Dragon Age 2

[Hassat Hunter]

With the DLC model, however, budget and manpower could be allocated to Shale. Given that there was already a lot of hooks in place, aspects of it were helped along and we felt it would be a good incentive for buying the game new. It also had an advantage of extra time because the inclusion of console systems shifted the release schedule back.

In the old days they would just give it in a patch though (as has happened with several games as a 'thank you for buying'. Since Shale is practically free, it's not that big a concern though.

But Hassat said something very weird. He seemed to prefer that cut content just remain cut, and not possibly sold later through DLC, even though his entire gaming experience would be unchanged by either situation. The shipped game is still the same. This I find somewhat strange.

That's not exactly what I said. If I believed that I hardly would work on TSLRCM. But if something is cut, and then re-added, yeah, I would find it odd to actually charge for that, unless a VERY large chunck wasn't already inside of the game. From what I gather, this wasn't the case. Wheter or not it was isn't really the matter, just how it appears to an outsiders perspective, that is true though.

Would I like the HK-Factory. Sure. Would I be happy if they charged $8,- for it, even though the majority was already done for shipping. Not likely.

It is still content that is created specifically to accommodate the preorder, even if it just sits on the disc. The alternative would be to make the end user spend time downloading it, which is more of an inconvenience in my opinion. Especially since a lot of the time preorder bonuses are relatively simple things like bonus items and whatnot.

Then why offer them up at all. If they're on the disk, why not give them to all purchasers? Why have them on the disk, and have less than 10% actually use content that is installed for them? I mean, come on. Apparently there are even legal issues here, since they don't even appear with the UCE.

Am I the only one who finds it bizarre that game-made content is locked out unless you get it from a specific dealer? Instead of actual content ingame, locked on the disk, wouldn't a nice manual, map or whatever intice people more to buy them from a shop instead of digital than 'deals' like these?

 

Also, take a look what kind of discussion the day 0 DLC brought. And what's Bio's response? They make a DLC for... how many months left till DA2 is released? That is going waaay beyond even mere day 0 DLC. And even if a seperate team worked on them, the game is still being worked on, or is it gold already? I doubt it with the time remaining. Isn't THAT weird, DLC before a Gold version? Any changes made in the main would still need to be applied there too. QA needs to be split between the 2 projects, since I doubt it got it's own right now. All in all, it's doubtful this DLC was made 100% seperate. And you're suprised we are seeing it like a nickel and dime scheme?

I think he means that the game developers are getting the wrong idea about the whole DLC business and eventually will begin cutting ready content from games deliberately to make some extra money. artificially raising the price of the product this way

If not happening already. Which seems like a very likely possibility.

DLC as an incentive to buy the game day one is a scam, DLC as a means to expand the game's live=

I am not unsimpathetic to BW/EA's attempt to discourage second-hand sales though, that's not quite similar. However, offering 'new' DLC 2 months(?) in advance for pre-orders is something else entirely...

alan, what we are saying is that the Bioware / EA DLC model appears to a lot of gamers to be sharp practice and price-gouging. It certainly looks that way from where I'm sitting, although I bought two DA:O DLC pieces and thought they were OK. I agree that paying to unlock content that's already there is smelly, buying DLC as a longevity thing after release is different.

True enough. I am not a contestant of selling content like the Witch Hunt or Lair of the Shadowbroker. However pre-order DLC bonusses (as Sebastian), brand pre-order DLC bonusses, selling off recycled maps (CoD), charging money for unlocking stuff on the disk... they all are the bane of DLC.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Hassat Hunter

[kirottu]

I actually like day one dlc content. I think it

[~Di]

I actually like day one dlc content. I think it

[alanschu]

In the old days they would just give it in a patch though

 

I don't believe this actually happens very often. Post release support is often busy enough fixing actual issues. Patching in content that has been removed from the game is a lot of work, and requires additional QA. How common is this actually?

 

That's not exactly what I said. If I believed that I hardly would work on TSLRCM. But if something is cut, and then re-added, yeah, I would find it odd to actually charge for that, unless a VERY large chunck wasn't already inside of the game. From what I gather, this wasn't the case. Wheter or not it was isn't really the matter, just how it appears to an outsiders perspective, that is true though.

 

The point I was trying to make is that it seems to upset you that a developer makes available additional content for the game and then charges for it, while functionally this is no different than if the content was never released to you if you decide to not purchase the DLC. You stated in a post that the difference in other games is that the content remained cut.

 

Optics IS important. I don't think Obsidian could dream of charging for the cut content of KOTOR 2, since it's apparent that the game had a lot of content cut and the quality of the game (particularly the ending) suffered a lot as a result. But if you had a choice, are you saying you wouldn't rather BioWare release finished versions of the content cut from the original KOTOR?

 

Also, take a look what kind of discussion the day 0 DLC brought. And what's Bio's response? They make a DLC for... how many months left till DA2 is released? That is going waaay beyond even mere day 0 DLC. And even if a seperate team worked on them, the game is still being worked on, or is it gold already? I doubt it with the time remaining. Isn't THAT weird, DLC before a Gold version?

 

The DLC for Sebastian isn't finished either, and it's not unlike other DLC content. So no, there is no "DLC before a Gold version." I'm not even entirely sure what that means. As for whether or not

 

Any changes made in the main would still need to be applied there too.

 

I don't quite follow. What changes are you referring to? Content for Dragon Age 2 has been locked down for some time.

 

QA needs to be split between the 2 projects, since I doubt it got it's own right now.

 

"Got it's own?" Split? I don't quite follow what you're trying to say. If I made it seem as though they were completely disjointed then I apologize. Though QA is a bit more "project general." It's more free flowing, and in actuality providing QA for DLC is actually easier to integrate if the game itself still has a lot of QA on it. QAing projects like Golems of Amgarrak or Lair of the Shadow Broker is more difficult because there's significantly less overlap, and it's much more problematic to pull additional eyes for verifying and reproducing issues. In fact, releasing a game with future DLC plans without Day One DLC is actually more risky, because you will be significantly less able to properly assess the DLC delivery system without actually having proper, finished content to run through it. Delivering DLC at a later date is futile if it turns out that your delivery system has huge issues (and DAO's had enough issues as it was) that you weren't able to properly find before release, and it is much more difficult to do anything about it because post-release programming support is more complicated (and has less resources) to integrate than pre-release support. Post-release support is also effectively more expensive.

 

All in all, it's doubtful this DLC was made 100% seperate. And you're suprised we are seeing it like a nickel and dime scheme?

 

What do you mean by "100% separate?"

 

Some people may see it as a nickel and dime scheme. Not everyone likes every move that gets made unfortunately.

[Orogun01]

I actually like day one dlc content. I think it

[alanschu]

I will have to pay for an NPC the others who pre-ordered by a magic date will get for free. That does nothing for "copy protection", and screws legitimate customers, IMHO. Also, it's starting down a very slippery road of trying to coerce customers who don't normally like to pre-order for various reasons by punishing them... and forcing them to pay for an NPC or content that has been given free to others is obviously a punishment.

 

I don't think that there is any way around this unfortunately.

 

If your premise is true, then it is possible to turn any reward mechanic for one group into a punishment mechanic for the group not rewarded. Preorder sales are highly valued (I don't even know all the reasons, I just know that there are several). The primary advantage of large preorder sales is that it creates larger orders from retailers. This gets significantly more copies of the games on store shelves, full displays set up at prime spots in stores, which provides latent advertising, more accessibility, and so forth.

 

However, preordering games is actually a risk. You see it as them spending the same amount of money as you, but it's not quite the case. Someone that preorders has virtually no other resources aside from company history and game hype to support the decision to purchase a game. If it is really the same cost, why didn't your pre-order it? I think the fact that, as you point out, there are people that "don't normally like to pre-order" indicates that there must be some sort of additional cost to pre-ordering the game. If there wasn't, everyone would have just gone and bought the signature edition since there'd be no logical disadvantage for not doing so. Unless you're also of the mind that sales for products or "buy two get one free" type stuff is also a form of punishing customers that don't take advantage of it.

Edited January 17, 2011 by alanschu

[Tigranes]

Preorders are very important because it's emerged as one of the key means by which commercial success is measured, and commercial success can be claimed, amongst other things. Again, the DLC system as a whole is above all a mechanism for the maximisation of profit, and more importantly, the cultivation of consumer expectations and habits that are conducive to the maximisation of profit. It makes perfect sense that it would be deployed into enticing people to make pre-orders; it extends the actual purchase process where it's not months of hype and various degrees of interest that knock you over the fence into "Buy" mode on the day, it's increasingly a fractured system where you make microtransactions months after purchase, but also, effectively, BEFORE the main purchase.

 

Now, as the Great Sage Volourn tells us, heaven forbid that companies not be allowed to seek maximisation of profit. To be honest, I don't really think "are they cutting crap out of the main game to make DLCs" is really the accurate way to look at it either - there are a lot of problems with that argument. You can't really prove it, and it quickly becomes a chicken-and-egg deal, as the recent dialogue between alanschu & hassat has again demonstrated. To me it's really more a question of design and attitude. For instance, what differences are there in devs that used to sit down and say "what shall we put in our expansion pack", and those that sit down and say "what shall we put in our DLCs"? If we get an even greater modularisation of game components to the extent that people can, say, choose not to buy any NPCs and play solo, what impact does that have on game communities as a whole and the modding scene (which requires a unitary base of core files)? We're already seeing this with, say, the new Age of Empires online where PvP as a mode might be sold in a separate pack. How does it change the way games are designed if they become so modularised?

 

More immediately, I'd suggest that the key problems are (a) substandard content and overpricing of content, i.e. Horse Armour effect; (b) the greater tendency for people to excuse flaws or gaps in games by promising/expecting DLCs, not just on part of devs but really the media & the community as a whole; © annoying in your face pay us more money DLC solicitations, i.e. Dragon Age. I don't think pre-order special DLCs are really a problem - if they were being sold for $4.99, then you'd be fine with not buying it and not having that content, here the 'payment' is the act of pre-ordering, as alanschu says.

[alanschu]

If we get an even greater modularisation of game components to the extent that people can, say, choose not to buy any NPCs and play solo, what impact does that have on game communities as a whole and the modding scene (which requires a unitary base of core files)? We're already seeing this with, say, the new Age of Empires online where PvP as a mode might be sold in a separate pack. How does it change the way games are designed if they become so modularised?

 

I think if we reach a modularization of this level it would need to also come with restructuring the price of games as well. So the real dollar cost impact becomes obfuscated.

 

Has there ever been a DLC that required another DLC on either the 360 or the PS3? I don't think so and I think there may be restrictions against that. At the very least, this should help control excessive modularization if it requires that only one piece can be the "core piece."

 

 

More immediately, I'd suggest that the key problems are (a) substandard content and overpricing of content, i.e. Horse Armour effect; (b) the greater tendency for people to excuse flaws or gaps in games by promising/expecting DLCs, not just on part of devs but really the media & the community as a whole;

[Orchomene]

In disk blocked content and pre-order specific DLC is just an incentive to piracy. As much as I want to give my support to developers, I can't help be feeling bad about having a game that is not complete (or for a too high cost) because I've bought it whereas the guy that pirated it gets all of the content for free.

Why would someone buy legitimately a second hand game when he will miss some content and in the other hand, geting a pirated version of the game for free would give him all of the content ?

 

All in all, after having tested DLC for DAO, I can just say that I won't buy any more DLCs, even for a game I may appreciate. Either there is an expansion that adds at the same time coherent content with quality and quantity or I just keep playing the base game.

 

Having worked in the development business, I can't restrain from being disgusted at the story behind Shale : if a product is not functioning, you use your maintenance budget to make it work. Shale fix should have been delivered as a patch, not as an expansion.

The issue with video game development is that there is no scope statement signed between customer and producer. Thus, the producer may cut any content that ends not really work at the begining and sell it separately.

In the development industry, if you don't deliver what the customer is expecting and put in the scope statement, you have either to negotiate a patch delivery or the customer won't pay at all.

[Nepenthe]

I think most of us agree on the unscrupulousness of disc-blocked content, but I have yet to buy any game that came with such content.

 

I'm also of the opinion that I would like to get lots of things for free, which reminds me of the fact that I did, in fact, get Shale for free.

 

Now where were we?

[Walsingham]

Speaking as a guy who hates all the copy protection bull I have to put up with, I nonetheless must call equal bull on the notion that rewards for pre-order = punishment for normals.

 

How is it in any way unfair for a company to be grateful for a preorder, with all the massive benefits associated with preorders, to give something extra as a thank you?

 

Does that mean if I send some muffins to a client who's been loyal then I'm punishing all the others? Or punishing most of my relatives if I give my brother a big christmas gift?

Edited January 17, 2011 by Walsingham

[Hell Kitty]

Has there ever been a DLC that required another DLC on either the 360 or the PS3?

 

No, but Dead Rising 2 has two versions of it's costume DLC. The paid for version which gives you bunch of new items to use, and the free version so people without it can still play co-op with those that do.

 

Anyway, if free day one DLC for those who purchase a new copy is an attempt at luring in those who might instead buy a used copy, then perhaps free DLC for those who pre-order before a certain date is an attempt to lure in those would otherwise wait for a price drop.

[Orchomene]

Anyway, if free day one DLC for those who purchase a new copy is an attempt at luring in those who might instead buy a used copy, then perhaps free DLC for those who pre-order before a certain date is an attempt to lure in those would otherwise wait for a price drop.

 

Not really sure. If you want to wait, you can get the ultimate/platinium/goty/whatever version that has all the DLC.

[Nepenthe]

Has there ever been a DLC that required another DLC on either the 360 or the PS3?

 

No, but Dead Rising 2 has two versions of it's costume DLC. The paid for version which gives you bunch of new items to use, and the free version so people without it can still play co-op with those that do.

That's pretty common. Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit had all the DLC cars in the title update, and the DLC to unlock them was tiny. Clearly some people here would cry outrage at this, but again, it's necessary for online.

[Malcador]

Not really sure. If you want to wait, you can get the ultimate/platinium/goty/whatever version that has all the DLC.

 

Always the smartest move, you can save a bit of money too if you're lucky and catch a sale as well.

[Volourn]

"alan, what we are saying is that the Bioware / EA DLC model appears to a lot of gamers to be sharp practice and price-gouging. It certainly looks that way from where I'm sitting, although I bought two DA:O DLC pieces and thought they were OK. I agree that paying to unlock content that's already there is smelly, buying DLC as a longevity thing after release is different."

 

You hate the concept of DLC yet bought some. That's silly. That's as bad as people hatinga game and buying it or its sequel at full price anyways or heck even stealing it and playing it despite the fact they claim they'll hate every minute of it.

 

 

DLC is optional. Don't want it don't buy it.

 

Heck, games are optional. Don't like it, don't buy it.

 

Why can't people get these simple cocnepts. You aren't 'owed' anything here except the product offered.

 

If EA says," Hey I have a game called DA3. I will sell it to you for $50." and you say "Ok, here's my $60.". Then they hand you the game. That's ALL that is owed. Everyone knows games - like movies and other types of entertainment - 'enjoyment factor' are pure opinion so that is irrelevant.

 

Reminds me of the sports fans who whine they shiould get thjeir money back if the game they go too their fave team sucks.

 

Very illogical. But that's customers for you. No persecptive ever at all. Worse than a 2 year kid.

[Gorgon]

I hink i's aipoff.

 

Also, onl aound 50% of m kboad suvivd h coff incidn. Sos a closd now, can' g a nw on 'ill omoow

[sorophx]

next time be sure to grab a keyboard that doesn't let liquids get on the sensitive parts

[alanschu]

Having worked in the development business, I can't restrain from being disgusted at the story behind Shale : if a product is not functioning, you use your maintenance budget to make it work. Shale fix should have been delivered as a patch, not as an expansion.

 

DAO is a functioning product without Shale. It's not like we shipped DAO with part of Shale and then people had issues with the game being broken because they couldn't access Shale. So I don't understand the perspective of the "Shale fix." Stuff gets cut from video games all the time, and as you claim to be in development I'm sure you can understand that going through every single conversation in DAO to make sure that we actively delete the lines of conversation that Shale had would not be a very productive use of time.

 

The option came down to "Cutting Shale outright" or "moving Shale to DLC." The time and budget of DAO meant including Shale would have only compromised other aspects of the game. As for our maintenance budget, we prefer to use that to fix issues that people have with the actual game, rather than ignoring those to add some extra content for a character that was cut from the game.

 

 

Why would someone buy legitimately a second hand game when he will miss some content and in the other hand, geting a pirated version of the game for free would give him all of the content ?

 

This argument is too simplistic, because you can boil down to "Why does anyone buy the game at all, when you can get all the content for free anyways." From the standpoint of the developer, it's a tricky situation because neither situation you just described has any money going to the developers of the game.

 

Having said that, The Stone Prisoner DLC (the one that came free with a new copy of the game) was actually a very successful DLC. The only people that would consider this DLC as a purchase are those that obtained the game second hand (either as a gift from someone, or buying used) or (oddly and hilariously...) someone that pirated the original game.

[Volourn]

"Why would someone buy legitimately a second hand game when he will miss some content and in the other hand, geting a pirated version of the game for free would give him all of the content ?"

 

Because they aren't thieves.

 

Why spend thousands buying a new car when you get it for free by stealing it. L0L0L0L0L0LLLIP0P

 

Complaining about the 'evils' of DLC and refusing to buy any is one, but giving approval for theivery is a whole nother box of wax.

 

LMAO

 

'Customers' supporting theivery is hilarity!

Edited January 17, 2011 by Volourn

[kirottu]

I actually like day one dlc content. I think it

[Orogun01]

What? Additional content screws and punishes you? They are forcing you to pay for it? Some guy gets something for free and you see it as a punishment against you? Just... what?

 

Anyways, I was talking about Shale. It was free for everyone, right? I mean, it was free for me and I didn

Edited January 17, 2011 by Orogun01

[sorophx]

Because they aren't thieves.

o rly

 

from where I'm standing piracy and second-hand marked are virtually the same thing. by selling your copy of the game you take a potential customer, that would otherwise be paying the publisher

Edited January 18, 2011 by sorophx

[Thorton_AP]

From the point of view of the publisher they don't see any money, but it's still very different than the situation Orchomene describe. Orchomene basically says "Why bother buying used, when you can pirate and get more for free!"

 

I also suspect that someone that buys the game used are probably more likely to buy the DLC than a pirate would I imagine. Which would still result in some compensation for the devs and publisher.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Thorton_AP

[sorophx]

I also suspect that someone that buys the game used are probably more likely to buy the DLC than a pirate would I imagine.

this is probably true