Dragon Age 2

[Maria Caliban]

Sadly, I don't care. This probably makes me a bad consumer.

 

If you took Shale out of the game, it was still 60-80 hours long. Whether is was developed before, after, or during, you didn't need the Stone Prisoner to get a good game. The same with Mass Effect 2. I went on Zaeed's loyalty mission and thought it was well done, but the rest of the time I never used him. If he wasn't in the game, it would have been just as good.

 

So here we have Sabastion in Dragon Age. He's fully voiced and has multiple quests. He's not part of project $10, which means there will be at least two day one DLCs for BioWare. He's a rogue, however, and there are already two rogues in the main game. Functionally, he's only necessary if you want a four rogue party.

 

I can't really evaluate what he adds to the game storywise at this point.

[Tale]

Shale was great. If they make more Zaeeds, they can keep it.

[HoonDing]

If this DLC policy continues, I won't ever buy a BioWare game on release anymore but just wait for a GOTY edition containing all extra content. Is there already such a version for DA:O, btw?

[MrBrown]

If this DLC policy continues, I won't ever buy a BioWare game on release anymore but just wait for a GOTY edition containing all extra content. Is there already such a version for DA:O, btw?

 

Yes, the Ultimate Edition.

 

And yeah, that's pretty much my policy as well.

[Niten_Ryu]

I can't really evaluate what he adds to the game storywise at this point.

 

I agree. All DLCs (with the exception of the Episodes from Liberty City, that were bigger then the most expansions) have been complitely useless for me. Sometimes they are not even worth the time it takes to download 'em (and install 'em). Something happend to my Bioware/EA account near the end of my 2nd run.

Stone Prisoner just stopped working. But the thing is, I didn't even care enough to bother fixing it. Actually I like the character and quests involved with it, but DA is lenghty enough even without that character. Main pros or cons (both o'plenty) don't change one bit with one (or more) extra character or items.

 

Why DA2 is not on my instant buy list is because at this moment I don't belive it's worth full price. DLCs have nothing to do with it. I might buy the game when it drops to half price (or maybe even sooner if it for some bizarre reason turn up to be great game). Half priced "game of the year" version might be worth it, even if the most extra content is garbage. For example in recent Steam holiday sales, there was only minimal price difference between normal DA and Ultimate edition (contents all the DLC and "expansion").

[entrerix]

because Im a sucker for polished rpg's, i usually end up buying the big rpg releases within a week of release, and then will pick up the goty edition if there is substantial add-on content once the goty costs less than $20.

 

so it ends up with me spending about $70 total on the game, but usually get at least two nice full playthroughs this way. right now I'm already champing at the bit for all the dlc and expansions (if any) to come out for new vegas so the goty edition will get released so I can pick it up for a song next steam xmas sale (or perhaps summer 2012)

[Hassat Hunter]

No. And, btw, games have things cut from them ALL THE TIME.

Yes, but those cut stuff is cut. Not sold seperately. I haven't seen cut BG/PS:T/IWD stuff for sale as DLC, have you?

Companies are doing nothing wrong. They tell you what they are selling, and you decide if it's worth your money. Period.

And then I say to them to stuff it. But since I am a loner in a market filled with people who are apparently happely chuncking $10,- for recycling (CoD) that means less game for me. Or everyone for that matter. Only that I care, and they apparently don't. And yeah, I got a problem with that...

They owe you nothing else.

Then they get a hard time earning my money. Don't they want my money? I guess so...

There are a couple issues with this line of thinking. First off, DA is a complete game, without any of the DLC (even the free stuff.) You can play it all the way to the conclusion, they don't ask you to insert more coins to continue the story line.

So it's okay to nickle and dime secondary quests? Got it.

There was likely a specific team working on DLC. This isn't any different than a specific team working on an expansion. The difference is DLC is typically smaller, available faster, cheaper, etc. It can be offered on day one while an expansion obviously would not. Whether it was created after the game was released or not really isn't the point, it was developed to be DLC.

You generally make an expansion after the game is done. If it sells well. Not exactly next to the game itself. Then it might as well be in the game. When is DA2 released? And when is this Prince ready? And it doesn't strike you as odd as all that DLC is done, like, months before release? Not a bit?

Like this, I wouldn't be surprised IF they could release a full X-pack at release...

Yes, but you could easily argue that in separating their resources between primary game and DLC they're effectively releasing a product missing parts that would otherwise be standard if they had simply assimilated the DLC team into the primary game.

Exactly, even if wheter or not a separate team made this "DLC" is up for questioning at all...

Yes, it's a way to get people to pay more. But the contention is whether or not they're delivering you less in the initial offering to make you pay for the more.

No storing in DA in order to stuff it into DLC? A vendor there in the main game to sell you stuff that isn't in the game? Or Fallout 3 not being playable after ending unless with a DLC packet. Not reaking like cuts for financial gain later anyone? Anyone?

I'd argue that if they hadn't had the team working on DLC, they would have been working on a different game or simply not employed. It's not cutting stuff out.

More full games? How sad it would be if we got that above DLC now...

I sure prefer having a game at normal price and decide if I want more of it with a DLC and more money spent or just don't want more.

I'd prefer paying $60 for all content above $80 for all content, all cleverly disguised as small portions of overpriced "DLC"... DA2 hasn't even gone gold, so what excuse is there for this prince not to be able to be shipped with it? Why create DLC so soon instead of working on the actual game?

It's even better if you end up not really liking the game because you would really be bothered to have paid for both game and DLC.

Except there is no "game and DLC", just "game". And if you don't like it, there's plenty of ways these days to do research wheter you like what you're about to buy...

[Hassat Hunter]

Quote limit...

 

If you took Shale out of the game, it was still 60-80 hours long. Whether is was developed before, after, or during, you didn't need the Stone Prisoner to get a good game.

True enough, but accepting game cutting for selling just "because there's enough left" is a really bad premises, which if we as gamers allow companies to do so quickly raise games above $100,- a piece for content that was already made for it as a whole.

If this DLC policy continues, I won't ever buy a BioWare game on release anymore but just wait for a GOTY edition containing all extra content. Is there already such a version for DA:O, btw?

I am already doing such... *has DA:O UCE*

And had planned such from the beginning after finding out how Bio handled DA:O DLC with that guy in camp, and other day 1 DLC's...

[Vilhelm]

Hassat Hunter, you are obviously very upset that you need to pay for things, but this is 2011, not 2001. Games change, business models change, customers change. If someone is willing to pay $5 or $10 for an extra character and a mission then they will try to exploit that. People like you don't shell out the money and thus miss out on it.

 

It's like an auction. It goes to the highest bidder!

Edited January 15, 2011 by Vilhelm

[Rosbjerg]

accepting game cutting for selling just "because there's enough left" is a really bad premises, which if we as gamers allow companies to do so quickly raise games above $100,- a piece for content that was already made for it as a whole.

 

This is because games are getting more expensive, time consuming and risky. If you only sell 100.000 copies these days, then your game is a failure (commercially). It's because we gamers have kept demanding more and more stuff, for the same price - that they're doing this DLC business. In Denmark, films in cinemas have gotten more and more expensive over time, but game prices have pretty much stayed on the same level for as along as I can remember.

 

I don't like this DLC business, I agree that they are effectively cutting out pieces of a game and selling them separately. But I understand it and therefore can't blame the companies for it.

[sorophx]

selling cinema tickets and selling games is a little different, though. in Russia for example, there is no tax on the tickets sold at a cinema, every penny goes straight into the owner's pocket. that's why going to a movie premiere costs only ~7$, which isn't a lot in my opinion. a video game on sale costs 3 times as much. everything is relative.

[Nepenthe]

It's funny. I remember a time when I could buy 1,5 liters of coke for half of what a 0,5 liter bottle costs these days. Yet computer games cost more then than they do now. So that in some places, the prices have gone down even without adjusting for inflation... While, as mentioned, budgets have gone down. I'll admit that the inflated prices of the early nineties might have had more to do with small local retailers scalping in a closed market, but still...

 

p.s. I don't think it's possible to treat all DLC as whole. Sometimes it's a blatant rip-off, sometimes it's cut content that wouldn't have been implemented within the regular game budget, and sometimes it's a team allowed to expand the game further later on. I'm not seeing much of the first group with RPGs, mostly with the "map packs" for certain popular shooters.

[mkreku]

It's funny because I remember buying my Commodore 64 games for 49 to 149 SEK. Now they are 349 to 599 SEK.

 

Everyone says that game prices have not increased, but it is just not true. It's a dumb myth, probably started by greedy publishers. Prices have increased by a factor of five during my gaming history.

[Hassat Hunter]

Hassat Hunter, you are obviously very upset that you need to pay for things

My filled DVD and games library says otherwise. I do actually buy stuff, I don't pirate like pretty much everyone else I know does...

Although paying $8,- for, say, Horse Armor, or Darkspawn Chronicles, is a bit too much for me, yeah.

I long for the days $30,- got you a nice expansion pack, not 4 pieces of crappy DLC which don't even get need 1/6th the gaming time/experience of a proper X-pack.

Games change

I wish. And if they do, usually for the worse. Please shoot whoever thought up regenerating health in shooters... please!

If someone is willing to pay $5 or $10 for an extra character and a mission then they will try to exploit that.

And yet I read in newspapers people get arrested for pyramid-schemes even if people willingly entered them. If investors get millions from their clients without giving anything back they go on trial. If Activision does so with a "map pack" it's all fine though apparently. Boggles the mind.

People like you don't shell out the money and thus miss out on it.

*opens DA:O UCE* I do? Sure, I gotta wait a bit longer, but hey no problem. Not my loss, just Bio's loss. Same as Bethesda for me waiting for F:NV gold, skipping F3 entirely. I can hardly be the only one right? Otherwise why have Gold/Ultimate editions at all?

This is because games are getting more expensive, time consuming and risky.

Then maybe they should... I dunno... do something about that? Instead of spending even MORE money in GFX and try to recuperate it with asking $100 for their game? Several indie devs seem to do just fine financially this way. And big devs don't got nearly the amount of risk a starting indie dev has...

but game prices have pretty much stayed on the same level for as along as I can remember.

Here in NL;

100 gulden in 2000.

45 euro in 2002.

50 euro in 2003.

60 euro in 2007.

Which is still about the current price (although it's much more profitable now to ship it and pay in dollars as the euro has become stronger, so not exactly the same 60 euro as back then...).

[trulez]

accepting game cutting for selling just "because there's enough left" is a really bad premises, which if we as gamers allow companies to do so quickly raise games above $100,- a piece for content that was already made for it as a whole.

 

This is because games are getting more expensive, time consuming and risky. If you only sell 100.000 copies these days, then your game is a failure (commercially). It's because we gamers have kept demanding more and more stuff, for the same price - that they're doing this DLC business. In Denmark, films in cinemas have gotten more and more expensive over time, but game prices have pretty much stayed on the same level for as along as I can remember.

 

I don't like this DLC business, I agree that they are effectively cutting out pieces of a game and selling them separately. But I understand it and therefore can't blame the companies for it.

Movies at the cinema is established mainstream market, they don't really have any growth potential, so the only way to rake in more cash is by increasing the price of a ticket, or the price of the soda&popcorn etc sold at the venue.

 

Games however are still a growing market, every year we hear that many new games have beaten the old sales records. There is plenty of revenue to be had by making a game that costs the same but is reached by wider audience.

[Volourn]

"a video game on sale costs 3 times as much. everything is relative. "

 

Movies last about 2 hours. Games last way more than that.

 

 

"Everyone says that game prices have not increased, but it is just not true. It's a dumb myth, probably started by greedy publishers. Prices have increased by a factor of five during my gaming history."

 

Nope. prices, for the most part, have gone down for games. $60-$80 for brand new releases. Sorry, dude, you errored here.

 

 

"And yet I read in newspapers people get arrested for pyramid-schemes even if people willingly entered them. If investors get millions from their clients without giving anything back they go on trial. If Activision does so with a "map pack" it's all fine though apparently. Boggles the mind."

 

Poor comparison as people really get nothing out of them while the customer gets something out of DLCs. You fail at understanding the law. Just because YOu think you don't get enough out of the DLC doesn't mean anything. btw, Most DLCs are $5-$7 and last 1-3 hours... OMG.. about the same price as a movie.

 

Oh, btw, Movie makers also have no peroblem cutting things from the movie and then using those cut bits to hype DVD sales to make more money with the DvDs costing as much asn $30. LMAO

[sorophx]

Movies last about 2 hours. Games last way more than that.

you can't measure worth with spent time. personally, I find a good movie a lot more enjoyable than a great game.

[Vilhelm]

My filled DVD and games library says otherwise. I do actually buy stuff, I don't pirate like pretty much everyone else I know does...

I never accused you of not paying for your games. I'm only stating that you are not willing to bring out bucks for the DLC but others are.

 

Although paying $8,- for, say, Horse Armor, or Darkspawn Chronicles, is a bit too much for me, yeah.

Then you don't buy the DLC, and you don't play it. I never bought the horse armor, I skipped it. Seriously, just because something is for sale it doesn't mean you HAVE to buy it.

 

I long for the days $30,- got you a nice expansion pack, not 4 pieces of crappy DLC which don't even get need 1/6th the gaming time/experience of a proper X-pack.

As I said, times have changed and business models as well. You can look at DLCs as mini expansion packs. If you don't remember, there was a lot of games that DIDN'T get any expansion packs at all, and such is the case today as well. A lot of games STILL get expansion packs today, including Dragon Age, as you know.

 

I wish. And if they do, usually for the worse. Please shoot whoever thought up regenerating health in shooters... please!

That's irrelevant and subject to each individual's tastes. I like modern games, and I like classic games. If you don't like some features of modern games, then you just don't like it. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it's UNIVERSALLY bad, only that you don't like it.

 

And yet I read in newspapers people get arrested for pyramid-schemes even if people willingly entered them. If investors get millions from their clients without giving anything back they go on trial. If Activision does so with a "map pack" it's all fine though apparently. Boggles the mind.

After reading this I am almost 100% sure that you are an internet troll not worthy of discussion. Surely you cannot be serious to compare DLCs with Ponzi schemes and investment frauds. It just doesn't work that way.

 

*opens DA:O UCE* I do? Sure, I gotta wait a bit longer, but hey no problem. Not my loss, just Bio's loss. Same as Bethesda for me waiting for F:NV gold, skipping F3 entirely. I can hardly be the only one right? Otherwise why have Gold/Ultimate editions at all?

What I mean is that you don't shell out money for each individual DLC and thus miss out on it when it is first released. A lot of OTHER people do. Don't take my words out of context, it's not cool, yo. DLC is to monetize off the early adapters, who buy games shortly after release and then crave for more. DLC compilations and GOTY/Ultimate editions are for people who have the patience to wait until everything is packed into one neat package, such as yourself.

 

Think of your games as pizzas. Let us say that you pay $10 for a margarita pizza. For each extra topping you need to shell out a dollar. So, if you want a pizza with pepperoni and extra cheese right now, you need pay $12 for the pizza. Alternatively, you know that the restaurant regularly has special deals where they offer a pizza with two or more toppings for $10, but alas, they are not offering it today (even though you can see where they keep the toppings right in front of you!). You have two options: Either to pay extra $2 for extra cheeze and some delicious pepperoni, or you can patiently wait until they offer that sweet deal they occasionally have.

 

The choice is up to you.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Vilhelm

[Volourn]

"you can't measure worth with spent time. personally, I find a good movie a lot more enjoyable than a great game."

 

I don't. And, yeah, you can use time as a measure fo worth since time = money. Of course, time shouldn't be the main way to put a value on soemthing (afterall, plenty of shorter games are better than longer ones).

[Niten_Ryu]

I have still price tags in some of my game boxes. In 1995 game cost 300 mk, inflation adjusted price in 2011 would be 63,28

[Volourn]

The above post is silly since its about personal tatse. By that account, Betehsda owes ME money for their ES crap, and Obsidian should give me their next three games for free after the joke known as AP. And, BIO should have sold me KOTOR on a discount, and I would have gladly paid $200 for NWN instead of the $100 I did. *shrug*

 

Logically, games aren't priced based on what someone eprsonally thinks of it after the fact.

 

This works for movies too. AS I don't care for certain popular movies so I should pay less for them. L0L

[Nepenthe]

I have still price tags in some of my game boxes. In 1995 game cost 300 mk, inflation adjusted price in 2011 would be 63,28

[Niten_Ryu]

I have still price tags in some of my game boxes. In 1995 game cost 300 mk, inflation adjusted price in 2011 would be 63,28

[Orchomene]

I think the price change depends on countries. At least in France, price has almost tripled from 2000 to 2010. Of course, during those ten years, a lot of things became quite expensive, with the exception of high technology.

[mkreku]

A hamburger with fries in 2000 = 49 SEK. In 2011 = 69 SEK,

A pair of jeans (Levi's 501) in 2000 = 499 SEK. In 2011 = 799 SEK.

A computer game in 2000 = 149 SEK, In 2011 = 599 SEK.

 

You figure out if prices of games have increased or not.