game from the publisher's on line store a few years from now.

[Hell Kitty]

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

 

Same.

 

I don't like DLC being advertised in-game, but I don't understand the whining about DLC that was created before a game is released, as if buying a game entitles you to any and all content made during development.

 

But the presentation of it in-game is a fight we might be able to affect. So it is important to be vocal, let the publishers know.

 

I agree with this, but I think the folks who whine about how they should get it for nothing, how it's unethical, or they're ideologically opposed to it tend to drown out worthwhile feedback.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Slowtrain]

*shrug*

 

I think its perfectly understandable. People are spending a lot of money for the game; they want to feel like they are getting as much as they can for it.

 

 

When someone spends money on something they have a right to feel somewhat entitled as regards their purchase.

[Hell Kitty]

People are spending a lot of money for the game; they want to feel like they are getting as much as they can for it.

 

How people feel is precisely the problem here, with their feelings being irrational. A person buys game x and they enjoy it and feel it was worth the money they paid, but tell them for an additional cost they can purchase at extra set of armor and an extra dungeon, and suddenly the game that was worth it before is now a rip-off.

 

When someone spends money on something they have a right to feel somewhat entitled as regards their purchase.

 

Their purchase = the game. If they haven't purchased additional content, then they aren't entitled to it. Buying a ticket to see a movie in the cinema doesn't entitle you to the deleted scenes that appear onn the DVD.

 

Whining about how that additional content should just be given to them for nothing is just greed. Which is amusing, considering the whiners typically accuse publishers of the same thing.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Slowtrain]

People are spending a lot of money for the game; they want to feel like they are getting as much as they can for it.

 

How people feel is precisely the problem here, with their feelings being irrational. A person buys game x and they enjoy it and feel it was worth the money they paid, but tell them for an additional cost they can purchase at extra set of armor and an extra dungeon, and suddenly the game that was worth it before is now a rip-off.

 

When someone spends money on something they have a right to feel somewhat entitled as regards their purchase.

 

Their purchase = the game. If they haven't purchased additional content, then they aren't entitled to it. Buying a ticket to see a movie in the cinema doesn't entitle you to the deleted scenes that appear onn the DVD.

 

Whining about how that additional content should just be given to them for nothing is just greed. Which is amusing, considering the whiners typically accuse publishers of the same thing.

 

 

I think your points are perfectly valid. Likewise I also understand why people would feel displeased by finding dlc already available for in game purchase on day 1. I don't think it is baffling at all.

[Zoraptor]

Yes, the problem is that, if you have day 1 DLC and especially if you have it ameliorating an 'artificial' limitation (ie inventory space) then it does look like it has (1) been chopped off the main game and (2) the 'artificial' limitation is there specifically to drive people to pay for its removal- whether or not that is really the case. And that perception is most definitively not limited to vocal bioh8ors.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Zoraptor

[Slowtrain]

Yes, the problem is that, if you have day 1 DLC and especially if you have it ameliorating an 'artificial' limitation (ie inventory space) then it does look like it has (1) been chopped off the main game and (2) the 'artificial' limitation is there specifically to drive people to pay for its removal- whether or not that is really the case. And that perception is most definitively not limited to vocal bioh8ors.

 

 

Agreed.

 

It's a situation where two sides are in directly conlict as far as their desires go.

 

 

Publishers and developers want to get as much money as they can for the amount of content they create, while gamers want to get as much content as possible for the amount of money that they spend.

 

 

Publishers and developers will lost likely push as hard as they dare to maximize the amount of money their content generates and gamers will view with suspicion any appearances that they have been given less than they should for the money they spent.

 

 

ultimately, I think gamers have the power since it is their money that pays all the salaries, generally however gamers seem tochoose not to really exercise that power and not buy games when not buying the games might make a difference.

[Purkake]

Most of the gamers in this case couldn't care less about the industry or the trends. They're normal people, not crazy whiny internet people, if they liked the game, they'll get the DLC, otherwise they won't. They don't base their decisions on some far reaching goals for the greater good of gaming as a whole, they just want to have fun.

[Hell Kitty]

Likewise I also understand why people would feel displeased by finding dlc already available for in game purchase on day 1. I don't think it is baffling at all.

 

As alanschu mentions, publishers could simply hold off on releasing completed DLC for a month or two, though you can be sure there will still be folks whining that they should get it for free.

 

ultimately, I think gamers have the power since it is their money that pays all the salaries, generally however gamers seem tochoose not to really exercise that power and not buy games when not buying the games might make a difference.

 

I agree with Purkake that most gamers don't care about this stuff "if they liked the game, they'll get the DLC, otherwise they won't". They aren't going to refuse to buy a game they want to try to "make a difference" they don't really care about.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Slowtrain]

Likewise I also understand why people would feel displeased by finding dlc already available for in game purchase on day 1. I don't think it is baffling at all.

 

As alanschu mentions, publishers could simply hold off on releasing completed DLC for a month or two, though you can be sure there will still be folks whining that they should get it for free.

 

 

Sure that's probably true. And business is what business is: every developer is looking to make as much money as possible. We all know that. So is it any wonder that when Bethesda releases a DLC that raises the level cap by 10 levels and allows the game to continue after the ending, that some gamers view that with the suspicion that such an action might have premeditated and done only to make the DLC more attractive?

 

It can't be proved either way and ultimately woiuldn't matter if it could since the developer can do what they want regardless, but its seems perfectly understandable why gamers (some of them) would find that annoying.

 

 

I agree with Purkake that most gamers don't care about this stuff "if they liked the game, they'll get the DLC, otherwise they won't". They aren't going to refuse to buy a game they want to try to "make a difference" they don't really care about.

 

 

I'm in agreement as well. But there are obviously some people who do care.

 

 

 

I don't think there is any right or wrong here; just two opposite sides each trying to get the most for what they have.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Slowtrain

[Volourn]

"if you have it ameliorating an 'artificial' limitation (ie inventory space)"

 

L0L There is too much inventory space. Any game that allows you to carry dozesn of armour is not limited.

 

Anyways, best way to let publishers know you don't like this stuff is not to buy it. Whining has little effect. And,w hining about an EA BIO game doing this on the Obsidian board means even less because it has no effect on EA. So, try to say that's why people are 'up in arms' is silly. People complain about styff because that's what the internet is for.

 

P.S. I, too, find it slightly annoying that it's advertised in game but it's very minor - espciially comapred to other things in the game much worthy. It's also very eaisly ignorable and it hurts nobody.

[Slowtrain]

" People complain about styff because that's what the internet is for.

 

 

That is, of course, quite true, but not all complaints are created equal.

 

To me, in this particular instance, its more about understanding WHY a gamer would complain, not trying to judge if the complaint is valid or not.

 

Validity is often a matter of upon which side of the fence one sits.

[Hell Kitty]

So is it any wonder that when Bethesda releases a DLC that raises the level cap by 10 levels and allows the game to continue after the ending, that some gamers view that with the suspicion that such an action might have premeditated and done only to make the DLC more attractive?

 

Would it be better if the DLC was something people didn't care about, that they didn't want? It's irrational to view with suspicion a company that sells you something you'd like, though understandable that folks would like access to it without having to pay for it.

 

It can't be proved either way

 

Yeah, that's what I mean when I say the problem is how people feel. If you've convinced yourself that the publisher is just trying to rip you off, then it really doesn't matter why they made the DLC.

 

DLC is either something I'm interested in buying, something I'd like but don't think is worth the money, or something I don't care about at all. It's not something I should get purely because I've decided I deserve it.

 

I don't think there is any right or wrong here; just two opposite sides each trying to get the most for what they have.

 

I don't think the publishers are doing anything wrong with selling DLC, but I do thing gamers are wrong in claiming that deserve something for nothing.

[Humodour]

I don't think the publishers are doing anything wrong with selling DLC, but I do thing gamers are wrong in claiming that deserve something for nothing.

 

Oh, who claimed that?

 

I'd be quite happy to pay good money for a proper expansion pack. But developers seem too lazy to do that these days and instead palm off this cheap crappy DLC bull**** to us for a price that's entirely not worth playing.

 

DLC appears to consistently be nothing better than a mod, except the difference is mods are free (and often more fun).

Edited November 8, 2009 by Krezack

[alanschu]

Would it be better if the DLC was something people didn't care about, that they didn't want? It's irrational to view with suspicion a company that sells you something you'd like, though understandable that folks would like access to it without having to pay for it.

 

Exactly. Would people honestly prefer the Fallout DLC did NOT extend the level cap or let the player continue playing after the ending? I don't recall being able to continue playing after the end of the original Fallout (which is typically held in higher regard than Fallout 2, which did let you continue playing).

 

 

I have heard a lot of the arguments against DLC before. Except at the time, they were arguments against expansion packs.

Edited November 8, 2009 by alanschu

[Hell Kitty]

I don't think the publishers are doing anything wrong with selling DLC, but I do thing gamers are wrong in claiming that deserve something for nothing.

 

Oh, who claimed that?

 

Anyone who claims that DLC should have been included in the base game. I'm not referring solely to people in this thread.

 

DLC appears to consistently be nothing better than a mod

 

Er, well, yeah, DLC modifies the base game, the same as a mod does, though it can include things not possible in a mod. DLC that offers little value, or just isn't very good, isn't a mark against DLC any more than a lame mod is a mark against modding as a whole.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Slowtrain]

Well, I think the argument specifically against the Bethsda Broken Steel DLC was that allowing the game to continue after the ending was not so much a matter of adding content as it was not specifically limiting it. IE: It could have been in the original game without a problem.

 

I agree with Krezzie that its not really a matter of gamers wanting to get something for nothing as much as a belief that they are getting an intentionally weakened product to make follow up sales of additional related product more likely.

 

*shrugs*

 

My only real criticism of gamers would be that if they really don't approve of a particular approach a developer takes then they shouldn't buy the games. It's the only way to make a difference, but most of the time they buy the game and then complain. Which seems pretty pointless. A gamer holds financial power as long as they don't buy the game; once they buy it, no one cares about their complaints.

 

 

As I've said before, I don't think gamers are as a whole the most savy consumers on the planet.

 

edit: Just to clarify that its not really accurate to say that once a gamer buys the game that nobody cares. A developer still wants to sell their next game and any other follow up product to that same gamer so they are not going to want to alienate that ganer to the point where the gamer won't purchase any more product. Gamers have a lot of financial power over the state of gaming, but their inability to not buy a game or in many cases even to wait a few months often works against them.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Slowtrain

[Hell Kitty]

It could have been in the original game without a problem.

 

That's true of all DLC really.

 

As far as limiting is concerned, it all depends on how you look at it. For example, if an additional mission is available as DLC, does it add to the existing missions, or does it prove that the publisher limited the base game by denying you that mission in order to make the DLC more attractive? Just how full is that glass of yours?

 

I agree with Krezzie that its not really a matter of gamers wanting to get something for nothing as much as a belief that they are getting an intentionally weakened product to make follow up sales of additional related product more likely.

 

It's both. To call a product "intentionally weakened" is to assume that the additional content first existed as part of the base product, but was then ripped out to sell later, that you were supposed to get it to begin with, at no extra cost. ie, Something for nothing.

 

Gamers have a lot of financial power over the state of gaming, but their inability to not buy a game or in many cases even to wait a few months often works against them.

 

There is a game I want. I buy it. Explain how that works against me?

Edited November 8, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Hurlshort]

I actually want to by the DLC. I'm really enjoying the game, and the DLC quest sounds interesting. I'm not bothered by the price, it seems fair enough. It is just the presentation that bothers me, and I'm trying to figure out how best to demonstrate that point as a consumer. I don't know, maybe a strongly worded letter will suffice

[Slowtrain]

That's true of all DLC really.

 

As far as limiting is concerned, it all depends on how you look at it. For example, if an additional mission is available as DLC, does it add to the existing missions, or does it prove that the publisher limited the base game by denying you that mission in order to make the DLC more attractive? Just how full is that glass of yours?

 

 

Well, again specific to Broken Steel, no new content had to be added to allow continued play after the ending so there was no need to attach it to an additional content DLC. Nor was there any reason to attach the additional levels to such.

 

 

It's both. To call a product "intentionally weakened" is to assume that the additional content first existed as part of the base product, but was then ripped out to sell later, that you were supposed to get it to begin with, at no extra cost. ie, Something for nothing.

 

Sure. As we mentioned, it's not provable either way, but I can understand why the appearance of such would bother some gamers.

 

There is a game I want. I buy it. Explain how that works against me?

 

 

If you have no problems or concerns with the game , then it doesn't work against you at all. But if one does have issues, then the best way to express one's concern or displeasure is with one's wallet and not buy the game.

[Gorgon]

How people try to sell me things often influences my willingness to buy, I have never bought anything off a phone salesman either. A commercial I dislike spawns the same instant thumbs down reaction. I have already stated that I don't dispute the company's right to do whatever they want with their product. What I don't understand is why my opinion is automatically invalid because it's not one of indifference.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Gorgon

[Monte Carlo]

Heh, just found myself back in agreement with Hurlie again. Which was a relief.

[Spider]

Especially if you don't what to purchase each player that you want in your video hockey game from the publisher's on line store a few years from now.

 

Yeah, that could be the case. Or maybe they'd just sell you an upgraded roster each year, instead of forcing you to buy the new version of the game. I don't think anyone will go as far as you suggest. Or maybe they will, but then I think the game itself will be free.

 

Publishers are out to make money. They won't make money if their customers won't buy their games. Which is what will happen if things go as far as you suggest.

 

Besides, it's not even something similar to what has happened to Dragon Age. You're still getting a huge game (40-80 hours) with more content than most games out there. Even if Warden's Keep had been in the game to begin with and then ripped out, you'd still be getting good value for your money. That is not the case with NHL2011 without players.

 

As alanschu mentions, publishers could simply hold off on releasing completed DLC for a month or two, though you can be sure there will still be folks whining that they should get it for free.

 

They could delay it, but that would probably mean lost sales. At least if they delay it as far as a month. I am under the impression that most gamers play the game until they finish once (if that even when it's a long game) and then move on. So if the content is delayed for a month, all gamers in that category who has already finished the game, will be a lost opportunity.

 

I'm basically like that these days. I don't replay games the way I used to. I haven't been interested with DLC for FO3 at all for instance, because I completed the game long before it arrived and never felt it was worth it to restart just to get to play a few more hours.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Spider

[Monte Carlo]

Sorry to repeat myself (esp. to Slowtrain because we mentioned this recently)...

 

Tales of the Sword Coast was locked down when BG1 went Gold. There was the mystery space for disk 7 when the game was released. TotSC was announced as indecently fast as a guy bedding a widow at the wake. It wasn't a scandal, it was an XP.

 

The delivery method has changed, that game was released during the Reign of Dial-Up internet connection. As Hurlie says, it's the way you present the product, not the method. And, yeah, Bio and EA are being pretty in-your-face about it. But I always said that about Bio.

 

It just doesn't really bother me, but understand why it would others.

 

Cheers

MC

[Hell Kitty]

Well, again specific to Broken Steel, no new content had to be added to allow continued play after the ending so there was no need to attach it to an additional content DLC.

 

There is no need for any DLC at all, or any base game for that matter. Games are luxury items, there's nothing essential about any part of them. Bethesda didn't need to include this function in the DLC, nor did they need to include in the base game. Bethesda could have allowed continued play after the ending but they didn't, just like the original Fallout and most other RPGs. They did, however, include this in one DLC. This is not a problem.

 

I can understand why the appearance of such would bother some gamers.

 

Sure, because they feel they are missing out, missing out on something they believe they are entitled to.

 

But if one does have issues, then the best way to express one's concern or displeasure is with one's wallet and not buy the game.

 

That's not true. If you have a problem with the DLC then you can "vote with your wallet" by not buying the DLC, you don't need to miss out on the base game. If you refuse to buy the base game then your issues with the DLC become irrelevant because it's not something you can use anyway.