Dragon Age Content Withheld From Vanilla Copy, Sold as DLC

[Zomg]

2. Making cheaper, crappier games

I see what you conflated there

Also you can appreciate why something is a viable economic strategy for a company without being ok with it folks

 

[Castanova]

On the BluesNews comment thread, Derek French chimes in by talking about how the DLC was made by a "parallel development team" and the content was not ready in time to be included in the main game. Pretty silly if you ask me and it looks like the readers there don't take the bait.

 

[Melcar]

They should do NPCs as DLC.

 

[SerratedBiz]

So, someone made a module and some items with the soon-to-be-free development kit and is selling it to you? I was going to write something else but then I got sad.

 

[Silellak]

They are already making almost 3x more money by making everything a trilogy... pisses me off finishing a game and get that feeling of "Great, now in about 3-6 years I'll know how it really ends!"...and that's what I'll probably get with DA.

Let me guess you have bought and played Ultima 1 to 8
Wizardy 1 to 8
Fallout 1,2,3
And NHL 200 to 2010?

It's a fairly simple consumer issue. If you like the sounds of DLC you buy it. If you don't you don't. If you are fundamentally against the concept you don't buy it. If one is so outraged by the whole concept you don't buy the main product.

It's funny how on here people rail about how crappy a game is going to be and then they rail against any other decision regarding the product.

There is a difference between a sequel to a popular franchise, and a game that is, from day one, envisioned as the first chapter of a "trilogy", which nowadays is really code for: "we don't have to finish the story OR write a real ending because IT'S PART OF A TRILOGY. Please insert 60 more dollars to see the next part."

Whenever a developer says a game is planned as "part of a trilogy", they may as well say "expect no closure, or even a real ending, from the first two games."

Never played Wizardry, and NHL was a fucking retarded example, but Fallouts 1, 2, and 3 are all stand-alone games with endings and very little connection story wise. Same with Ultimas 1-6. U7 arguably ends on a cliffhanger, while Serpent Isle and Ultima 8 certainly do. Still, considering we were on the the third "trilogy" of the Ultima franchise at that point, it's a bit more understandable than "here is a brand new game. PS, it's part of a trilogy, so the game will almost certainly end on a cliffhanger and answer no questions. Suck it, fags."

 

[Dionysus]

Before falling down that road, JL, I'd like to see some fiscal proof that newer titles have, indeed had more man-years and bigger budgets than previous titles AND that Bioware's profit line has plummeted.

Well, EA can make huge profits on shit like Rockband, so they must look at something like DA as a product that should cost the consumer more, because I'm sure it costs EA more. And there's also pressure from MS and Sony, because they get some cash from products sold through their download services.

Personally, I don't care one way or another when it comes to this issue. I'm happy with other people propping up the gaming industry by overpaying for a little content if it means that I can pay a reasonable price for something that looks a lot better than Guitar Hero or WoW. I feel the same way about 500$ graphics cards. If someone else wants to pay more for the R&D for the series, then that's fine by me.

But this is stupid from a marketing perspective. Bethesda learned this lesson with horse armor, and stupid publishers like EA and Capcom still don't get it. They would be better off holding onto the content and selling it a month later. That way, nobody cries and the DLC does more to maintain the longevity of the product.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Come to think of it, this is hardly a new trend. While Bethesda didn't do it on release day, they did in fact sell the "true ending" to the main story of Fallout 3 as a piece of DLC.

What exactly happened in the new ending?

Options include
1. Blowing the lid of the price standard and charging $200 for big games like Dragon Age.

You got that backwards. A full 40-hour game (which Dragon Age is close to, I think) is worthy of the $50 price tag, but shorter games usually aren't. It's not that games like that should be sold for more, it's that all these 15-hour knockoffs should be sold for less.

 

[Destroid]

Haha, Dragon Age (PC) has a RRP of $110 ($98USD) here in Australia.

 

[Silellak]

Come to think of it, this is hardly a new trend. While Bethesda didn't do it on release day, they did in fact sell the "true ending" to the main story of Fallout 3 as a piece of DLC.

What exactly happened in the new ending?

Fuck if I know, I didn't buy it. The most I know about it is that

Spoiler

the PC no longer dies at the end and the main quest continues for a bit longer, then you can keep playing after the ending.

I imagine that is now the "canonical" ending.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

Yup, that's the new ending. You wake up in the brotherhood's base and they go sup and you go sup and then you go shoot some Enclave and there are lots of explosions and mini-nukes and then the world continues on forever and ever.

Oh, and if you poisoned the water, random NPCs start dropping dead apparently, and if you didn't poison the water, the BoS has water caravans dicking around which spawns a few side quests.

 

[Volourn]

"Don't be naive. Something like this "zero-day" DLC is planned in advance by suits. While, I am all for your assessment as to the economics of it "

Don't be paranoid. Sure,m this DLC is obviously planned ahead of time. However,m it would not have made it into the main game if there was DLC. All games have material cut. The Shale character was to be in the m,ain game. But, it got cut years ago. Now, it's brought back for DLC. If there was no DLC there would be no Shale.

Not that it matters to me since I avoid buying things on the internet, anyways, so it likely won't effect me.

I say the whiners should get over it. Don't like it, don't buy it. Either way, stop being babies.

 

[SuicideBunny]

i find the shit they are pulling off with the dde much more ridiculous than the 0day dlc, tbh.

But, it got cut years ago. Now, it's brought back for DLC. If there was no DLC there would be no Shale.

which is why everybody who buys the game unused gets it for free. totally makes sense. doesn't look like a forced split of content to kill used games sales at all.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Yup, that's the new ending. You wake up in the brotherhood's base and they go sup and you go sup and then you go shoot some Enclave and there are lots of explosions and mini-nukes and then the world continues on forever and ever.

Oh, and if you poisoned the water, random NPCs start dropping dead apparently, and if you didn't poison the water, the BoS has water caravans dicking around which spawns a few side quests.

So is that whole "one of us must die" dilemma gone now from the game, and you just go in and do it? Or is it more an issue of you thinking you're gonna die, but then you miraculously surivive?

 

[hakuroshi]

It may be a simpler issue. As vanilla game for PC supposedly was ready this spring, devs began working on DLC which of course was planned. It got finished now and some had a bright idea to release both the game and DLC simultaneously. No sinister plot needed, just greed and stupidity.

 

[thesheeep]

Well... in theory...

Games are usually "finished" some weeks before they are released. So it would be perfectly possible that this DLC could not be finished when the original game is, but will be finished within the time between the goldmaster and the release.

But I somehow doubt that this is the case here. It's just morally wrong to sell DLC on release day, no matter the business perspective.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

So is that whole "one of us must die" dilemma gone now from the game, and you just go in and do it? Or is it more an issue of you thinking you're gonna die, but then you miraculously surivive?

You or Lyons go in there, thinking it means death. The dilemma's still there, only the one that goes in gets rescued in time

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

And you can send Fawkes in, since Fawkes says "OH HEY I'M IMMUNE TO RADIATIAN LOL!!!" and there's a flash of light and you and Lyons both fall over and get the exact same treatment as if either one of you went in.

 

[Shannow]

Oh for fuck's sake, Bioware. Have we really reached the point of taking content directly out of the retail release in order to sell it on release day?

This

I really don't understand ... PC games are lower priced than consoles but also less profitable because of piracy.

O really? http://www.mininova.org/today/cat#games You don't believe in keeping up with the times, do you?

...Games are becoming more expensive to create every day.

No. Devs and publishers decide to spend more and more money on making games. There is a difference.

Options include
1. Blowing the lid of the price standard and charging $200 for big games like Dragon Age.
2. Making cheaper, crappier games with less content
3. Cutting down on piracy and used sales so devs get a bigger slice of the pie
4. Finding other sources of revenue for successful games.

1. Option, but they are trying this now and see how well we take it.
2. Or making cheaper better games with more content. I refer you to games older than 7 years. I'm sure you are aware of some of those.
3. The industry is trying just that and it is mainly a kick in the nuts for legal customers. While the economical success is debatable.
4. They are trying this now and see how well we take it.

Option 1 would surely drive us all away and we'd wail uncontrollably about option 2. Option 4 means either DLC and expansions or in-game advertisements or microtransactions or subscription fees. Which of those do you prefer?

In-game advertisments if they fit the game. Coca Cola signboards in Bloodlines wouldn't have been bad, and Intel in MEh wouldn't have bothered me either. Chrysler in DA would suck, though.

That leaves option 3. We can all forgo a savings of $3-5 on a used title and get a "free" $15 DLC so that Bioware makes something off this deal or we could have a heinous copy protection program that rootkits our boxes (and ultimately doesn't work anyway.) Again, which would you prefer?

You are still presenting options in a TINA way and that simply doesn't fly. They are already making profits. Nobody forces them to use $4+ million budgets. What always flabbergasts me in these discussions is that some morons will take the side of the industry, although they are supposedly consumers. You do realize that a market cannot function if the consumer is on the producer's "side"?

I'm not a blind Bioware fanboy and I'm definitely no EA worshipper, but the simple fact is that providing content you want in exchange for you "playing by the rules" as far as the developer and publisher see it is a lot less nasty than other methods they have tried in the past. I thank Bioware for at least trying it.

Thank Bioware for attempting to rip off the consumers... That is even more *facepalm* than I would have expected from you.

 

[Korgan]

A zero-day DLC? Are they asking the pirates to bundle it with the .iso?

 

[MetalCraze]

A zero-day DLC is just laughable. But morons will buy it. Also why the fuck do we care about this piece of shit again?

 

[Darth Roxor]

http://daforums.bioware.com/forums/view ... 135&sp=120

slurp slurp slurp, yummy bioware cock, plz moar DLC slurp slurp slurp.

There seems to be only one true patriot out there (+ Silellak, but he doesn't act in the True Angry Cunt Way :evil: ) and a whole sea of gibbering fanboys.

 

[MetalCraze]

the Collector Edition's should include ALL of the DLC. all of it. that would really make it worth the price

Yay $100 for the uncut game like it had to be - this is what retarded Bioware sheep want. My god these idiots will buy literally any poo you fling at them.

 

[Hoodoo]

 

[Zeus]

If Droog's Arcanum patches taught me anything, it's that a lot of stuff can get cut from an RPG. Usually it comes down to time: parent companies don't want to pay people to work on optional content when they can just finish the main quest, ship the game and make some money.

Does anyone honestly believe there was, at some point, a finished copy of Dragon Age with all this DLC content included? Because that's what I'm hearing. "Oh, they cut it out of the finished game!" No, no they didn't. They either planned it as DLC from the start, which makes it a mini-expansion pack, or they would have had to otherwise leave it out of the game in order to get the damn thing shipped on time and not get fired.

I don't see why everyone assumes that this Warden stuff was removed from the game after it was finished in some last minute burst of greed. Bioware had to cut the content from the main game -- same as things got cut from Arcanum. If they paid people to finish the content, it's only because they knew they could make a return on the DLC, something that wasn't really possible with Arcanum.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

Bioware said

Trust us

Fuck you