• This Is Your Game Company On Meth: BioWare thinks the majority of players want day 1 DLC
    116 replies, posted
Bioware, what happened?
Bioware already pissed me off DLC wise with DA:O DLC. Come across a dying man who then goes "HEY YOU CAN SAVE ME IF YOU BUY THIS DLC" Don't have him say that at all if you don't have the DLC!
I don't have a problem with day 1 DLC, as long as it's not on-disc (therefore was made after the game went gold, and couldn't be included). Also as long as it's not something big, because sorry I don't buy that between gold and release they managed to make an expansion. I still say the expansion method of ye olde days was better. Release, after 6 to 18 months, a big expansion priced at 20€-35€, possibly repeat, then possibly a sequel. Not only did we get so much more than this DLC method for [B]a lot[/B] less, we also got more overall even ignoring the price (I have hardly seen any game get one, let alone 2, old day expansion's worth of content through DLC).
[QUOTE=Lambeth;37309782]FTFY Publishers usually take a lion's share of the profits, if not all. [editline]19th August 2012[/editline] EA was around from the first mass effect onward.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the first Mass Effect was originally published by Microsoft. Mass Effect 2 was likely in development at that point already, not to mention Mass Effect 2 even had loads of DLC and such. Mass Effect 3 isn't all EA's fault. I'm not going to blame just EA, mind you. Bioware could've had a better ending, better game, better overall everything. Sure, EA may help make decisions with Day 1 DLC, but this is Bioware saying it.
So would it make you feel better if they made the DLC after the game went gold, and could release it first day, but instead wait weeks or even a month to release it? I'm trying to figure out where the stigma of first DLC ends here. If there was no way they could add it to the game and it was considered from the start to be something worthy of DLC or extra status, not part of the main game (and main price tag), then the man hours put into it need to be funded in some way. I'm not even talking about ME3, I mean games in general before you bring it up. If the game really does not have any content locked on the disc does it make it any less of a problem for you?
The reasoning for Day 1 DLC they describe in the OP only works for the kind of 8 hour FPS like Cod, Crysis and so on.
How about making the game long enough so people don't complain about the lack of content the day they bought it?
No matter how hard they try, they just can't legitimate the existence of day-one charged DLC. I could just go on a long list of all the reasons this practice is stupid but I think we already know why.
You do realize they include it on the disk so you don't have to spend time downloading a big file, and instead a small file which is maybe in the KB, to unlock said content. Also, they should charge less.
[QUOTE=G3rman;37310319]So would it make you feel better if they made the DLC after the game went gold, and could release it first day, but instead wait weeks or even a month to release it? I'm trying to figure out where the stigma of first DLC ends here. If there was no way they could add it to the game and it was considered from the start to be something worthy of DLC or extra status, not part of the main game (and main price tag), then the man hours put into it need to be funded in some way. I'm not even talking about ME3, I mean games in general before you bring it up. If the game really does not have any content locked on the disc does it make it any less of a problem for you?[/QUOTE] If it released the same day as the game it should be free. All that's available on game release shouldn't cost more than the normal price of a game. And now with Steam, Origin, etc. there's nothing preventing them to include this content in the game at the last minute (and making it a separate free download for retail buyers). The hours of work put into it are paid by the game sales. When an indie game is released for download only the devs don't charge an extra 5$ for the content they made on the last weeks before release.
Borderlands did DLC right, imo The price was fair, according to the given content, imo Cept for Moxxi But that was a mistake learned
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;37310493]Borderlands did DLC right, imo The price was fair, according to the given content, imo Cept for Moxxi But that was a mistake learned[/QUOTE] GTA IV had the best DLC.
[QUOTE=Delta616;37306116]Actually, there was only a small bit of the From Ashes DLC on disk. It was only model of the Prothean. All the other stuff was DLC.[/QUOTE] Not the case, at least not on the PC version. I actually unlocked the DLC via the config file edit that someone figured out when the game came out.
remember when the old republic had knights of in front of it yeah, that was great
I think what gamers really want is two or three [B]BIG ASS[/B] expansion packs released months to years after the game is released. That would significantly boost the lifespan of a game. But the trend most game devs/publishers are following is the quantity over quality DLC made to make a quick profit.
this thread make me think about how EA ruined maxis, just think to spore, i remember that spore was a lot different from the thing they relased, and now they are ruining simcity whit the always drm
[QUOTE=Griml3xx;37310119]Bioware already pissed me off DLC wise with DA:O DLC. Come across a dying man who then goes "HEY YOU CAN SAVE ME IF YOU BUY THIS DLC" Don't have him say that at all if you don't have the DLC![/QUOTE] Fallout 4, now made by bioware save your father for 20$ kill your father for 5$ save the president for 20$ kill hitlers clone for 50$ colt 9mm with insanely impossible to find ammo and no upgrade at all for 20$ dog follower that'll get in your fucking way constantly for 20$
[img]http://puu.sh/WMe1[/img] "EA developers in a nutshell"
[QUOTE=J!NX;37311336]Fallout 4, now made by bioware save your father for 20$ kill your father for 5$ save the president for 20$ kill hitlers clone for 50$ colt 9mm with insanely impossible to find ammo and no upgrade at all for 20$ dog follower that'll get in your fucking way constantly for 20$[/QUOTE] Follower romance pack $29.95 :v:
I don't want DLC ever... I did just find with buying a game and playing it until the next one came out... and if they allowed modding I could play that game for years... I never want to see published paid for DLC.
[QUOTE=Ridley;37306192]I loved the PS1 and PS2 for the very reason of no DLC. Plenty of games I was satisfied with. Gran Turismo 4 I played non-stop, Soul Caliber 2 was great, 3 was even better. Crash Bandicoot 1, 2, 3 and Crash Bash was a great game for the PS1, as well as Spyro 1, 2,and 3. I would actually expect buying separate content for games appearing on older games and consoles (in the form of separate disks,) due to the limitations of the older technology of the consoles. Everything must be in the name of ~graphics~[/QUOTE] When I wrote my first post in this thread, I was remembering the time I got my PS1 and Crash Bandicoot 2 on christmas when I was 10 or 11. Plug it and play. The same happens with other games ofc, but, nowadays, nothing is plug and play anymore. You have to wait for updates, patches, sign ups, and whatever more. And then they keep adding shit to it, with a cost most of the times. I miss the times where my biggest concern was learning how to work with the memory card saving... [editline]19th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Cmx;37311495]Follower romance pack $29.95 :v:[/QUOTE] Find out what's the face of this elusive apparently hot female looks like: $40
Fuck DLC. Fuck it very much.
In my honest opinion, Tripwire Interactive would be one of the game developers doing DLC fairly well. Over the past few years, they've updated Killing Floor with tons of free maps and weapons, way more than what the base game had back in 2009. The only content the costs money is their little character packs, which are very cheap. Two dollars for four new characters that are completely cosmetic and don't affect gameplay at all? I think that's a pretty good deal if you ask me. I'd say they're well worth what I pay for them if you like spending a little amount of money to unlock some custom characters, with the exception of Ash Harding or Harold Lott, which cost a bit more than your average character pack.
[QUOTE=nomad1;37310383]You do realize they include it on the disk so you don't have to spend time downloading a big file, and instead a small file which is maybe in the KB, to unlock said content. Also, they should charge less.[/QUOTE] great so say that I'm predisposed to, for example never giving a developer any sort of money for day 1 DLC because it's absolute shite what then? now I have some wasted hard drive space for content I will never see unless I cough up dollar
[QUOTE=enricociccio;37311076]this thread make me think about how EA ruined maxis, just think to spore, i remember that spore was a lot different from the thing they relased, and now they are ruining simcity whit the always drm[/QUOTE] Funny, I just watched the extra discs that come with the collector's edition of Spore a few days ago. Apparently they spent over a decade working on the game and made a huge amount of headway in animation technology. Sad how it all fell apart.
[QUOTE=enricociccio;37311076]this thread make me think about how EA ruined maxis, just think to spore, i remember that spore was a lot different from the thing they relased, and now they are ruining simcity whit the always drm[/QUOTE] Don't forget Ultima
I like DLC a week after the game is out. That way I can finish the game just as the DLC strolls out.
[QUOTE=A big fat ass;37316321]I like DLC a week after the game is out. That way I can finish the game just as the DLC strolls out.[/QUOTE] If a DLC is ready to be sent out one week after initial release then there's a problem. Unless it's like completely cosmetic stuff but it's surprisingly rare to find DLC that is both fairly priced and only impacts on cosmetics.
Yeah, and guess what BioWare, Day 1 DLC usually means Day 1 Pirating! So congrats on lowering your customer base, and revamping the lovely fires that churn by lukewarm candles where pirates rest with their endless enjoyment.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;37308641]Actually no DICE's expansion policy has remained mostly unchanged since 1942 came out with two expansions itself that had less content than, say, Back to Karkand or Armored Kill. [editline]19th August 2012[/editline] Oh saw this reply later. What? Secret Weapons came with a lot of shit but Road to Roam came with a couple of new guns, vehicles, and maps for $20. That's less content for price than any of the BF3 expansions. Special Forces for BF2 had a lot of content but that was a larger pack for a bigger price; $30.[/QUOTE] Not really, Road to rome had 6 maps, 6 vehicles and 1 weapon. Even SWoWWII had 16 vehicles, 7 weapons and 8 maps. When compared, B2K you mentioned has 4 maps, 3 vehicles, and 10 weapons. Armored kill is supposed to have 4 maps and six vehicles (out of which only 5 are can be piloted). Both of the bf1942 expansions had more content than any bf3 dlc to date. bf3 'expansions' have worst bang for the buck out of any battlefield title 'expansions' to date. Bf2:euro force came with like 4 maps, 3 vehicles and 7 weapons. For [B]6.99[/B].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.