This is what is wrong with gaming, and buying games, today.

ooh...second page...oops!

The rest of us are discussing the concepts of DLC. It's right up there with microtransactions in my book. They're not asking for a few bucks, they are asking for 7 and then they'll be asking for 10 and then we'll see microtrans

aye, there are definate semantic repercussions in this method, just look at the word "micro" in there and you begin to get a feel for the strategy, already such jargon has wormed it's way into this apple. There is definately a heist (oh sorry, market shift) in the making, something along the lines of : "how do you put a meter on gaming?"

You know what I think we should do, just put little peddle trikes under our desks and hook them up to a generator.

Successfully updated karma reason!

A lot of people say "Oh, those small things doesn't really matter in the big game. There's other items that are better.".

That's not the point! I'm sure that most of this stuff is stuff I'd never be using for my main character, even if I'm sure that most of it would see use in a game, with multiple party members. The point is that it's a constant annoyance that I don't have access to it, simply because of a marketing scheme!

I want to play the game on release day just as much as the next person. But if I want what I'd consider the full experience, I'd either have to pre-order six seperate copies - if that's even possible from Europe - or wait until someone cracks whatever parts of the game that is relevant and adds them. We all know that sooner or later these things will be added to the game one way or another.

But that doesn't help me on the 3rd. Or the 6th, as it were (or will be).

Successfully updated karma reason!

If you're playing the PC version, just make them in the toolset.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Luckmann, trust me, something as popular like Dragon Age Origins, someone will probably leak the copy onto torrent before the release dates a week ahead of time, and when the date of release comes, probably someone will crack the entire game and find all those extra goodies that people are missing due to their method of ordering the game. this is not something you have tow wait long. If you buy the game, then someone online will always trump the schemes of greedy capitalists.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting elias001,

reply 54

Luckmann, trust me, something as popular like Dragon Age Origins, someone will probably leak the copy onto torrent before the release dates a week ahead of time, and when the date of release comes, probably someone will crack the entire game and find all those extra goodies that people are missing due to their method of ordering the game. this is not something you have tow wait long. If you buy the game, then someone online will always trump the schemes of greedy capitalists.

I know, I know, I know. I've already stated my intention of using 3rd party sources to facilitate the aquisition of said.. stuff. It's the fact that they do things like this that annoys the hell out of me.

They think it is a clever marketing scheme and I'm sure that they're cheered on by the various publishers and retailers, but all it does is alienate, confuse and annoy their target market (i.e. us). In the end it is not a major thing in itself, but how far away are we from draconian attempts to restrict the usage of aformentioned additions? It is entirely possible that some or all of these items aren't in the game proper on release (making it harder than to just flip a number in the files somewhere) or a requirement for online activation. How far away is the future where Electronic Bioware Arts has their own downloading software? All you have to do then is tie it to your account - everyone that wants the additionals will have to tie their code to their account and update their game live through their software. By then it won't be as simple as having someone else share their activator.

Successfully updated karma reason!

the thing is..is Dragon Age origins a nonlinear game like Oblivion, or is it more like Bauldar's Gate?? Tha is not something that i am clear on. I have a feeling that it is going to be like Divinity 2.

Successfully updated karma reason!

\rant

insert moan about pre-order content.

\end rant

i still can't help feeling that bioware is going the way of bullfrog, westwood, etc now that ea's bought them, from dragon age's marketing, and the pc exclusive -> inital release on pc then port -> simultaneous release on consoles, the dlc mess, and so on.

That said, this will probably be biowares last good game, although i somehow doubt that we'll have any free content ( such as witch's wake module , the purple dragon knight character class, kobolds, etc for neverwinter nights)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting elias001,

reply 56

the thing is..is Dragon Age origins a nonlinear game like Oblivion, or is it more like Bauldar's Gate?? Tha is not something that i am clear on. I have a feeling that it is going to be like Divinity 2.

There is a more general Dragon Ages thread for questions like this, but to answer it; Dragon Age is a more linear game, probably comparable to Baldur's Gate II - in my opinion probably even more linear since that's the way Bioware has been going for years, since Baldur's Gate (1).

Thankfully, I doubt that it'll be anything like Oblivion.

Quoting edorien,

reply 57

[...]

That said, this will probably be biowares last good game, although i somehow doubt that we'll have any free content ( such as witch's wake module , the purple dragon knight character class, kobolds, etc for neverwinter nights)

As soon as they market something as "better than X" and "the spiritual successor" you know that it's going to fail. Just like they (a general "they", in this case meaning Obsidian) marketed NWN2: MotB as "the spiritual successor to Planescape: Torment" or somesuch. If you aim that high, you're just going to end up missing the mark.

I find it highly doubtful that, in the spirit of their new "Cinematic gaems omg look at that lens flaer!" corporate line, Electronic Bioware Arts will produce anything, ever, remotely close to an old-school RPG or anything near the quality of the original Baldur's Gate.

That's not to say that Dragon Age won't be a good game. Just like Mass Effect, I am sure it'll be a good game. It just won't be a great game and certainly not a game I'd associate with the old omg-Bioware-quality.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting DraekAlmasy,

reply 48

to better explore your own position rather than a chorus of "yeah man!". And I'm here to provide that.

Then understand the points that you're reading, instead of offering nothing of value like "just don't buy it"

You're deliberately adding the price of the DLC to the base game, which only makes sense *if* you're planning on buying them already.

The argument is against the price/quality ratio of DLC's, and things that would be in the game if DLC didnt' exist, but were pulled to charge you $10 dollars for later.

So you're not demanding anything, you're just demanding them to make the DLC available for free. Riiiiight.

Demanding it to be free \= thinking it should be. Try Again.

And just because they DARED spend time on a separate project while working on YOUR game. Do you also ask Valve to give you free copies of Half-Life 2, HL2:Ep1, HL2:Ep2 and Portal just because you bought a copy of Team Fortress 2?

No logic here. If they released Half Life 2, Episode 1, and Episode 2 all on the same day, for $50 each, I'd have a similar bad taste in my mouth. If the same team was working on all of those games at the same time, and they were all constantly delayed, I would complain about that as well. I can't see your logic otherwise...

Having DLC or not doesn't have *anything* to do with the stability of a game at launch. Read up on The Mythical Man-Month for an intro on "why adding more people to a project doesn't make it happen sooner or in a better shape". Or just work in software development in, well, anywhere

You're completely right. Having people work on seperate projects at the same time instead of one is the quickest, most efficient, and productive way to solve every problem, everywhere.

That's been going on forever, its just they were called "expansion packs" back in my day. Or just "sequels". Then came the "Director's Cut" and "Extended" editions, and now we have DLC. So? as before, buy it if the content is worth it, skip it if it isn't, but the complaining is both useless and unjustified.

Expansions, on a whole, add more bang for the buck. There are bombs, but compare fallout 3's 5 DLC's to Oblivion's Expansion. Expansions, Sequels, Director's Cuts, and Extended Editions might feature things that were cut from the original game, but not things that were cut just so they could be put into those editions. Saying that there are worthless expansions is both useless and unjustified. If you're reading, the problem isn't skipping it if it's not worth it, the problem is the growing trend of gaming industry, that is anything but what it was a few years ago with Expansions.

Wrong. I could easily name a dozen expansions that didn't do *crap* for the underlying game other than fragmenting the MP community (anything by Blizzard, for instance), whereas at least most DLC has the decency of a) being cheap, and not fragmenting the MP community between "normal" and "premium" users. So again, your rant is unjustified, there's nothing inherently wrong about DLC nor any inherent benefit to holding off for a big, full-priced expansion.

Wrong. I could easily name a few dozen expansions that did *wonders* for the underlying game. Brood War and Lord of Destruction became the mainstay for Blizzard games after awhile. There wasn't any excuse to not have them after awhile. Several DLC's (map packs and the like) also fracture the MP gaming community into "Normal" and "Premium" users. DLC is also not cheap in comparison to Expansions. 1 DLC is cheaper than 1 Expansion, but 1 Grape is cheaper than 1 Apple as well. You have to add several typical DLC's to equal the content of a single typical expansion, and the price ratio doesn't hold up at that point. So again, your rant is unjustified.

That is why I said someone who doesn't mind spending $10 on an impulse buy, will rethink the decision when considering they spend $120 on a game. The less people buy the worthless or ill attempted DLC's, the less they will be worked on, and the more we will all prosper as gamers.

You are right that there is nothing inherently wrong with DLC, nor any great benefit to holding off for a big, full priced expansion, and vice versa. This DLC looks to be (if what I read is correct) better than many, and $7 for 5 hours entertainment isn't bad by today's standards, but that has nothing to do with why it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, or why the multitude of special one of a kind items given to every retailer seems tactless and adolescent.

Successfully updated karma reason!

On another, but somewhat similar note comes this chart showing how complicated the pricing structure is on Lord of the Rings Online's newest expansion.

Clear as mud, right? They've got a content pack, and something they really want to avoid calling a microtransaction called the "adventurers pack", which is really just a microtransaction. Microtransactions in a subscription based game, you ask? Yeah, which is why they want to call it something else.

Personally I think this is the idea of lifetime subscriptions coming back to haunt them. All those people don't generate revenue, this is a way to try and make them generate revenue.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Tridus,

reply 60

On another, but somewhat similar note comes this chart showing how complicated the pricing structure is on Lord of the Rings Online's newest expansion.

Clear as mud, right? They've got a content pack, and something they really want to avoid calling a microtransaction called the "adventurers pack", which is really just a microtransaction. Microtransactions in a subscription based game, you ask? Yeah, which is why they want to call it something else.

Personally I think this is the idea of lifetime subscriptions coming back to haunt them. All those people don't generate revenue, this is a way to try and make them generate revenue.

Haha, oh wow. That reminds me of this Penny Arcade comic & the way subscriptions were supposed to work for Chronicles of Spellborn. Protip: They didn't.

As soon as you confuse your customers, you've offended them before you've even sold the game to them. I'm not a fan of digital distribution, but when I think of it in the context we're talking about, I'm starting to see the allure. Customers want it simple.

They want a product. They want to pay for it and then have a sense of ownership. That's all. If anyone thinks about it for a while, it's not rocket science. All these schemes to have people buy more or buy faster - I'm confident that in the end, all it does is erode trust and alienate potential customers or fans.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Almost seems like some of you would have been happier if the content in the DLC would simply never exist. I know that's probably not true, but assume that all there was going to be was the main game and that no mention of any kind of DLC took place and it simply wasn't in the cards when making the game. You would then not know of it to complain about it and you'd be on your merry way.

Here's the issue it seems to me. We've all gotten so used to the sticky price of $50 ($60 for consoles) for a game, that any deviation to make the price higher is simply an outrage. It doesn't necessarily matter if one game has more content than another, if it dares to try and sell for more than the expected price point of the game, it's an evil act with no motivation than to rob you of every last dime. If said game decided to cut some non-essential content out, then sell the main game for $50 and the additional content for more, that is also evil it seems. If said game never made that additional content, and simply sold the main game for $50, then, oh, for some reason this is ok (or maybe it's okay because you never hear about it)?

There are many instances when features have to be cut from games because it's not in the budget. Sometimes these features will come back to life in the form of an expansion pack a year down the road, and yet, many are ok with that. But if such a feature could have been made and released earlier in the form of DLC, on the day of release, and the profits from this DLC justified adding it the budget, everyone has to cry foul, because it's a terrible practice.

DLC gives the consumer choices. In this case, you can buy the core game for $50, and if you then want you can buy the additional for some more. Saying that EA or Bioware or whatever, should not offer this DLC you are denying this choice to those who would actually want to get this additional content because *they* themselves feel that the price is right for such content. Why deny this to them?

Also, a note on all of this profit hating business. Many of you speak of extra profits EA is trying to attain as if it were a bad thing. Hmmm...

Most profits are generally reinvested back into the company to fund additional projects. If DA makes a lot of money for EA, EA has an incentive then to reinvest back a lot of those profits to create an even bigger budget sequel or other IP that would appeal to a similar market. How is this a bad thing? They make money, they then use this money to hire more programmers, who then go on to work on more games, which makes gamers happier because now they have more games to play, It's a pretty awesome positive feedback cycle if you ask me.

In any case, I'm glad there's going to be DLC for Dragon Age. The more content the better, as long as the content is of appropriate quality. If I view this $10 piece or that $5 piece of DLC to be worth it for the entertainment it provides, I'll be happy to jump on board, as I enjoy being entertained, hence I vote with my wallet to try and get more of it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What is the difference in paying for DLC and paying a subscription for a subscription-based game like most MMOs are?

Should they have just given the content out as free patch? Debatable. Should they have just made it subscription? Unlikely, alot of gamers have enough subscription games as it is.

For me, I have a pretty long attention span. Games keep me entertained for months and even years on end. It takes alot to impress me to come off my cash for anything new. Dragon Age doesn't really strike me as a "must-have" as of yet. And, if it turns out that the DLCs are "must haves" to play with the cool kids like MMO expansions are, I do not think I have the time or extra cash to plunk down. I also do not want to make that kind of investment in a game I may not like with a company like EA which has a horrible track record at times with this sort of thing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ReuelKB,

reply 62

Almost seems like some of you would have been happier if the content in the DLC would simply never exist. I know that's probably not true, but assume that all there was going to be was the main game and that no mention of any kind of DLC took place and it simply wasn't in the cards when making the game. You would then not know of it to complain about it and you'd be on your merry way.

You are not even trying to see a different point of view of your own. I get that you are happy that there is more of a game you are convinced you are going to love available to you right away. Some of us are unhappy that they took resources away from the main game to try and milk money from fans before they even took the time to sell us the damn game yet. For some, its not about the existence of DLC its about when they started working on it and delivered it. For others, like myself, I hate DLC outside of expansion packs. It's a rip off. It turns a 50 dollar game plus a couple of 30 dollar expansions packs over a period of 3-5 years into a 250+ game in a matter of a couple of years. Outrageous pricing.

Here's the issue it seems to me. We've all gotten so used to the sticky price of $50 ($60 for consoles) for a game, that any deviation to make the price higher is simply an outrage. It doesn't necessarily matter if one game has more content than another, if it dares to try and sell for more than the expected price point of the game, it's an evil act with no motivation than to rob you of every last dime. If said game decided to cut some non-essential content out, then sell the main game for $50 and the additional content for more, that is also evil it seems. If said game never made that additional content, and simply sold the main game for $50, then, oh, for some reason this is ok (or maybe it's okay because you never hear about it)?

That 50 -60 dollar range was picked by the publishers and it has been a sticking point they decided. There are several games that have no business selling at the top price but they sell it at that price anyway hoping to suck people in for a 10 hour button pushing fest with no depth, no story and usually okay graphics. You use another description here, non-essential. What the hell does that mean? What's non-essential to you, evidently, lasting content, is essential to me. You are trying to push the millions of gamers out there into your little thought bubble and label anyone who refuses to follow your line of thoughts as complainers. Well guess what, this so-called complainer is also not going to be a consumer of DA until the game is finished and reasonably priced. I am not an addict that has to get my fix the day it comes out, so I can wait.

There are many instances when features have to be cut from games because it's not in the budget. Sometimes these features will come back to life in the form of an expansion pack a year down the road, and yet, many are ok with that. But if such a feature could have been made and released earlier in the form of DLC, on the day of release, and the profits from this DLC justified adding it the budget, everyone has to cry foul, because it's a terrible practice.

Most of the time these features are consider essential because the marketing drove up the hype and promised the features woudl be there in the first place. Once that is done, it should not be cut, ever. If the team isn't sure they can do it, don't mention it a year before the game is release and then relent a few months before claiming it's not about greed.

DLC gives the consumer choices. In this case, you can buy the core game for $50, and if you then want you can buy the additional for some more. Saying that EA or Bioware or whatever, should not offer this DLC you are denying this choice to those who would actually want to get this additional content because *they* themselves feel that the price is right for such content. Why deny this to them?

You see it as a choice. I see it as taking a basket fruit, pulling out an apple right before ship date and dangling it from of customers. Some will hop around like monkies to get it. The rest of us wonder why they pulled it from the basket in the first place. It is clear this DLC was meant to be there the entire time, was set aside which goes against the traditional idea that you come up with a game, you make the best game you can, try and get as much quality content as you can into the game, release a clean game (yeah this is laugable, we'll see how clean DA is when it's released), and additional ideas, wants, what of's if we had the time get pushed into later content IF the game is sucessful. Hell i can see it now. Hey, I've got this idea for a new RTS, and of course we will want some sort of editor or generator in the mix.

Pencil Pusher: Great idea. I know it's not even a new concept but you know what, our customers will want it. If we have the original team work on it, we'd probably be expected to actually release it with the game. How about, we pull a couple of people away from the original team, rename the orignal team, put them on this DLC, just CYA, and then sell it to our customers at a premium cause what we really want is to do is sell this game at a higher price but the marketing guys tell us that's not a good idea so we'll trick them into think the game is only 50 dollars and then use DLC to get the price we really wanted in the first place. This way we avoid giving any sticker shock and die-hard fans will argue that our price hike isnt' really a hike at all but actually a choic. Wow, this is great and those people at Blizzard have nothing on us. Just think if they had just sold the one game and not told the gaming community they were selling it a trilogy and instead they were going to release DLC for 2-3 years instead, it would be a completely different story!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Even though this thread has been somewhat derailed into the DLC realm, I just wanted to state that my problem was never with the DLC itself, even if I think that they could've handled it classier by releasing it a month from now - or somesuch.

Right now it feels like they finished the game months ago and haven't really been doing anything else, other than working on the DLC and waiting for the consolization work to finish. And that just sucks.

They should've been polishing the game. Or fixing bugs. Or expanding on the game.
Instead they expanded on the game and everything done since a couple of months back, when the game was originally finished, you have to pay extra for.

Successfully updated karma reason!

EA = Greed. 'Nuff said.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I find it interesting that no one seems to have noticed the words in the OP's chart that's in italics (hint: it's the only word that appears in italics in the whole image.) Give up? That word is new, as in you get the content listed as free if you buy a brand new unused copy of the game, or fork over extra money if you buy a used copy.

What this means is that everything on that list that says "Buy any new copy" to get means you are not actually buying that content with the game. Those pieces will be locked to the original buyer—not the game—and if you ever decide to sell your copy of the game, the buyer will have to fork over money to EA for the major content that they would have got if the bought a new copy of the game. It's essentially EA continuing with its war against the resellers market. It really wouldn't surprise me if an EA exec forced BioWare (even if BW is claiming other reasons) to split this extra content off just to make used versions of the game less valuable.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I noticed it. But I have to admit I have no issue with that. If that's the way they're going to 'combat' the used market, I say go for it. I have no issues as long as the game they release is a fully functional product and the extras are only that: extras. In the case of DA:O this is the situation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

find it interesting that no one seems to have noticed the words in the OP's chart that's in italics (hint: it's the only word that appears in italics in the whole image.) Give up? That word is new, as in you get the content listed as free if you buy a brand new unused copy of the game, or fork over extra money if you buy a used copy.

What this means is that everything on that list that says "Buy any new copy" to get means you are not actually buying that content with the game. Those pieces will be locked to the original buyer—not the game—and if you ever decide to sell your copy of the game, the buyer will have to fork over money to EA for the major content that they would have got if the bought a new copy of the game. It's essentially EA continuing with its war against the resellers market. It really wouldn't surprise me if an EA exec forced BioWare (even if BW is claiming other reasons) to split this extra content off just to make used versions of the game less valuable.

That's a rather interesting catch. I did notice the word 'new' there, but didn't think anything of it. While I don't really care, as I only really buy PC games that have had almost no resale value for years, I was wondering when companies were going to start actively giving a middle finger to the used game retailers. This doesn't bother me all that much though. Stores like EB Games/Gamestop have gotten excessively greedy as of late, selling used games for $5 less than new while giving the kid who traded it in 1/4 of the retail value. The game companies don't get a dime of this, while Gamestop can make $500+ for a $60 game over time. They had their chance to offer the publishers a kickback on this, but now they are fed up and cutting features off.

I fully expect the next generation of consoles to move to cd-keys that will be locked to their online account. Well, Nintendo may not. PC games have already been doing this for years, so again no big loss to many of us here.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Coelocanth,

reply 68

I noticed it. But I have to admit I have no issue with that. If that's the way they're going to 'combat' the used market, I say go for it. I have no issues as long as the game they release is a fully functional product and the extras are only that: extras. In the case of DA:O this is the situation.

When is an extra no longer an extra?

Next up, Dragon Age: Clothing Optional?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Not sure of your point, Luckmann. The extra here is The Stone Prisoner. You buy the game new, you get it for free. You buy a used copy, you either have to get the previous owner's account (which is unlikely) or you can buy it if you want it. Just not seeing the issue here, but I don't generally buy used games.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Not long ago this wouldn't even be an issue. Then it was you bought the game and got everything that came with, no seperate piecemeal deal. If some parts weren't quite ready for primetime you'd see them as a small piece of a later full expansion pack. Instead they want to give these tiny bits saying it's DLC to give the illusion of getting something more when in fact they could of just sold Dragon Age:Origins Period, everything included. It almost feels like they had a completely developed game then decided to shear off little pieces in bite sized chunks to make you feel like your getting something extra. And for those that don't qualify for the extra, become another source of revenue.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting DethAdder,

reply 72

...when in fact they could of just sold Dragon Age:Origins Period, everything included.

What part about this is everyone missing? Unless you truly believe the devs are lying to everyone, the DLC (Warden's Keep and Stone Prisoner) could not be included on the disc. You get the Stone Prisoner for free when you buy a new copy. You don't get the Warden's Keep free. Why? Because it was always intended to be for-pay DLC and never intended to be included with the sale of the original game. There was no 'shearing off' of content in order to milk you for it later. I fail to see how this is such a hard concept to grasp.

The only way you 'dont qualify for extra' is if you don't buy the game new. Are they looking at the second hand buyers as a possible extra revenue source with this scheme? Yes, absolutely. Is that a big deal, when you're not forced to have that DLC to play and complete the game?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Coelocanth,

reply 73

Quoting DethAdder,
reply 72
...when in fact they could of just sold Dragon Age:Origins Period, everything included.

What part about this is everyone missing? Unless you truly believe the devs are lying to everyone, the DLC (Warden's Keep and Stone Prisoner) could not be included on the disc. You get the Stone Prisoner for free when you buy a new copy. You don't get the Warden's Keep free. Why? Because it was always intended to be for-pay DLC and never intended to be included with the sale of the original game. There was no 'shearing off' of content in order to milk you for it later. I fail to see how this is such a hard concept to grasp.

The only way you 'dont qualify for extra' is if you don't buy the game new. Are they looking at the second hand buyers as a possible extra revenue source with this scheme? Yes, absolutely. Is that a big deal, when you're not forced to have that DLC to play and complete the game?

Just because you are eating what they are saying, doesn't mean we are going to. What part are of the counter argument are you missing. That part where some people believe working on "additional" content while the final version of the game isnt' even finished is hooey, or the part where you can discuss your point of view without trying to sneak in juvenile jabs at other people's ability to read or comprehend. Bravo.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sorry if that offended you, but it comes down to this: do you think the devs are lying to you or not? I don't. If you do, that's fine. Then I suggest you don't buy their games any more. But until I see something concrete that indicates they're lying to us, I'm going to give them the beneft of the doubt, especially since I've had nothing but good experinces with BioWare to this point. And especially since they've given some pretty in-depth explanations of why this content is not on the disc.

Successfully updated karma reason!