Dragon Age: Inquisition

[anubite]

 

It's not about, DLC should have stuff that I do not want

 

If the comment doesn't apply to you, then the comment doesn't apply to you.  There are people that literally have literally told me Mass Effect 3's DLC (all of it) should have been free because it was all "essential story content."  Juxtaposed with people that say we should *only* make DLC like that, because they'd rather have more story content than simply some customization stuff.

There are indeed some that would rather we release something like From Ashes as Day One DLC than simply some weapon/customization pack, simply because they like the story content and would rather get more story content.  This may be echoed among the preorder/special edition fans since it's often included as an incentive there, as well.

 

 

 

 

Sure, sometimes, such as with Saints Row III, when the stuff is already on the disc and I have to pay to activate it I can't help but feel fleeced, but exiled prince/stone prisoner/from ashes... totally ok with me.

 

A lot of it is still "this stuff is relatively new" as well.  Since some people are always going to be upset, the challenge comes in ascertaining how much frustration there is.  Although people do send mixed signals when they talk about how much they loathe DLC yet still buy it.  I always encourage people not to buy it if they aren't a fan of DLC, because saying "I really don't like DLC" while still buying it makes it more difficult to go "Do they really not like DLC, or are they hoping that if they are part of a group voice, they can get more content for less cost?"  It's similar with price increases, and when some people started to get upset at new PC games being $60 instead of $50 in the past few years.  Saying "This is too expensive" and still buying it complicates the issue.

 

 

As for the idea of stuff being cut content, from what I understand most stuff ( "expansion" or "DLC" ) often is.  Pretty much all of Tales of the Sword Coast, for example, was content that was cut from Baldur's Gate.  There's often close to as much game that ends up on the chopping block as content that actually ships with the game, with a variety of reasons motivating cuts (time being probably the most common).

 

The difference is that "cut content" showing up on the same day as the full game's release is disingenuous. When did you guys find time to bug test it, bulid it, integrate it into the game, QA test it, et cetera 1-2 months before launch? Whether we're wrong or not, to us the customer, it feels like you just took out a piece of the game and sold it to us just to make more profit. That crazy Jamaican is on the disc, I'd only need to substitute one line of code to make him appear in any copy of ME3 in the world. That feels like a scam. Do we deserve him? I'm not going to get into that, but if you're going to make DLC I expect you guys to foot the bandwidth bill for a few hundred megabytes.

 

And I totally get why there is Day1 DLC - it's because I'm far less likely to buy your DLC 6 months after the game's release. In-fact, I haven't bought much DLC ever, but I certainly never have six months post release. 

 

I guess I'm too old to 'appreciate' DLC - I'd much prefer an expansion than a DLC (mostly because DLCs are always overpriced for the content delviered in each "Bite") and honestly don't understand why expansions can't just be delivered instead. I don't know how well Awakening did for DAO, but it seems more sensible to me, to provide an expansion. I feel like DLC only makes sense for games with a multiplayer focus, because DLC can be released quicker and faster, to keep an active audience afloat. But for a single player game, the audience is always going to drop off after they beat the game - you need to make a highly replayable experience to keep them hooked for a longer period.

Edited August 28, 2013 by anubite

[Sarex]

A lot of it is still "this stuff is relatively new" as well.  Since some people are always going to be upset, the challenge comes in ascertaining how much frustration there is.  Although people do send mixed signals when they talk about how much they loathe DLC yet still buy it.  I always encourage people not to buy it if they aren't a fan of DLC, because saying "I really don't like DLC" while still buying it makes it more difficult to go "Do they really not like DLC, or are they hoping that if they are part of a group voice, they can get more content for less cost?"  It's similar with price increases, and when some people started to get upset at new PC games being $60 instead of $50 in the past few years.  Saying "This is too expensive" and still buying it complicates the issue.

 

 

As for the idea of stuff being cut content, from what I understand most stuff ( "expansion" or "DLC" ) often is.  Pretty much all of Tales of the Sword Coast, for example, was content that was cut from Baldur's Gate.  There's often close to as much game that ends up on the chopping block as content that actually ships with the game, with a variety of reasons motivating cuts (time being probably the most common).

 

I think you are being a little cheeky there. What most people say is that they don't like the idea of a DLC, not the content of it. If people liked the game they are going to like the DLC. Why? Because it's more of the same. That is why no is gonna make a DLC for a game that no one likes, they are just going to cut their loses and move on to the next game. Let's not kid anyone here, DLC are made to extract the maximum amount of money from a buyer. If that wasn't the case we would still be on the old system where half a year to a year later we get an expansion.

 

Now I'm not making a bad guy out of the companies that make DLCs, but let's not make them out to be the innocent guy who just wants to give their fans more content.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Sarex

[Maria Caliban]

I have no problem with the existence of DLC. I get more stuff, they get more money.

 

There are lots of games I've never bought DLC for. There are games where I bought DLC months after release because there was a sale on Steam.

 

Personally, I don't think there's any DLC that will turn a game I dislike into one I like, so whether it's cut content, made by a special team, or ruthlessly plucked from the finished product by greedy executives is immaterial.

 

I ask myself the same questions now as I did when I first started buying games: Is the game good? Was it engaging? Was it satisfying?

 

If yes, awesome. If no, I don't believe DLC is to blame.

 

The Stolen Prince added little to DA II. From Ashes had some interesting content, which I consider good for DLC, but even with it, I found ME 3 ultimately unsatisfying.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Maria Caliban

[decado]

 

 

Personally, I don't think there's any DLC that will turn a game I dislike into one I like, so whether it's cut content, made by a special team, or ruthlessly plucked from the finished product by greedy executives is immaterial.

 

I don't know how anyone could call this immaterial.  The way in which the DLC is produced, released and eventually sold has a lot to do with how it is received.  Purchasing content that was "cut by greedy executives" is simply rewarding bad behavior.  In this respect, the quality of the DLC is what's immaterial.  The real question becomes one of ethical business practices, and whether or not we as gamers (bleh I hate that term) are going to let ourselves be fleeced by disingenuous crapbags. 

[Tale]

What seems disingenuous to me is people acting like they know how or why particular parts of a game were produced. A piece of content decently cut from a game and a piece of content produced wholly separate from a game look identical to the end user.

 

It's not bad behavior to try to alter the price of the product they sell even if they were cutting parts to sell later, assuming they're not being deceptive.

 

If they produce a game and cut it into 20 parts to sell to you later, the only real concern is if any of those given parts is worth buying at the asking price.

 

If they're being genuinely deceptive that's a real problem. Telling you things are included that are not. But that's not what you're accusing them of.

[alanschu]

I think you are being a little cheeky there. What most people say is that they don't like the idea of a DLC, not the content of it. If people liked the game they are going to like the DLC. Why? Because it's more of the same. That is why no is gonna make a DLC for a game that no one likes, they are just going to cut their loses and move on to the next game. Let's not kid anyone here, DLC are made to extract the maximum amount of money from a buyer. If that wasn't the case we would still be on the old system where half a year to a year later we get an expansion.

 

Now I'm not making a bad guy out of the companies that make DLCs, but let's not make them out to be the innocent guy who just wants to give their fans more content.

 

DLCs are indeed done to provide additional revenue.  What level of "innocence" is more dependent on whether or not someone feels that it's okay for us to try to make money and/or mitigate risk with the main game.  EDIT: And whether or not the fanbase feels the decisions made during said creation/deployment are fair.

 

Indeed, the people I was referring to definitely do not dislike the content.  In fact, they give the impression that they really want the content.  If we gave it away for free (which is what some feel we should do), they'd obviously be happier.  I suspect if they didn't want the content, it'd be irrelevant if it was paid DLC or not.

Edited August 28, 2013 by alanschu

[NOK222]

 

 

 I suspect if they didn't want the content, it'd be irrelevant if it was paid DLC or not.

 

Or you know, if you cut it from the main game and sell it as DAY ONE preorders. 

[Maria Caliban]

 

 

 

Personally, I don't think there's any DLC that will turn a game I dislike into one I like, so whether it's cut content, made by a special team, or ruthlessly plucked from the finished product by greedy executives is immaterial.

 

I don't know how anyone could call this immaterial.  The way in which the DLC is produced, released and eventually sold has a lot to do with how it is received.  Purchasing content that was "cut by greedy executives" is simply rewarding bad behavior.  In this respect, the quality of the DLC is what's immaterial.  The real question becomes one of ethical business practices, and whether or not we as gamers (bleh I hate that term) are going to let ourselves be fleeced by disingenuous crapbags. 

 

 

I remember when gas was 99 cents to the gallon. Now I'm happy if it's less than 4 bucks a gallon. I remember when I could go to the movies with a friend and only paid eight bucks. Now I see movie tickets for 15 bucks each. As a consumer, I react to the market. I use my car less. I go to the movies less.

 

Whether the forces changing the price tag are legitimate or not isn't a matter of great concern. If EA executives are the most ruthless, greedy sonsofbitches who walk the earth doesn't really matter. I buy it when it comes out, I buy it when it goes on sale, or I don't buy it.

 

For the majority of games I pick up, I don't buy the DLC. If I dislike a game, I might speculate as to what went wrong, but DLC is usually just more of the same.

[Sarex]

What seems disingenuous to me is people acting like they know how or why particular parts of a game were produced. A piece of content decently cut from a game and a piece of content produced wholly separate from a game look identical to the end user.

 

It's not bad behavior to try to alter the price of the product they sell even if they were cutting parts to sell later, assuming they're not being deceptive.

 

If they produce a game and cut it into 20 parts to sell to you later, the only real concern is if any of those given parts is worth buying at the asking price.

 

If they're being genuinely deceptive that's a real problem. Telling you things are included that are not. But that's not what you're accusing them of.

 

When you find the DLC on the original dvd of the game, that is how you know that it's cut content and that to me is deceptive, as for making up their own prices, Australia would like a word with you.

 

DLCs are indeed done to provide additional revenue.  What level of "innocence" is more dependent on whether or not someone feels that it's okay for us to try to make money and/or mitigate risk with the main game.  EDIT: And whether or not the fanbase feels the decisions made during said creation/deployment are fair.

 

Indeed, the people I was referring to definitely do not dislike the content.  In fact, they give the impression that they really want the content.  If we gave it away for free (which is what some feel we should do), they'd obviously be happier.  I suspect if they didn't want the content, it'd be irrelevant if it was paid DLC or not.

 

Again you are being disingenuous, even if you where to give out DLC for free, as you say it, it would still not be free content, because people payed for the main game. I am not saying I agree with this (that it should be given at no cost), but the sum amount of the DLCs prices should not equal or exceed the original price of the game.

 

I remember when gas was 99 cents to the gallon. Now I'm happy if it's less than 4 bucks a gallon. I remember when I could go to the movies with a friend and only paid eight bucks. Now I see movie tickets for 15 bucks each. As a consumer, I react to the market. I use my car less. I go to the movies less.

 

Whether the forces changing the price tag are legitimate or not isn't a matter of great concern. If EA executives are the most ruthless, greedy sonsofbitches who walk the earth doesn't really matter. I buy it when it comes out, I buy it when it goes on sale, or I don't buy it.

 

For the majority of games I pick up, I don't buy the DLC. If I dislike a game, I might speculate as to what went wrong, but DLC is usually just more of the same.

 

Yeah, this has nothing to do with the prices rising, but it has everything to do with DLCs ending up costing the same as the original game, if sometimes not more. They could never have gotten away with something like that in an expansion.

[NOK222]

http://blog.bioware.com/2013/08/28/the-dragon-age-keep/ Their solution to the world state thing. But like I said, this isn't and shouldn't be an issue for PC gamers. 

[Monte Carlo]

Nobody should care that much about Day One DLC if it is clearly cosmetic baubles that enhance the base game.

 

DA:O was pretty awful in this respect: NPCs and whole adventures? It just felt cheap. If that's not important to BiowarEA then fine.

 

I think now Bio is in bed with EA we all know what to expect, which is cynical nickel-and-diming.

[Monte Carlo]

http://blog.bioware.com/2013/08/28/the-dragon-age-keep/ Their solution to the world state thing. But like I said, this isn't and shouldn't be an issue for PC gamers. 

 

that's actually quite neat.

[Maria Caliban]

http://blog.bioware.com/2013/08/28/the-dragon-age-keep/ Their solution to the world state thing. But like I said, this isn't and shouldn't be an issue for PC gamers. 

 

NKKKK continues to encroach on my territory. I shall have to ally with Tale and have him voted off the island. <.<

 

Also, I like this idea.

 

And yes, as a PC gamer I'll likely use this.

[NOK222]

 

http://blog.bioware.com/2013/08/28/the-dragon-age-keep/ Their solution to the world state thing. But like I said, this isn't and shouldn't be an issue for PC gamers. 

 

NKKKK continues to encroach on my territory. I shall have to ally with Tale and have him voted off the island. <.<

 

Also, I like this idea.

 

And yes, as a PC gamer I'll likely use this.

 

I might use it if it will let me edit a few things. Like the dead Awakening companions thing. 

[Tale]

http://blog.bioware.com/2013/08/28/the-dragon-age-keep/ Their solution to the world state thing. But like I said, this isn't and shouldn't be an issue for PC gamers.

Should be an issue for everyone. Not just for importing, it lets you check out alternate content you don't have imports for. And it can help you overcome import bugs.

[alanschu]

 

 

Again you are being disingenuous, even if you where to give out DLC for free, as you say it, it would still not be free content, because people payed for the main game.

 

Am I the one being disingenuous?  Or are you saying that we're under obligation to provide that additional content at no additional cost?  I think you're splitting hairs.  I used the term free as "New content was created, and people were able to pick it up without having to pay extra for it."

 

If Throne of Bhaal was just created and available to everyone that owned BG2, I would consider it free content.

 

On this point, we'll have to agree to disagree as it's mostly semantics at this point.

 

 

 

 

but the sum amount of the DLCs prices should not equal or exceed the original price of the game.

 

This reminds me of people that used to tell me that "You shouldn't be able to be in the NBA unless you can hit 75% of your free throws."  Your restriction is arbitrary.  What it also means is that, even if fans want more content for a game, if we've reached the cost limit for DLC, we either can only do it for free, or move on to something else.

[decado]

 

Whether the forces changing the price tag are legitimate or not isn't a matter of great concern.

 

If these things occurred in a vacuum, it wouldn't be.  But the Day One DLC trend is a direct result of people being stupid in their purchasing decisions. To use your analogy, you seem to be perfectly happy paying 4 bucks a gallon for gas because hey,  ~~The Market~~ or whatever.  That's cool for you, but understand that it is damaging to the economy as a whole.

 

TBH your reasoning seems like unfettered approval of whatever corporate trickery comes down the pike, so long as you get to play the game.  I don't have to point out what is wrong with that.

[alanschu]

 

 

Should be an issue for everyone. Not just for importing, it lets you check out alternate content you don't have imports for. And it can help you overcome import bugs.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if "importing" simply doesn't exist (because there's no shortage of bugs).  I suppose we could allow people to import their game states to the Keep (I haven't read the article yet), but the idea is to use this to set your "import state."

[NOK222]

 

http://blog.bioware.com/2013/08/28/the-dragon-age-keep/ Their solution to the world state thing. But like I said, this isn't and shouldn't be an issue for PC gamers.

Should be an issue for everyone. Not just for importing, it lets you check out alternate content you don't have imports for. And it can help you overcome import bugs.

 

Yeah I'd like to be able to fix a few things. 

[alanschu]

 

 

If these things occurred in a vacuum, it wouldn't be.  But the Day One DLC trend is a direct result of people being stupid in their purchasing decisions.

 

The only people that are "stupid in their purchasing decisions" are the ones that don't like the model and still pay for it.  Those that have no problems with the model are doing exactly what they should do as consumers.

 

 

 

 

TBH your reasoning seems like unfettered approval of whatever corporate trickery comes down the pike, so long as you get to play the game.  I don't have to point out what is wrong with that.

 

She seems to be saying that she pays what she feels is fair.  Which is what all consumers should do.  She often doesn't even buy DLC (neither do I).  That many people do does not mean that it's stupid, nor unfettered approval of "corporate trickery."

 

If you have reservations about the notion of "cut content to be sold as DLC" then absolutely, don't buy the DLC.  Further, maybe don't even buy the game.  On principle I encourage you to do that,

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

This is good news. No I won't have to reinstall DA2 and slog through it and can make the hero isn't a hermaphrodite dwarf mage or something.

[alanschu]

I remember creating one of those testing imports XD

[Tale]

 

Should be an issue for everyone. Not just for importing, it lets you check out alternate content you don't have imports for. And it can help you overcome import bugs.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if "importing" simply doesn't exist (because there's no shortage of bugs).  I suppose we could allow people to import their game states to the Keep (I haven't read the article yet), but the idea is to use this to set your "import state."

 

Just put in a good word for me with the people choosing beta testers.

 

*nudge*

*nudge*

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I remember creating one of those testing imports XD

Did he bang Claudia Black, sacrifice Alistair, sacrifice grumpy pants, and die himself as well?

[Hurlshort]

Complaining about day one DLC is so last year.

 

As long as they don't stick the DLC vendor in my camp shilling his exciting adventure for just $4.99 I'll be happy