Dragon Age 2

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Hello Ezio

Except Ezio had a reason for his ridicuously fancy suit - pretty much everyone dressed this silly in Italy at the time.

 

Can't wait to see warrior armor. Hopefully the shoulderpads won't be twice the size of your head and spitting fire.

[Nepenthe]

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.

And TBH, in the context of DAO, even that budget could've used a bit of a boost (If there was a single scripting bug fixed in any of the patches - I didn't notice it. Some of the most obvious bugs of this kind, like the missing Shaperate's Blessing are, well, still missing).

[Vilhelm]

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

 

Except the publisher can still make some money off the second hand market by selling DLC, whereas the pirates would simply pirate it. That's the whole reason behind project $10. It's not to fight piracy but to find ways to make money off of the second hand market.

[Volourn]

"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"

 

Not the same thing. It don't matter if the publishers disapprove or the stupid 'contract' suggests (since said 'contract' for most game purchases likely wouldn't stand up in a court of law if pushed).

 

To compare the second hand purchase of products to theivery is delusional.

[Gorgon]

Hold on now. Publishers get paid once per copy sold, if that copy passes through the hands of several users that's how things have operated since the dawn of time with anything from paintings, books, furniture.. The only marked difference being that producing a copy costs next to nothing, and that consequently publishers feel the sting of sales they aren't entitled to a piece of more acutely.

[Gorgon]

I got a logitech by the way, and it's too small for my chubby little digits which is pissing me off no end. The packaging looked twice as big.

[Nepenthe]

Hold on now. Publishers get paid once per copy sold, if that copy passes through the hands of several users that's how things have operated since the dawn of time with anything from paintings, books, furniture.. The only marked difference being that producing a copy costs next to nothing, and that consequently publishers feel the sting of sales they aren't entitled to a piece of more acutely.

Which is why they a) try to make people hold on to the games by dripping more content (apparently this plays a role. I really can't speak from personal experience, I've neither ever sold a game nor bought one used) via DLC b) use project 10 $ to make used game sales seem less attractive.

[Gromnir]

games is luxury items, so there is a ceiling price at which most individuals looks for alternatives for their entertainment dollar. sadly, piracy is also an alternative for individuals who will not pay $ x+.01 for a game. dlc is a clever way for publishers to trick folks into exceeding their price ceiling. would Bob spend $90 to purchase da:o? maybe... maybe not. nevertheless, Bob barely flinches at spending +$60 for the game, and +$30 for dlc. does that make sense... is it rational? perhaps not, but publishers has seen how purchasers behave and ignore what purchasers says.

 

look, dlc ain't all evil. how many of us woulda' spent a few extra bucks to play the cut material from bg2. all those largely empty maps that pop up on the world map after you escape from the underdark were 'posed to be populated with content... content that had to be cut so that bio could make their release deadline. and somebody already mentioned kotor2, yes? sounds as if the stone prisoner dlc were similar. 'course, clearly not all dlc is as nobly inspired as alan suggests. much o' the dlc for biowarian games (and the games o' other developers) is a way for bio/ea to wring your wallets dry. what it costs bio/ea/whomever to create dlc is clear not proportional to the costs... which is not evil or immoral or wrong... and gamers is slowly becoming more accustomed to paying disproportionately high prices for content that adds very little to their games.

 

am recalling how the black isle community collectively railed 'gainst the iwd expansion: Heart of Winter. given the cost o' HoW, it were quite obvious that HoW had been slapped together with limited resources. the outrage o' the community led to black isle's gratis release o' trials of the luremaster. nevertheless, we expect that in 2011, if HoW were released in two or three dlc chunks that cumulatively cost more than a single ordinary expansion, almost nobody would complain.

 

you are not required to purchase dlc to play the core game... and so far bio has managed to release games that is robust enough without the dlc to be worthy o' the price on the box... but the dlc trend is disturbing, and alan's explanations requires an excessive amount o' consumer naivety to be believable. many o' us can see that dlc is a way for publishers to initially provide gamers less, so that they may ultimately charge us more. is disturbing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 19, 2011 by Gromnir

[Slowtrain]

DLC is great. Just wait for the GotY version and get a whole ton of extra content for less than the price of the original release of the vanilla game. Plus patches.

 

Just takes a little patience. Happily video games aren't critical to a worthwhile life so there's no rush to play them.

[Gromnir]

DLC is great. Just wait for the GotY version and get a whole ton of extra content for less than the price of the original release of the vanilla game. Plus patches.

 

Just takes a little patience. Happily video games aren't critical to a worthwhile life so there's no rush to play them.

 

dlc is not meant to appeal to the patient consumer, but instead preys on the junkie mentality o' many gamers.... but we agree with your observation. Gromnir almost invariably waits 'til the initial (and inevitable) patch before making our game purchase. typically this means that Gromnir gets a more stable game at a somewhat reduced price. with the advent o' dlc we should consider the wait a few more months to get the Full game.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Success in business is almost entirely based on the exploitation of the stupid.

[Slowtrain]

DLC is great. Just wait for the GotY version and get a whole ton of extra content for less than the price of the original release of the vanilla game. Plus patches.

 

Just takes a little patience. Happily video games aren't critical to a worthwhile life so there's no rush to play them.

 

dlc is not meant to appeal to the patient consumer, but instead preys on the junkie mentality o' many gamers.... but we agree with your observation. Gromnir almost invariably waits 'til the initial (and inevitable) patch before making our game purchase. typically this means that Gromnir gets a more stable game at a somewhat reduced price. with the advent o' dlc we should consider the wait a few more months to get the Full game.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Yep. And I pretty much agree completely with your previous post about DLC, but if, as a customer, one does have the patience to wait for a while, I think one can get more for their money in a DLC age than before it.

 

 

Now, whether or not the DLC is all that good to begin with is a whole other question.

[Gromnir]

Success in business is almost entirely based on the exploitation of the stupid.

 

...

 

were gonna challenge your proposition... then we thought o' ponzi schemes, state lotteries, power-balance bracelets... and the diamond industry. so, we reject your proposition... halfheartedly.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Thorton_AP]

I don't think anyone here suggested that DLC was "nobly inspired."

[Gromnir]

I don't think anyone here suggested that DLC was "nobly inspired."

 

really?

 

"What I am saying is that without a DLC team to work on it, Shale wouldn't have been accessible to people at all."

 

aren't we all so very lucky that the dlc crew were able to prevent the stillbirth o' shale?

 

*snort*

 

is not necessarily true. is only true if you accept numerous givens... such as publisher refusal to alter release date and implausibility o' ea/bio delivering gratis post release. is numerous methods both plausible and implausible that shale mighta' eventual made it to gamer hard drives w/o dlc effort and cost.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 19, 2011 by Gromnir

[~Di]

Hold on now. Publishers get paid once per copy sold, if that copy passes through the hands of several users that's how things have operated since the dawn of time with anything from paintings, books, furniture.. The only marked difference being that producing a copy costs next to nothing, and that consequently publishers feel the sting of sales they aren't entitled to a piece of more acutely.

 

This. Legally, once consumers have purchased an item, it's theres to do with as they please. Used book stores cost authors a ton of money, because why should folks pay full price for a new book when it would be in a UBS within a week of release. However, book buyers have that right.

[Thorton_AP]

I don't think anyone here suggested that DLC was "nobly inspired."

 

really?

 

"What I am saying is that without a DLC team to work on it, Shale wouldn't have been accessible to people at all."

 

aren't we all so very lucky that the dlc crew were able to prevent the stillbirth o' shale?

 

LOL!

 

That's a retort to people that get all pissy because Shale should have just been included with the main game and the conspiracy theory that Shale was removed specifically to become DLC to nickel and dime gamers.

 

I don't feel "lucky" that Shale survived as DLC. It's just content that was made for sale as DLC that otherwise wouldn't have been finished.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Thorton_AP

[Gromnir]

I don't think anyone here suggested that DLC was "nobly inspired."

 

really?

 

"What I am saying is that without a DLC team to work on it, Shale wouldn't have been accessible to people at all."

 

aren't we all so very lucky that the dlc crew were able to prevent the stillbirth o' shale?

 

LOL!

 

That's a retort to people that get all pissy because Shale should have just been included with the main game and the conspiracy theory that Shale was removed specifically to become DLC to nickel and dime gamers.

 

 

 

...

 

your point? of course it is a retort to the people who felt shale shoulda' been included in the original release o' the game. if not for dlc, all those "pissy" (don't be too obvious with your defense o' bioware, eh?) folks would be unable to play with shale. am glad you added the "pissy" part as it suggests indignation that we did not choose to add.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Thorton_AP]

if not for dlc, all those "pissy" (don't be too obvious with your defense o' bioware, eh?) folks would be unable to play with shale. am glad you added the "pissy" part as it suggests indignation that we did not choose to add.

 

Pissy indeed. There was no shortage of vitriol from people tossing out obscenities at the BioBoards about how EA/BioWare are just money grubbers and that Shale should have just been included for free. There's been some lightweight versions of it in this thread, over a year after the fact. My "pissy" comment isn't to be in defense of BioWare, but rather the many outspoken people with intense entitlement issues. You probably don't check out the BioWare boards, but loud people can be pretty loud, especially when hiding behind the internet.

 

So yes, I defended BioWare (what your nonsensical parenthetical remark had to do with anything I don't know. If you're up for questioning my credibility, you've already demonstrated poor judgment with your inappropriate pedophila jokes). Indignation indeed. Did I defend BioWare? Sure. I tend to be outspoken against people I see as being rather indignant on the internet (i.e. the people expressing outrage at DLC like Warden's Keep and Shale).

 

Must have struck a nerve I guess. Stop saying stupid stuff (and making indignant ad hominem attacks), and maybe people won't call you out on it any more. How you failed to comprehend my point is surprising, given you're clearly not actually a person of poor intelligence. Maybe you're just trying to rile people up?

 

HA! Good fun!

Edited January 19, 2011 by Thorton_AP

[Volourn]

"what it costs bio/ea/whomever to create dlc is clear not proportional to the costs... "

 

No. Like most things it comes down to supply and demand. What a silly goose.

 

 

 

" intense entitlement issues. "

 

This. This is the number one evil amongst gamers, and other type of customers. Extremely sickening and evil. No morals whatsoever amongst this group of 'people' hence why I laugh when them hypocritically bash companies' 'lack of morals'.

 

R00fles!

[Gromnir]

if not for dlc, all those "pissy" (don't be too obvious with your defense o' bioware, eh?) folks would be unable to play with shale. am glad you added the "pissy" part as it suggests indignation that we did not choose to add.

 

Pissy indeed. There was no shortage of vitriol from people tossing out obscenities at the BioBoards about how EA/BioWare are just money grubbers and that Shale should have just been included for free. There's been some lightweight versions of it in this thread, over a year after the fact. My "pissy" comment isn't to be in defense of BioWare, but rather the many outspoken people with intense entitlement issues. You probably don't check out the BioWare boards, but loud people can be pretty loud, especially when hiding behind the internet.

 

So yes, I defended BioWare (what your nonsensical parenthetical remark had to do with anything I don't know. If you're up for questioning my credibility, you've already demonstrated poor judgment with your inappropriate pedophila jokes). Indignation indeed. Did I defend BioWare? Sure. I tend to be outspoken against people I see as being rather indignant on the internet (i.e. the people expressing outrage at DLC like Warden's Keep and Shale).

 

Must have struck a nerve I guess. Stop saying stupid stuff (and making indignant ad hominem attacks), and maybe people won't call you out on it any more. How you failed to comprehend my point is surprising, given you're clearly not actually a person of poor intelligence. Maybe you're just trying to rile people up?

 

HA! Good fun!

 

claim "pissy" to make a point AND bring unrelated bioboard posts into this?

 

*chuckle*

 

am thinking we should simply sit back and let you do our arguing for us... and where you get the notion that a nerve were struck is beyond Gromnir. no doubt you is confused as we noted that YOU claimed "pissy."

 

oh well.

 

"No. Like most things it comes down to supply and demand. What a silly goose."

 

eh? supply and demand? am suspecting that you don't know as much about economics as you thinks you know. supply and demand don't work so well with dlc model. think 'bout it for a sec and you will see the problem of using simple supply v. demand.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Orchomene]

I have no real issue with the DLC concept itslef. But from what I can judge on the DLC I've purchased is a lack of quality when compared to expansions I've bought for other games.

It may just be bad luck on my side, it may also reflect an evolution toward less quality in the evolution aspect of a game after its release.

For the DAO DLC, without counting the one that just give items I've found the Stone Prisoner mediocre, the Wrden's keep and Return to Ostagar poor and I've not tried the other ones but I've heard they weren't better if not poorer.

On the other hands, even if some expansions are not that great, some other expansions add a lot : MotB, Night of the Raven, Flame of Vengeance, to name a few.

I've not seen for the moment a DLC that adds such quality content in a game relatively to its price.

[MrBrown]

For the DAO DLC, without counting the one that just give items I've found the Stone Prisoner mediocre, the Wrden's keep and Return to Ostagar poor and I've not tried the other ones but I've heard they weren't better if not poorer.

 

Definitely poorer. Leliana's Song and Witch Hunt are ridiculously bad. For Bioware's DLCs, I think the ME2 ones are generally a lot better than the DA:O ones.

[Azure79]

My first foray into DLC was with DAO and ME2. DAO's DLC was pretty bad and I will not be purchasing any post day one DA2 DLC. The only DLC I really enjoyed was the Shadow Broker for ME2. If they're charging me $5-$7 I better see some newly made areas, new enemies, 3-4 hours of gameplay and some meaningful story development, not recycled areas and a few simple items.

[HoonDing]

What was bad about Leliana's Song?

 

Shadow Broker was nice if Shepard had previously romanced Liara, but otherwise there was not much point to it.