Dragon Age: Origins To Get Paid DLC Expansion — On Launch Day

BioWare's upcoming RPG, Dragon Age: Origins, is set to launch on November 3rd. Today they announced details about some of the downloadable content they have planned for the game. In fact, it's scheduled to become available on the same day the game launches, at a cost of $7. (The PS3 version will be slightly delayed). "Called the Warden's Keep, the DLC will add a dungeon-based quest to the game along with six new abilities, a variety of items, and a base where players can trade with merchants. It will feature a supernatural storyline set in an ancient — and possibly haunted — fortress once used as a redoubt by the Grey Wardens, the ancient order at the center of Origins' main storyline." There will be two additional bits of DLC that are available for free to people who have purchased the game new. One "adds a stone golem character to the player's party from the beginning of the game, unlocking numerous story options," and the other increases a character's defense against some attacks in-game.

Comments

EA rears its ugly head

[MemoryDragon]

Seems like EA already is taking over Biowares customer friendlyness (usually it is 2 games until the EA shit starts to boil in the companies they bought)
RIP bioware, not that I wont buy Dragon Age, but I am not very eager to buy any expansion, I probably will wait until a collectors edition with all extensions comes out in a year or so.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the same sentiment.

I will buy DragonAge for the PC for Bioware's sake and download the content EA forgot to burn on the disc from another site.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[CountBrass]

EA weren't the first to do this.

Paradox had pay-for DLC available for their game East India Company on the day it was released.

And the Steam game 'RailWorks' (or something like that I'm at work so can't check Steam) seems to be nothing but pay-for DLC and most of it costs a significant fraction of the original game's price.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

EA weren't the first to do this.

Paradox had pay-for DLC available for their game East India Company on the day it was released.

And the Steam game 'RailWorks' (or something like that I'm at work so can't check Steam) seems to be nothing but pay-for DLC and most of it costs a significant fraction of the original game's price.

This isn't the first EA has done this. I cant remember of the top of my head what game it was but one of their latest games to do it was with the sims 3.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Jaysyn]

The article specifically state that this DLC will not be in the Collectors Edition.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[moonbender]

A guy from Bioware had some things to say about this on Blue's News. He (obviously) was very adamant about how the content had not been removed from the game to make a quick buck. Bioware has had a dedicated team working on DLC for a long time, working in parallel with the main game team. The DLC would not have been ready early enough to pass through QA etc, there was no time to have it in the game on release day; obviously the QA process for just the expansion is faster than for the whole game -- I'd assume the criteria are more relaxed, as well, if the DLC breaks, it is optional after all. There is free DLC on launch day, as well.

That said, the obvious question is, if the people working on the dedicated DLC team had been part of the main team, wouldn't they have had the resources to include more content in the released game? In that way, it still seems like they're "cheating" customers out of content. On the other hand, while it started out controversial, DLC in general is very accepted these days, and it seems arbitrary to react differently to it simply because it's released on launch day. Should they have simply let the DLC lie on a HDD somewhere for a few weeks?

BTW, the developer (Derek French, I think) implied they founded the dedicated DLC team after very positive experiences with NWN, which let them support the game for another couple of years, and which was very well received from the community IIRC.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

That said, the obvious question is, if the people working on the dedicated DLC team had been part of the main team, wouldn't they have had the resources to include more content in the released game? In that way, it still seems like they're "cheating" customers out of content. On the other hand, while it started out controversial, DLC in general is very accepted these days, and it seems arbitrary to react differently to it simply because it's released on launch day. Should they have simply let the DLC lie on a HDD somewhere for a few weeks?

The argument that they'd make (and it could very well be a valid one) is that the reason they could hire a dedicated DLC team was the anticipated money they'd make off of it; unless the DLC was going to increase sales of the game itself (doubtful), or they were going to raise the cost of the game by $5 to pay for it (also doubtful), hiring an extra bunch of people to only create DLC only works if there's some anticipated money to come out of it

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[nahdude812]

The bigger concern to me isn't the for-pay DLC, but the for-free DLC that you only get with a new copy of the game. This is a blatant attempt to cripple the used game market, and violate the First Sale Doctrine. They are purposely crippling the character of anyone who buys a used copy of the game.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Williams091479]

I don't see a problem with this. I agree people should be able to resell games and all but, what's wrong with companies giving people incentive to buy it new? With piracy going up, I don't blame them for wanting to encourage more people to buy the game new so they can see greater profits and success.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[thejynxed]

Like the poster above you said, they have had great success with DLC via NWN. It's true: the 'Premium' modules continue to sell well for both NWN and NWN2, even though the original NWN was released years ago. Then there's the community development tools, that allow end-users to create their own modules. Bioware has official mods for NWN, NWN2, KOTOR and KOTOR2 (even though Obsidian did both KOTOR2 and NWN2).

To the other poster saying this is EA shit rearing its ugly head: Bioware did this before EA even bought them, and Dragon Age was also started well before EA bought them.

Personally, I think it's nice they have additional content available on release day, instead of attempting to tack too much on a month or two down the road. At least this way, they will get player feedback immediately on what the DLC breaks or enhances, and use this data to improve future DLC.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[sw33tjimmy]

yeah....
1. I think folks should wait to see if the game stands up on its own before declaring a foul here.
2. That dedicated DLC team doesn't work for peanuts, I guarantee.
3. If the main team isn't working on DLC, that means other games come out quicker.
4. This DLC is obviously optional. Nobody's forcing you to buy it.

Blows my mind how quick some folks in the community will turn on one of the most influential and important dev teams.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this will only make pirating the game a better option than buying second hand.
The pirates will get everything, including "exclusive" content people who do it honestly will not get exclusive content and might buy the extensions (woo profits and success!).

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Lemming Mark]

Most of what you said was exactly the sort of thing I was thinking - if the DLC wasn't done in time for the game to go Gold then it *couldn't* be on the disk, so it's not necessarily an example of evil. However, regarding ...

Should they have simply let the DLC lie on a HDD somewhere for a few weeks?

I guess I'd have hoped that they'd have continued to work on expanding the DLC further rather than timing its release to start nickel and diming the customers the instant the game is released. If they'd kept working on it perhaps they could have made it even better (and it will probably be good, BioWare know their stuff) and released it further down the line when it looks less cynical and where people have started wishing for extra content to continue playing.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Chaos Incarnate]

Actually, they don't continue to sell well for NWN, since Atari yanked their license a few months ago. As for NWN2... did that one piece actually do well, considering that it was a year late?

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Chaos Incarnate]

That said, the obvious question is, if the people working on the dedicated DLC team had been part of the main team, wouldn't they have had the resources to include more content in the released game?

No. There's a certain point past which they can no longer add content to the game as shipped on disc, because they need to lock down the content for the QA process. But the artists and designers can still work on standalone DLC while the programmers concentrate on the QA process and bug fixes.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

not that I wont buy Dragon Age

Have you seen the trailer?

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it, the main team had to lock down the main content on DA in the spring to give time to the console ports. This has given the DLC team lots of time to add content that will be ready for day 1.

The best explanation I have seen from Bioware about this is found on http://www.dragonagecentral.com/thread/696539

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because the pirated version won't have this add-on.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Moryath]

Bullshit.

You want to put out DLC? Sure.

You put out "exclusive free DLC that only the first owner gets", you're intentionally crippling the game for anyone who buys used. Given that the game is being sold and that's that (EULA's having been routinely tossed out in court because anything in them violating the Doctrine of First Sale is unconscionable) crippling the resale is bullshit and borderline illegal.

You put out "pay for DLC" the day it comes out? That tells me that they pulled finished content from the game build in order to try to make extra cash. It's like a car dealership selling cars, then after they have the money telling customers "oh by the way, we took out the spare tire and jack and some of the important wiring... but we'll sell them back to you."

What really hacks me off is the bit lately where there's "free DLC" that you can only get by preordering the game from a specific retail outlet. More and more games are doing this and it's getting pissier and pissier. It's gotten to the point where if I see that, I deliberately will NOT buy the game until at least 9 months after release and then I'll grab it used. Inevitably, they put all the "exclusive" crap up for either free or pay download (like Soul Calibur 4, where the TV ads showed Yoda fighting Vader but the 360/PS3 releases each only had one character, followed 3 months later by a $6 DLC to get the other character), so I'll buy the damn thing used and then spend the difference on the DLC to get the actual, complete title they should have shipped in the first place.

You hear me, game companies? You do this "exclusive code for DLC if you preorder from Gamestop" bullcrap, I don't buy your game till I can get it used for cheap. You want me to buy it new, stop doing that crap.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it - if the "expansion" is that good, why not put it in the game itself and up the price by a few cents? Why force people to buy two things when they ought to just buy one?

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[PrescriptionWarning]

I don't have a problem with it so long as they're only sweetening the deal with cool extras, as opposed to locking out say a significant portion of the story/game play that would otherwise be there if you were the first buyer.

but to me in this case they're releasing non-free content on release day that they could have just as well included in the retail version of the game (well except for maybe the extra test cycles it might have caused and pushed the date back more). Still it does seem a little wrong.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[MBGMorden]

Despite being a very big fan and supporter of used, sales, I must concur. First-sale doctrine says that you can resell your goods. It doesn't say that the manufacturer must give subsequent buyers the same perks and extras. That's like you buy a soda from Burger King, giving it to the homeless guy outside, and then him getting pissed because they won't let him come back in and get free refills.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[MBGMorden]

You hear me, game companies? You do this "exclusive code for DLC if you preorder from Gamestop" bullcrap, I don't buy your game till I can get it used for cheap. You want me to buy it new, stop doing that crap.

I'm sure after reading your post some intern is worriedly running down a hall somewhere trying to pull the Gamestop DLC offer from Halo 5 before it's too late.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[MBGMorden]

Indeed. Also figure in the holdups of traditional distribution. A packaged game goes gold (final state) a month or two before it hits shelves. You have to factor in the CD duplicators pressing all the copies, printers making all the boxes, packaging and shrinkwrapping the units, shipping, and then add in some delay for inventory to arrive (and wait) at stores so as to have a synchronized launch day. All that takes time.

Meanwhile if they want, DLC can be placed on the net the day after (or heck if the same day as) the content is approved as final. Sometime hitting the net and hitting Gamestop on the same day for release doesn't imply that they were ready for release at the same time.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[nahdude812]

There is a fine line between "bonus content" for first owners and "crippled content" for secondary owners. I'm sure different people will draw distinguishing line at different places. But I'm also quite sure that EA/Bioware draws that line on the side of crippling the content for secondary owners. I sincerely doubt they thought, "Hey, let's give a bonus to the first owners," instead they were thinking, "Let's incent people to buy new by making the game harder if you buy used."

The core problem here is that DLC cannot be resold. That's the real violation here, that's what's really going wrong. There needs to be customer protection in place where fundamental consumer rights are forcibly upheld. Fair use doctrine, first sale doctrine, and other historically legally sound consumer interests need to be upheld by law. It should be illegal for a company to knowingly or even unintentionally interfere with basic consumer rights such as these. Which means that a company should be obligated to provide a means for the consumer's rights to be preserved whenever they enter a new market if some characteristic about that market presents a challenge to it.

I don't purchase DLC because I can't resell it. I buy games on a disc, play them, and when I'm done, I sell the disc at a used game store. This is my right under first sale doctrine, and anything which interferes with this, or which knowingly attempts to subtract value from the resold version is theft.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[nahdude812]

From TF Summary:

One "adds a stone golem character to the player's party from the beginning of the game, unlocking numerous story options," and the other increases a character's defense against some attacks in-game

The resold version of the game is designed to be harder (one less party member, and increased vulnerability to certain attacks), and includes less content ("numerous story options").

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Moryath]

There is a fine line between "bonus content" for first owners and "crippled content" for secondary owners. I'm sure different people will draw distinguishing line at different places.

I draw the line where what's on the disc looks like an unfinished product that requires the "first user only DLC" to make the game look complete. In this case, that looks EXACTLY like what Bioware (at EA's forcing) did: they pulled an entire finished character and associated options/quests/dialog/etc from the game and put it up as pay-for DLC.

The "guitar skin" for the upcoming Brutal Legend thing? Doesn't really annoy me. It's just a skin. When you yank finished characters, quests, or levels? Yeah, that pisses me off.

I sincerely doubt they thought, "Hey, let's give a bonus to the first owners," instead they were thinking, "Let's incent people to buy new by making the game harder if you buy used."

You're not quite thinking like an EA stooge yet. The actual thought process is "let's fuck over the secondary market as royally as possible. We can't actually make the game break for them but we can make it so incomplete that nobody in their right mind wants to buy it used. What about the people who don't stick their console on a network? Fuck 'em. We've already got their money and they won't find out they have a crippled copy till it's too late."

The core problem here is that DLC cannot be resold. That's the real violation here, that's what's really going wrong.

Agreed. All DLC should be required to offer a burn-to-disc option for preservation's sake. The "well we record your purchase on our server and you can re-download it at any time" argument doesn't hold water: database crashes are common, and I'm not going to be happy when they shut the server off 5 years from now and I can't get to my purchase any more. Just look what happened to the last few "managed server" music sites...

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[navygeek]

You put out "exclusive free DLC that only the first owner gets", you're intentionally crippling the game for anyone who buys used.

Could you please explain how this 'cripples' the game? 'Crippling' a piece of software means you cannot use it, not that you don't get a shiny toy with it. You can still play the base game, the DLC isn't required to play and enjoy the game -unless it's a patch to fix bugs, but that isn't really "DLC". If your enjoyment of the game is solely based on the special edition candy apple red dresser for Sims 7, the jet black BFG in Quake 30, or the golden widget in whatever - don't buy the game, but don't bitch about it being crippled.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[kalirion]

But it will probably be in the Gold, or Platinum, or Diamond editions years down the road.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

To me DLC started out as a way developers could show they were not just dropping the game and walking away once you drop your cash on it. It gives developers a chance to add features, environments, NPCs that didn't make the cut on release. I will pirate this game and only buy it when a GOTY edition comes out with all the DLC in it. I would buy it at launch if the first month of content added was considered patches to the game.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Knara]

GotY version, likely.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

So? You don't get the bonus content if you don't buy it brand new. I can't imagine that it's going to make the game significantly harder or less enjoyable. It's no different than bonus maps/weapons when you pre-order or the like. The core game is still there, you get to enjoy all of that. Heaven forbid you have to read Wikipedia to get a little more of the story...

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[StarvingSE]

Remember when games used to come with feelies? Things like cloth maps, gold coins modeled after ones in game, miniature figures, etc? This is kind of the same thing. Buy the game from a certain retailer and you get a "digital feely." Most of the time, these things are insignificant in the game, and are usually available for free after the game's first patch. Now, the $7 add-on DLC on launch day is just greed. All they did was remove content so they can charge more for it. Bioware got EA'ed, and that's just really sad.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[MBGMorden]

They're not buying the DLC perks though. They're buying a game that comes with a free perk (like free refills) that doesn't transfer to subsequent buyers.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Moryath]

When levels are missing, characters are missing, storyline options/quests are missing? That's a crippled game.

Yeah, if you don't get a skin or two, tough cookies. If you're missing a major character from the game, or something of that sort, it's crippled.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Danse]

Link to the Bluesnews posting

On the other hand, while it started out controversial, DLC in general is very accepted these days, and it seems arbitrary to react differently to it simply because it's released on launch day. Should they have simply let the DLC lie on a HDD somewhere for a few weeks?

It may be accepted by some, but PC gamers, especially those that have been around long enough to have played Bioware's earlier RPGs, are definitely not accustomed to paying extra for small bits of content like this. Recall the scrap over the Oblivion DLC a while back. I can only hope that the DLC we get from Bioware is far better than what Bethesda tried to foist on gamers.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[shutdown -p now]

Paradox had pay-for DLC available for their game East India Company on the day it was released.

Speaking of Paradox, the recently released Majesty 2 - published by Paradox outside Russia - doesn't have any DLC available yet, but it was stated that it will be available soon. Some enterprising modders unpacked the game resources, and found a bunch of new content that is already there, apparently only waiting for some bit to be flipped to get activated.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[ravenshrike]

And you'd be an idiot for doing so. The reason the WK DLC is coming out the same day as the game is because the game was delayed from May of 2009 to now to produce the console versions. Thus, the team they had working on the WK DLC finished it. So they had three choices: Release with the game for no charge, which would have been a complete waste of development. Delay the WK release for several months, in which case you wouldn't be whining like a little bitch because you wouldn't even know about it. Or do what they are, which is releasing with the digital CE to make up for the lack of nifty goods and charging a measly $7 to everyone else. That's less than the cost of a decent lunch.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[ravenshrike]

You mean like the Collector's edition which comes with a Steel/Wooden case(depends on locale), a cloth map of the play area, a soundtrack with the core orchestral pieces in the game, a making of documentary, various bits of flotsam, and three more minor but nifty in-game items?

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[ravenshrike]

Harder? *sighs* The missing character is a tank character, of which there are 4 others. Whereas they're only two rogues and two mages. He's not any more powerful than they are, and you can only have three companions at a time. As for the story options, they're all directly related to the character in question, so you're not actually missing any of the game's storyline. As for the increased vulnerability, while the Blood Dragon armor will be nice, it is by no means the best armor in the game.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[ravenshrike]

It is if you buy the Digital Collector Edition, but that's because you don't get any nifty real world items with that one.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[ravenshrike]

Nickle and diming implies less value than cost, however a 3-7 hour in-depth quest line with a few items scattered throughout is well worth $7. It's certainly not flipping horse armor.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[ravenshrike]

They did add about 65 side-quests to the main game between then and now as well, but nothing that required truly major content creation like WK.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[navygeek]

Sounds to me like what initial purchaser is getting is more like a mini-expansion pack as an incentive to buy the game brand new. The game works without the bonus content. Without getting that content you still get the core game - full dialog, full character selection, full levels, full quests. Yeah, that sure sounds 'crippled' to me. Maybe if you'd have read the article to begin with you'd have read the part about the DLC in question was developed in parallel with the core game, not striped out of it.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a valid argument, but only when the supposed "perks and extras" are not required for basic functionality. One of the first-buyer-only pieces of DLC "increases a character's defense against some attacks in-game". This will make the game annoying at best, but it's far more likely that it will be almost unwinnable for anyone who buys a used copy. The alternative is that they wanted to make the game ever so slightly easier for primary buyers, but that doesn't seem very realistic (and would make "hard-core" gamers more likely to buy the game used: "Not only did I beat it on 'Extreme', but it was a used copy.")

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

Hush you! You're not allowed to make sense or use logic in this argument! This is purely a bitch-and-moan session, aimed at burning EA to the ground, and crucifying they're developers! Obviously their ONLY goal is to bilk the customer out of every possible penny, at every turn. Clearly EVERYTHING associated with this game should be FREE once you purchase the base game!

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

Damnit... Rants are bad... You make mistakes like "they're" when you meant "their". I failed. :(

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[drzhivago]

Gamestop's used game model is painfully hurting game companies. This is simply one way of trying to alleviate that pain, by making the game less tempting to either sell back, or buy used.

Conversely, this "free" DLC for new buyers will be available to used purchasers for $15.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Lemming Mark]

Nickle and diming implies less value than cost,

Does it? I always thought it meant to extract a significant amount of money out of your customers, a teeny bit at a time, here and there, masking the true cost. Under this definition, choosing to drip feed content apparently unnecessarily would qualify as nickle and diming.

Yahoo answers seems to agree but then it *is* Yahoo Answers :-S
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061126203028AAuDJAf
Google will probably find better references.

however a 3-7 hour in-depth quest line with a few items scattered throughout is well worth $7. It's certainly not flipping horse armor.

I'm sure it's worth it - Bioware know their stuff. It's just that releasing it at the same time as the retail version of the game suggests a slightly cynical "You've bought the disk, now pay for the rest" approach to DLC - whereas if it had taken them a few more months of development it would look like "Hey guys, we value our customers so after release we made some more stuff - you can buy it if you want".

I don't think Bioware's necessarily ripping people off in terms of value-for-money here. Their stuff is good, I'll probably buy this game and the DLC. I just don't like it as evidence of a trend from "DLC = expansion packs after release" towards "DLC = a load of stuff we had for the game anyway, chopped up and sold for a higher total price than we could get on a single disk in stores".

They have a right to do that if they want but I'd rather they didn't - and if they persist or get worse I'll probably take my money elsewhere. Up to them if they think I'm the common case or not...

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[mconeone]

If I had mod points I'd mod this up. This answers the bitching in this thread.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[HeronBlademaster]

Imagine Squaresoft sold Final Fantasy VII such that you didn't get Tifa (or any of the story or gameplay or items related to her) unless you bought the game brand new. Sure, you could argue that "the core game is still there", but I would argue that they'd be deliberately making the game more difficult for players that buy the game used.

In other words, that would make the game less enjoyable, and would not be ok.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that is probably one of the most uninformed rants I've read in a long time. Makes me think you've never worked on actual shipping software that has a real schedule. I do, every year for the past 12 years. My first thought was hey Kudo's to the DLC team for getting it ready for day 1. Most impressive. You see...it takes time for gold masters to get created, game disk's manufactured, packaged and shipped off to all the various retail outlets around the world. The main game was finished I'm sure at least month prior to it hitting the selves, (maybe two weeks prior). During that time work can still continue on the DLC. Now I don't personally work on XBox live content, so this is just conjecture, but I'm pretty sure it ships way faster, just upload to XBox live so it could be finished conceivably days before the game hits the shelves. Tuesday refreshes, so maybe the friday prior with monday for a last chance to pull it.

Ah well, enjoy your uninformed boycott and tinfoil hat.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[jparker]

Speaking as a developer that's gone through this process, folding the DLC team into the main team wouldn't necessarily have helped speed things up much.

There are a lot of different roles in game development (programmer, artist, designer, QA, each with dozens of specialties within them), and these different roles taper off at different rates as a project finishes up. Usually your art guys are done well before the programmers, then a chunk of designers and programmers come off, then the more of those, and finally QA.

So the DLC team isn't really a totally new set of guys; they were almost certainly part of the main team for a while, but as their areas got finished, it made more sense to roll them onto DLC than clutter someone else's area with too many cooks. QA, especially, wouldn't have the bandwidth to test to the additional content at the same time as the main game. By making it DLC, QA can hit it after the main game passes cert, but before it actually ships. There's usually a 2-3 month lag time (duplication, printing, etc.) after you're done making the game before it appears on shelves, which DLC doesn't have to wait through.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because those two things you are comparing are even remotely similar. Tifa was a large part of the story in FFVII; this stone golem, not so much. A more valid comparison would be this DLC and something like removing the Barbarian from Diablo II and offering him as DLC. You don't need the Barbarian to play the game, but having him adds more depth to the game. Don't use him and you still get all the story in Act V, but if you use him the conversations are more personable and touch more on the character's history than, say, the Paladin.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

... than timing its release to start nickel and diming the customers ...

It's this personality and others like it that's the real issue here. "Nickel and dime" is a statement reserved for *required* costs. Your car can *nickel and dime* you to death because of having to fix this or that to keep the car running. This is optional, expanded content that is not required to make the game run. But, go ahead and keep using such flavorful writing to make it sounds like the company is doing evil things while trying to sound like you're being fair. After all, we certainly live in a "guilty until proven innocent" society these days.

FFS the games not even out yet, and people are crying foul. For all we know, this DLC and full game could be far MORE value than you could have hoped for. It could be worse too. If it's worse, then the community should be all means bring out the pitch forks. But lets not hang a man before he even committed a "crime".

Some people just think they're entitled to everything for free.

Worse, the people who think it would have been BETTER if they just sat on it? WTF difference does that make? It's ok that some company team spent time and money to make something extra for the game *and charge for it* but ONLY if they don't release it too soon to the original game? How is there any logic in that?

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[KDR_11k]

Yeah but RailWorks is a train simulator, that's a genre, like the flight simulators, that sees tons of third parties making add-ons you can buy.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[KDR_11k]

What really hacks me off is the bit lately where there's "free DLC" that you can only get by preordering the game from a specific retail outlet.

The dumbest one I've seen was some "exclusive" stuff in Section 8, the game box included a card with the unlock codes (static ones like cheat codes, not unique like cd keys). The box is the same no matter where you buy it, in fact the box is even labeled in multiple languages so they're not even issuing per-country versions. All that really does is add another step to your install process and could just as well have been in the game without any code nonsense.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[sixsixtysix]

if its free, fine, but the minute they PAY for something, the first sale doctrine should apply. it'd be like buying a soda in burger king and paying for a fancy cup-holder, then not being able to give the cup-holder to the homeless man, or more appropriately, another customer buying soda.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

The "free DLC" is almost guaranteed to already be on-disc, waiting for an unlock code. More than anything, it's a way to get people to load up their marketplace and look at the paid DLC. It's like a loss leader except that the company doesn't lose anything.

If the company had chosen to let the DLC lie on a HDD for a few weeks, that would be a few weeks of the company's dime, so yes, in a way that would validate the content as being an additional burden for them to bring to market. The fact that they would have to pay all these people anyway, who could just as easily have been working towards more content (or free, real DLC) for the $60 base game, does not in any way constitute an additional burden for the company. All it means, compared to having no DLC at all, is that their workers have to stay on the death march a bit longer and won't get any additional pay (except for the hourly QA testers, who will probably hate the idea of day 1 DLC more than anyone by the end). So, in the end, everyone walks away a bit more exploited except for those who control the finances (i.e. the executives), and assuming they get away with it, they'll reward themselves with a new BMW or something.

Working in the industry is the reason why I no longer admire it.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[nahdude812]

Game companies complaining about used game sales is like newspapers complaining about free online news. Some business models work. Some don't. Companies with working business models should succeed, and those with flawed business models (even if they used to be successful) should die out to make room for those who can compete. This is capitalism at its purest, a form of natural selection of companies.

Consumer rights should always be protected, and erosion of those rights should never be used as a crutch to support a failing business model. Do you really think that if they don't figure out a way to crush the used game market, that video games as a business will disappear? The companies which can produce a quality product at a price customers want to pay will discover that just like DVD sales, people will want to own this product. The fact that the used game market thrives so well right now is evidence that the product is overpriced; it's customers who do not believe retail prices of most games are acceptable, and it's customers who bought that game and did not enjoy it enough to want to keep it.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Moryath]

If it's not ready, don't ship it.

The best game companies in the world do that. Companies like yours, and apparently now Bioware (a sad, sad day) go with the "Fuck it, ship it and we'll issue a patch later" mentality. The fact that every console now has a network connection has been great for the cheesy Halo crowd and party-game crowd, but it's encouraging piss-poor coding practices and cutbacks in proper testing and bug-checking and making the console market look more like the "why should I buy a game new, it won't work right till 6 months later when they issue a patch" PC market every day.

If I believed for a nanosecond that the "DLC" wasn't supposed to have been a part of the shipping game that was ripped out so that EA could make more money on it, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. But come on. This is EA. This is the worst company on the planet in terms of attitude towards the customer. I wouldn't leave them alone with tip money on the table after lunch, let alone trust them to ever do the right thing on any larger scale.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[BoothbyTCD]

But it will be in the Pirate Bay edition.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[thejynxed]

They yanked their distribution license, but they still get percentages of sales from Atari, who still sells them.

Atari only being the publisher, not the license-holder of the content, but, they do have the distribution rights.

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Chaos Incarnate]

If Atari still sells them, I can't find any reference to that on their website. Annoying, because I still hadn't picked up the last module... Wyvern Crown of Cormyr?

Re:EA rears its ugly head

[Anonymous Coward]

And you'd be an idiot for doing so.

Yeah, saving 7 bucks sure is a dumb move. Let me know how the Kool-aid tastes.

Right at launch day

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to pay 7$ for this first post, it's for free !

Re:Right at launch day

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you get the 2nd post you cocksucker.

Well,

[DemonBeaver]

they could have just raised the price of the game and stuck it in. Would make me feel less of a sucker

Re:Well,

[MemoryDragon]

This indeed feels like draining additional money out of the people buying the game. If they brought it out 3 months later no one would complain but this looks more like ripping off customers than anything else.
What next, basic game for full price which unlocks you the first levels and for finishing the game you have to buy at least 200 dollars of special items?
EA at its best, I am pretty sure this was not Biowares intent, but they were forced to do this by EA. This is not the Bioware I know of where the two bosses posted on Usenet (Baldurs Gate time) and talked directly to the fans.

Re:Well,

[SirClicksalot]

they could have just raised the price of the game and stuck it in. Would make me feel less of a sucker

But it still wouldn't change the fact that they are trying to charge extra for what should just be in the game from the start.
This isn't an expansion, this is just a side quest that has been ripped out of the game and is now sold separately.
If EA gets their way we'll soon be paying for our RPGs on a per quest basis.

Not that any of this will stop me from buying Dragon Age (although I don't think I ll buy any DLC).
Which is of course the main problem. Dragon Age already has a strong following of BG/bioware fans.
EA knows they can get away with this, the game will still be a guaranteed hit.

Re:Well,

[DemonBeaver]

Next up: Mass Effect 2 in-game gear to be sold separately. Publisher quoted: "We believed that the vendor system in the first game was very good, but in order to give the player the real experience of buying weapons from a merchant, we have created an online weapons shop which can be accessed from within the game. Players of course have the option to play through the whole game using only biotics. Think of the weapons as DLC with a bang!"

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

What next, basic game for full price which unlocks you the first levels and for finishing the game you have to buy at least 200 dollars of special items?

How the fuck is this even anywhere near that kind of idiocy?

Face it, if this was released in 2 months time no one would say SHIT. You people are fucking insane turning DLC into a four-letter word, if the collectors edition was $67 and included this you would be buying it up without a fucking peep. Go fuck yourselves.

Re:Well,

[DemonBeaver]

The big difference is that we know for a fact that this was made at the same time as the full game, during its production. The point of DLC is bringing content to the people which was created later on for the game. Right now they are just selling pieces of the game.

Re:Well,

[Morlark]

Actually, that is not necessarily true. We can reasonably assume* that this DLC was created after the game was put into content-freeze for testing and QA. It was created after the game's production, but since DLC requires a lot less post-production fiddling, it's possible for them to publish both at the same time.

* and by that, I do of course mean "that's Bioware's story and they're sticking to it".

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a collectors edition.... it is 20 USD or so extra.... It doesn't include the DLC "The Wardens Keep". To be honest I feel like canceling my pre-order of teh collectors edition and download it from TPB. It's a real moral dilemma, I love Bioware and I love their games, and I'm looking forward to Dragon Age :Origins a lot, but how much abuse am I ready to take from marketing? Should I really pay $80+ to be screwed over?

Sure, the morally correct answer is to vote with my valet and not buy the game. The problem is that I can download it for free so I don't lose anything (it could be argued that I actually get a superior product), but then I punish both the developers and the publisher for a mistake that I'm 90% sure lies at the publishers.

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

What gets me is that people are making a big fuss over this, but nobody said a word about Bethesda chopping out the ending and a third of the main quest of Fallout 3 and selling that as DLC. This is assholish, but at least it isn't false advertising. People who bought Fallout 3 paid for a complete game that they didn't get.

Re:Well,

[hairyfeet]

The problem with the whole "DLC" concept is the second I heard this term used I figured it would translate into "big game corp says pay full price for a piece of a game, and THEN pay us more monies for the rest!". Why? Because we PC games have had "DLC" for years in the form of mods, only nobody came up with marketspeak to try to push them, that's why.

When you look at the way the games have been going- "multiplatform" being a code word for shitty x360/PS3 port, more and more "DLC" that smells like stuff that should have been in the "real" game in the first place but was ripped out to make the extra monies, blaming piracy for everything when your DRM sucks ass and many of the games have no gameplay or are about as fun as a trip to the DMV, games the any beta tester could tell you are gonna suck but loaded to the brim with "Graphics 2.0" and "Ultraphysics" and other bling that gives you the sinking suspicion that is was designed with some Dilbert PHB checklist, it all comes down to one thing- corporate greed.

Real games take time and love. And with the exception of a few genres where the hardcore will buy every year (Hi Madden!) you can't just repackage the same bullshit with another notch or two added to the features PPT. And with a dead economy I think we can all agree that the $59+ they have been charging for new releases is pretty much a mugging, which is why so many of the corporate drones are trying to find a way to kill first sale and places like Gamestop. So it appears the next idea to "maximize our profit potential" is a death of a thousand cuts upon the consumer. "Why give him the whole game" they say, "when we can just give him a piece of it at full price, and the gouge him out of more money for the rest of the game? Hell we can make $100-$200 a game!"

You mark my words, we'll be seeing more and more games where it feels like larger and larger chunks are missing, only to have the "rest of the game" show up as expensive "extras" thanks to the marketspeak called DLC. That is why I am so glad there are still dedicating modders out there in the PC gaming community, that make add-ons because they love the game and want to see it continue. If any of you are reading this...thanks. There are so many games out there from top notch titles like Freelancer to even bargain bin titles like the Delta Force series where dedicated modders are giving us lots of new worlds to explore and levels to beat years later, all for the incredible price of $0.00 dollars.

So I truly hope this DLC phase dies in a fire. The mega game corps like EA find new and more nasty ways to screw us over every time we turn around anyway, the last thing we need is a way for them to easily sell us less game for more money, and then turn around and bend us over for what should have been in the game in the first place. So bad move EA, and this is one less customer you'll be getting for Dragon Age. Bioware, it is sad to see you go, but since you got bought by EA we really shouldn't be surprised. Hell the only bunch worse to sell to would have been Actiblizzard. So Long Bioware, and thanks for the fish.

Re:Well,

[Deosyne]

Wow, almost made it a page and a half before someone equated extra content that you would have never even noticed not being there while playing the actual full game if Bioware hadn't announced its availability to a full game that is sold in pieces. Why don't you just throw in a car analogy concerning how charging for options on new cars is going to lead to cars being sold without an engine or tires until you pay extra for them and round out this load of tripe nicely? Oh right, Bioware fucked up and gave away the fruits of their very expensive labors for free once, thereby setting up the infamous "level of expectation" that is now biting Valve in the ass, so they'd better start shitting free ponies or else they are now EEEEVIL.

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does everyone assume that this content was "ripped out". I am not denying that this is a possibility, but it is not the only way this scenario works.

Having worked on large engineering projects I know that almost everything comes down to the bottom dollar and to time.

"We could have done more with X but we didn't have the time / resources / money / manpower."

Games do cost a lot to make, no matter what you think. Does this mean they are all good? No. But there are still some great games being made by dedicated teams.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day a lot of the "Great" studios don't get bought out because they are making money hands over fist for their product. They get bought out because the dedicated game makers (while making a great product) don't always have the biggest profit margins. This will inevitably make them insoluble as a company.

It all comes down to a certain ratio. The game market has already set the games price at 59 dollars. At the end of the day, a publisher is probably trying to get 20 bucks off the top.

Lets say your blockbuster game sells 1,000,000 copies. Great! You made 20,000,000 dollars! Thats a lot of money! But you have a staff of around 6000 people (as of about 2006 I think) and we'll assume they are all underpaid slobs at 20,000 a year. So they are going to set you back about 120,000,000. That leaves you with -100,000,000 dollars.

Okay, so you only need to sell 5,000,000 more copies to pay your staff! Oh wait, you have to pay for research into the market for the games themselves. You need to pay for advertising. We'll assume that distribution is already taken out of the equation, as well as the actual manufacture of the games, the overhead in organizing all of this, the costs of upkeeping the buildings, buying new computers, legal fees for patents, security, secure storage for sensitive documents, scouting out talent, etc.

The point it, they don't get to magically make a great game, take as long as they want and then just assume that people will pay lots of money for it

You have to be very careful, judge the market, and based on your best research you have to decide how much money you want to make based on how many you think you can sell. A single games won't carry a company the size of EA, so they portion out some of their staff and some of their project money based on how much they think a particular game will make in the end.

This means the team making the game has only so much money and so much time. (Unless you are blizzard and you just live off your WoW money and take 8 years between games...)

In the end, every game is too big. I've never heard of a game (by a major publisher) that came out exactly as planned. They always have the choice to shitcan anything which is overbudget, or charge a premium for it.

Using DLC they still can get some "impulse buyers" or casual people who don't really care if they don't see every quest in the game. At the same time, they can actually afford to make the game they want to make (at least assuming that the DLC actually sells, if it doesn't they just lost money)

The other option is charging the premium up front, but I can already hear the complaints at a 95 dollar game. "They already made the game, it's not like it cost them any more". But in reality, the good, long, involved games DO cost more. You either get a more expensive good game, or a cheaper worse game.

DLC simply allows the consumer to choose which one they want. If you love games like Dragon Age, then the extra money should be worth it to you. If you are mildly interested, but don't really care, then the standard price is still okay, and you don't have to spend an extra $20 for a dungeon you don't give a shit about anyway.

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

They did this for real with the Godfather game. You could buy weapons and in-game money with real-world money. For a single-player game.

Re:Well,

[mlk]

I disagree. I bought fallout 3 and felt I got a complete game out of it. All the DLC I've bought (Fallout3s & Burnout island) have been in my mind a good addition to an already good game.

I would not have done it if that had not been the case. Not many people think "well that was shit and too short, I'll buy more of that!"

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not speculating one way or the other about this or Capcom and RE5, but the excuse Capcom gave was that they budgeted X amount of dollars for the main game, and Y amount of dollars for the multiplayer add-on, so from the start they were planning on selling it and they wouldn't have spent the man-hours to do it unless they knew they were going to make additional money from it. It just so happens that the extra work was done around the time of release, making it look like it was originally ripped from the package and sold separately to make more money.

I can see where they are coming from if this is indeed what happened. Of course they could have just ripped it out and charged extra because they knew people would buy it. Not sure we will ever know for sure.

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

>>vote with my valet

You should also vote with your maids, butler, and chauffeur while riding to the airport in your Rolls Royce to your Gulfstream before flying to your private Caribbean island. :)

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

The only really good DLC I've seen has been for Oblivion, in which case they were really full-on expansion packs, of course they were priced as an expansion pack at 20 bucks as opposed to the standard DLC pricing of 5-10.

Re:Well,

[Fozzyuw]

If they brought it out 3 months later no one would complain

I'm sure *someone* would complain.

It is an interesting discussion. What is appropriate for new content release? Especially if that content costs extra. If Bioware already had this content done and finished, and it was always planned to be offered as extra content, does it make Bioware any more/less "evil" by releasing it on day 1 or releasing it 'x' days later?

The thing that leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths is trust. There's no reason to trust that this content is truly "extra", rather than a piece withheld from the original game. Another question would simply be, is the original game worth the sticker price without this extra content? Are you getting value for what you're paying for? We'll find out soon enough.

I can say, if Dragon Age doesn't offer massive amounts of time investment without the DLC, the move by Bioware to offer DLC on day 1 is going to backfire big time. If Dragon Age offers 40+ hours of epic RPG goodness without this DLC, it will change minds as to if this DLC was truly "extra" or more of a scam.

Right now, Bioware still have good will with their fan base. If Dragon Age fails to deliver value for the money (While good, Half Life 2 was considered to be too short and the episodes even shorter and caused some ill will towards being shafted for the price, but Valve came back and offered the original game for fee with the orange box, a very value stuffed package, thanks in part to the great experiance Portal became, and even allowed you to gift that part of the game you already owned to a friend. Much good will was restored.).

Let hope Dragon Age turns out for the better!

Re:Well,

[Anil Purandare]

This isn't an expansion, this is just a side quest that has been ripped out of the game and is now sold separately.

I have mod points but I'd rather correct some misinformation instead.

To sum up what BioWare devs have said is that the PC version was originally going to be released back in spring IIRC, so development on features was frozen to allow that. The DLC wasn't in the game's featureset at that point, it was being developed separately by a completely different dev team for later release. The console versions were going to be released around now (there seems to be a longer release process for consoles to allow for higher certification requirements).

At some point it was instead decided to delay release the PC version to the same time as the console versions. But the featureset couldn't be unfrozen to allow the DLC, as that would have messed up the console release process. So we get the situation we have now, where the game is being released at the same time as the DLC.

In other words, while in theory a game company could do what you're saying, in this case the DLC isn't something that was "ripped out" of the game, it's something that we would have had to have waited for anyway.

Re:Well,

[Jearil]

If EA gets their way we'll soon be paying for our RPGs on a per quest basis.

If you want to be a part of the future right now you can download Dungeons and Dragons Online for free (used to be a subscription MMO) and do exactly that. Free to play, but you have to pay real cash to unlock races, classes, and quests.

This micropayment crap is starting to get really annoying. It's not even just that the customer is getting gouged, it's having to remove yourself from any immersive aspect that a game might have to go to some store, pull out a credit card, and do a whole transaction to continue playing. Especially in an RPG, that really jolts you out of the experience I feel.

Re:Well,

[ravenshrike]

Except if you were paying any attention at all, you would know that the toolset the dev's themselves used will be available to the PC buyers. So mods will be an entirely separate issue.

Re:Well,

[ravenshrike]

Or you could not buy WK. Or you could buy the ONLINE collectors edition, forgo nifty real world items, and get WK instead. Or you could even buy the CE, wait for the pirated version of WK to come out, and download that. In a game with 100+ hours per thorough playthrough, as well as significant differences between companions chosen and origin started with, a single quest-line will not much be missed.

Re:Well,

[ravenshrike]

40 hours minimum, assuming pretty fast playthrough and virtually no sidequests. You could get that down to 25-30 hours if you knew the dialogue and response choices ahead of time. Most playthroughs are said to end between 50-80 hours, with a truly complete playthrough possibly going to 120+. That's per origin of course, as well as certain companions. Change those and you change the game significantly, not to mention the choices you actually make in game.

Re:Well,

[BigSes]

So Long Bioware, and thanks for the fish.

So long, and thanks for ALL the fish. DLC has become so widespread that even your witty quote didn't come complete!

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Bioware is not the only gaming company doing decent single player RPGs, Piranha Bytes after the Gothic3 fiasco has had a return with a very strong performance. Risen simply is excellent. I would trade in any Bioware/on rails game with the Gothic 1+2 and Risen!
So if Bioware goes down the gutters, (thanks EA another great company you have run into the ground with your greed) then there are others doing good RPGs.
Biowares games were too much on rails for my taste anway but their strong story made up for their weaknesses (rails and having chests as only means of environmental interaction)

Re:Well,

[Spit]

While good, Half Life 2 was considered to be too short and the episodes even shorter and caused some ill will towards being shafted for the price

I don't recall ever hearing that complaint, but my reaction is there's no satisfying some people.

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

What's there of Fallout 3 is excellent, I'll be the first to say. But without Broken Steel, you aren't getting a full game. They deliberately gave the game a shitty, anti-climactic and unfulfilling ending so as to goad people into buying Broken Steel. Had they at least been honest and said "Yeah the retail game is incomplete, if you want the real ending you'll have to pay an extra 10 bucks" I wouldn't have minded so much.

Re:Well,

[hairyfeet]

Because Mr Anon Coward, if a game sells 5 million copies at $59, and 30 million at $29, well it don't take a rocket scientist to figure which one will bring home more bacon, does it? yet even with an economy that is a corpse we see them pushing prices ever higher, why? Because I believe that many of these companies have become "infected" for lack of a better word, with what i call the "too big to fail" mentality. That is the mindset where they are entitled to ever rising profits, no matter what dreck comes out, and DLC smells a hell of a lot like "maximize our profit potential" marketing drone crap.

I mean think about it, how many games have you seen in the past 2 years where you thought "WTF were they thinking?" because I have thought that way too many times to count. Games with totally braindead AI (and fricking Farcry had decent AI in 2003, if you can't do AI just buy it from somebody who can), levels that are about as fun as going to the DMV, lame weapons, etc. Yet all the games seem to have the same checklist of "graphics 2.0" and "ultraphysics" like it was being checked off by the Dilbert PHB.

Now it looks like DLC is gonna be used to screw the console guys, with stuff that the PC guys traditionally got for free in mods being charged for to "maximize our profit potential". And I have no doubt that when the mega corps see that free mods for PC games cuts into their "profit potential" they'll be killing that but quick. Again instead of thinking that maybe their prices are too high, or making expansions that really give you you're money's worth, mark my words it'll be a "death of a thousand cuts" where the PHBs make braindead decisions and screw the customers worse and worse, and yet wonder why nobody buys their games.

Sadly you seem to have fallen into that trap with the "The other option is charging the premium up front" instead of realizing with the ultra cheap costs of making copies in this medium that maybe, just maybe the answer isn't trying to "maximize your profit potential" but instead LOWERING prices in a dead economy and getting the economies of scale on your side. After all each sale is not just another dollar sign, but also free advertising through word of mouth, and a much easier target for potential sequels. But instead the PHBs will stick to "what is the absolute maximum we can charge without making them throw up when they see the price?" and screwing them every chance they can get with nasty DRM and over priced DLC and blaming the fact that sales are down on piracy, when maybe, just maybe, it was their own stupidity.

Re:Well,

[kainewynd2]

Waa-waa-waa... adding another character and a couple other non-essential items is not a big deal. Hell, it doesn't even correspond to your argument for the most part.
If you want to see some real bullshit, grab Final Fantasy IV: The After Years from the Wii Store... you don't even get the goddamn ending!

Re:Well,

[Fozzyuw]

I don't recall ever hearing that complaint, but my reaction is there's no satisfying some people.

Actually, I believe it might have been the episodes that where too short. Maybe not HL2 proper. It's been a while.

Re:Well,

[Ascagnel]

The first half of HL2 dragged (specifically, the hovercraft section). That was the only complaint I ever heard.

False advertising?

[Aceticon]

So the real price for the full game is not the listed price but instead it's an extra $7

If they don't make this clear upfront in the game box (certainly the amazon.co.uk site says nothing about some of the game content being sold as an extra), I'm sure this breaks the rules in most countries in Europe (i.e they're selling an incomplete product) and is at least grounds for anybody that buys the game to bring it back to the store and get a full refund (which is why I never buy games online).

Re:False advertising?

[will_die]

DLC is not required to complete or even play the game. They are extra content that adds to the game .
It is widly known that games are probably going to have exansion packs, and now a days paid for DLC, so that is not the shocker. It is that they are releasing DLC on the day of release and since time probably does not factor into when DLC is release no falso advertisment or selling an incomplete product.
Now if the cover art of the box included pictures of the DLC golem in the party they I would agree since the box is an advertisement of the product and they are showing you something that can only be seen if you purchase something not in the box.

Re:False advertising?

[Carewolf]

Actually it is an extra $15. The $7 is for additional content. The DLC that you get by buying the game "the right way" costs $15 otherwise.

Re:False advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only bosses are required to play the game.
Everything else should be DLC

Re:False advertising?

[Aceticon]

What would've happen if they had released a game like this 5 years ago before DLC was fashionable - given that they had enough time to develop the content for the game and the expansion pack in time for the release, would they:
- Not have developed the extra content?
- Included it in the actual game?

For all we know they developed the game, then went around looking for what they could take out and sell separately, took that out and are selling it as an extra. Given that EA is the producer for this game, I wouldn't at all be surprised if that is the case.

To use a car analogy, it's as if they are selling a car with a manual clutch and 5 gears, only they disabled the 5th and are selling it separately. Sure, it's a perfectly good car and works as normal ... as long as you don't try going faster than 60 miles/h

Re:False advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I work for BioWare, so feel free to take this post as any combination of "candid inside knowledge" and "corporate shilling" that you prefer. :)

In the case of the golem party member it wouldn't be false advertising to have a picture of it on the box since every box comes with a coupon giving the buyer that particular DLC for free. It's a different piece of DLC, Warden's Keep, that costs some actual money. And as pointed out elsewhere it's still a complete and fully playable game without any of the DLC - you won't even need an internet connection to play the main campaign (it's a single-player game after all, though it's got some other online "social" features you can use if you choose to).

The goal of the Stone Prisoner DLC is to provide a way to potentially get a little bit of money out of used game sales (and perhaps even pirated game "sales"). I personally hope that if it works out it'll help reduce the pressure to try various ways to outright prevent those means of distribution. Dragon Age already has an extremely lightweight DRM encumberance in accordance with this philosophy - just a simple old-school disk check.

As for the concern that the DLC is stuff that "should" have been in the main game but that was pulled out to sell separately, well, it's not. :) The post-release content team is separate from the team working on the main game and was continuing to work on the day-one DLC long after the main game's content had been locked down (the main game has to go through a lot more certification work, and has to be physically manufactured, which is why there's a window like that). Some art resources that had been cut from the main game at various points in its development got rescued, as did a few of the ideas, but if there wasn't DLC those things would have simply never seen the light of day. Things always get cut during game development, the designers only have so much time to implement everything.

Re:False advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a pre-order for the collector's edition. Due to your company attempting to sell me a crippled game, I've canceled that and now will just acquire the game. Doesn't seem like that works out for you guys :/

Re:False advertising?

[Noren]

I'll take it as "lack of knowledge of the law" with some suspicion of "lying".

In the case of the golem party member, if you had a picture of it on the box- if it was formally part of the product being purchased- the Fair Use Doctrine would apply, and possession of it would be required to be transferable or indeed you would be guilty of false advertising. As it is, my understanding is that the purchaser is not "buying" this once only DLC, but is giving it to the buyer "for free" along with the game, in order not to trigger Fair Use. That's not compatible with advertising it as part of the game.

Re:False advertising?

[Kalriath]

Congratulations fucktard, you're proving the fact that developers do need to implement disgustingly restrictive DRM.

If you disagree with them, don't buy the game and don't pirate it either.

First-sale-only DLC...

[TiredGamer]

I'm guessing Gamestop and other used-game retailers will love this.

Re:First-sale-only DLC...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-reselling first-sale-copy-only downloadable/scratch-code/preorder/whatever tied crap should be burned. It is anti-consumer - not because it devalues resale value (I don't care, PC games are not resold by gamestop anyway), but because it is stupid and clumsy, and you always feel like you are missing some part of the game because its exclusive this or you have to jump through hoops to get it or something.

Better way to deal with Gamestop pawnshop problem is to move to digital distribution. Bury the middleman.

For PC games, keep the dlc/code/preorder crap for retail if you insist, but give me the whole thing, nothing left out, nothing "exclusived" to some lameass retail chain as preorderbonus, at a price that is no higher than the retail box price, downloadable, on launch day, not a week later, and I will pay for games. Bonus points if it is on a good digital service (Effectively, Steam)

Don't? Then I don't pay. There is overabundance of stuff on the market anyway, so it is easy to pass on stuff that is being marketed/published by retards.

Re:First-sale-only DLC...

[Seth Kriticos]

I can imagine a situation like this in 500 years in a games museum:

Guide: This is the bare-bone version of the game Dragon Age: Origins, a very popular game in the beginning of the 21st century. This exhibit contains 20% of the game content from the original game.
Visitor: Why is it bare-bone, what happened to the rest?
Guide: It got lost.
Visitor: Why?
Guide: The distribution models in that dark age of information made it completely impossible to archive most kinds of software.. which is why our archives are somewhat spotty for this period.
Visitor: Woah, humans were really this primitive back then? Unbelievable..

Re:First-sale-only DLC...

[Bakkster]

Considering how many people still don't like digital distribution, there still needs to be some way to put a disk on the shelf.

And you complain that this is some complex thing locked down to a certain retailer. It's not. First-sale DLC is easy to get, plug in the code in the manual and you're done. As for being exclusive for pre-order customers, that's a whole different thing entirely.

Gamer Acronyms

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Gamers you are officially like teenagers, because you use silly words that are uncomputable by normal adults.

Whats up with the acronyms that no outsider can possibly understand ?

~epSos.de

Re:Gamer Acronyms

[DemonBeaver]

DLC = DownLoadable Content. And I take it you never served in the army, have you?

Re:Gamer Acronyms

[Anzya]

You're sooo right because it is sooo uncommon for interest groups to make up there own lingo. I mean. I can understand every word a boat owner, dog owner or medical personal uses. So this must truly only be a teenage thing.

"This message was brought to you by sarcasm and troll feeder association."

Re:Gamer Acronyms

[X0563511]

"This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."

I saw the potential and just couldn't resist.

Re:Gamer Acronyms

[DemonBeaver]

I see the potential for a new sig... may I?

Re:Gamer Acronyms

[X0563511]

You may!

Re:Gamer Acronyms

[Anzya]

Much better :)
Think I will steal that as well :)

Re:Gamer Acronyms

[pegasustonans]

And here I always thought it stood for "should the French unite?"

Because if an issue isn't important enough for the French to unite about it, then you should probably STFU. Then again, maybe this barrier is too low. ;)

"Collector's edition"

[neogramps]

This approach is not so different from having a normal and collector's edition of the game - there have been plenty of times in the past where the collector's edition gives you some in-game bonuses - if it was dressed up like that, rather than as additional DLC you have to buy separately, there wouldn't be such a hostile reaction. Selling it as DLC just makes Bioware look greedy; but selling it as a collector's edition makes it seem as though they're catering to hardcore fans and rewarding them with bonus content for buying the shinier box.

Re:"Collector's edition"

[wild_quinine]

This approach is not so different from having a normal and collector's edition of the game - there have been plenty of times in the past where the collector's edition gives you some in-game bonuses

I disagree. The only games I know of with extra in-game stuff in the collectors edition are MMOs, and the stuff is usually pretty lousy to compensate. Most collectors edition bumfluff is stuff like maps, coins, cards, making of DVDs, etc. But I have never seen meaningful extra in-game content given away with the collectors edition of any single player adventure game, and I don't think most people would stand for it there, either.

How can something justifiably be called a 'collectors edition' or a 'special edition', if that's the only edition that contains the complete package? Or, to put it another way, how can the 'standard edition' not contain the actual game?

Re:"Collector's edition"

[Sobrique]

No, it would. I was remarkably hostile to the shenanigans that Sega pulled with 'special forces' edition of Empire:Total War. Same problem, frankly. I will accept - and probably pay for - a 'collectors edition' that includes a box set of extra stuff related to the game. Y'know, T-Shirts, models, maps, guidebooks, and all kinds of stuff that don't remind me all along the line that I got to cater to their greed by paying extra for something that should have been in the 'standard' release.

Re:"Collector's edition"

[Fross]

So far collectors editions generally include vanity items, mild bonuses for the start of play - items that just show off that the user bought the CE, but don't have much impact on the game. Making DLC including an *area* and *new abilities* immediately splits the game into haves and have-nots.

This is less like a CE, and more like WoW when Burning crusade came out - you want to be a blood elf? Well, you can't unless you have the expansion. Want to give your character jewelcrafting? Want to go to new areas (let alone progress pass 60), you can't.

These expansions are fine, though even in WoW's case it really made second class citizens of those who didn't have the expansion. However, to do this on LAUNCH day is nothing short of a money grab.

Re:"Collector's edition"

[Anonymous Coward]

Bioware's own Jade Empire came with an additional playable character in the Collector's Edition. There was no option to buy the character later as DLC if you had a standard edition instead. I don't see anything but an improvement in the new game.

Re:"Collector's edition"

[CountBrass]

This is complete nonsense.

DragonAge is a single player game. Complaining about the extra content is like complaining your neighbour's invisible car, that you never see, hear or get into, is faster than yours because they paid for the turbo version.

Re:"Collector's edition"

[rho]

Interestingly, the only reason I cared at all about Dragon Age was because it was supposed to be basically the next Neverwinter Nights. When they turned it into a single-player RPG, I stopped caring. So Dragon Age is my invisible neighbor's invisible car.

Re:"Collector's edition"

[Glothar]

When the turned it into a single-player RPG?

It was always a single player RPG. From the very start. It was never intended to be anything else. It is the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate (party-based combat RPG), not NWN.

Re:"Collector's edition"

[rho]

That's not true. Originally it was going to be the successor to NWN, without BioWare having to work within the restrictions of D&D and Forgotten Realms. Their own story, their own rules. They were talking about a toolset just like Aurora as well. This is going way back, before there was even so much as a screenshot.

Will it run on linux?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Will it run on linux? Otherwise, I'll pass.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Thanks for being part of the problem. Linux users won't buy games, so games developers won't develop for Linux, so Linux users won't buy games, so games developers won't develop for Linux...

Maybe when Linux (all distros) has more desktop market share than a Microsoft OS which isn't even released yet they'll begin to care. Until then, please feel free to manually edit your .conf files, fiddle with wireless device "firmware" stripped out of Windows drivers, and live safe in the knowledge that you're intellectually elite compared to the rest of the Wintards (like myself) who are playing the games you can only whinge about.

Horses for courses. Get Windows or a console for gaming. Until there is a unified architecture for 3D rendering on Linux (like DirectX on Windows) you're living in a dream world.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[Totenglocke]

The better question is, why don't coders make sure linux will run it (not, will it run on linux).?

You already know that it's going with be a game made to run on Windows. So instead of asking if they modified it so that it'll run perfectly on Linux, you should be asking why the people coding Linux don't focus on making sure Linux can run more games instead of features that no one (even the most die hard power user) uses.

It's kind of like this http://xkcd.com/619/

And before you try to claim I'm a troll, I'm a big fan of Linux and love using it on my laptop - but my gaming system is Windows (for obvious reasons).

Re:Will it run on linux?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Thanks for being part of the problem. Linux users won't buy games, so games developers won't develop for Linux, so Linux users won't buy games, so games developers won't develop for Linux...

I buy more games than I honestly have time to play. All for them with native linux support.

Maybe when Linux (all distros) has more desktop market share than a Microsoft OS which isn't even released yet they'll begin to care. Until then, please feel free to manually edit your .conf files, fiddle with wireless device "firmware" stripped out of Windows drivers, and live safe in the knowledge that you're intellectually elite compared to the rest of the Wintards (like myself) who are playing the games you can only whinge about.

I haven't edited any .conf files for my system, nor have I fiddled with wireless devices. I havn't even installed 3rdparty drivers. I am aware there is some firmware thing going on somewhere below (as I presume there are on windows), but that is handled somewhere beneath the hood. You do come across as someone with an inferiority complex.

Horses for courses. Get Windows or a console for gaming. Until there is a unified architecture for 3D rendering on Linux (like DirectX on Windows) you're living in a dream world.

It's there, it's older than DirectX, and it's called OpenGL. And anyway, I already play games on linux, so the technical side is obviously not a problem. It is merely a matter of whether this game's maker want to exploit the linux niche or not. If they don't, fine, I'll take my money elsewhere. Capitalism at work, no?

Re:Will it run on linux?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

The better question is, why don't coders make sure linux will run it (not, will it run on linux).?

You already know that it's going with be a game made to run on Windows. So instead of asking if they modified it so that it'll run perfectly on Linux, you should be asking why the people coding Linux don't focus on making sure Linux can run more games instead of features that no one (even the most die hard power user) uses.

It's kind of like this http://xkcd.com/619/

And before you try to claim I'm a troll, I'm a big fan of Linux and love using it on my laptop - but my gaming system is Windows (for obvious reasons).

The short answer is: For technical reasons. And I'd never claim you were a troll, please give me some credit. I merely asked, does it run linux? I promise, I won't hate anyone if it doesn't, I just will not buy it!

Re:Will it run on linux?

[CountBrass]

And how exactly would buying a game that doesn't run on Linux encourage developers to develop for Linux?

Re:Will it run on linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

than a Microsoft OS which isn't even released yet [w3counter.com]

Wow, This crap again.... I use linux. I use adblock. So does every other linux user I know personally (and thats a fairly hefty number of developers).

Adblock, my filter set includes ... http://*.w3counter.com/*

I also disable javascript for different domains than where I actually am.

So even if I went to every single site this company monitors, I wouldn't Show in a SINGLE log file.

Same story with damned near every other "metric tracking" site I've ever encountered.

Meanwhile, All you wintards run around with your damned pants around your ankles, getting viruses, tracking cookies, and whatever other stds the corporations you suck off want to give you.

Have fun. I'll continue to be a ghost, because I don't fucking care how many people use my os of choice.

Meanwhile I do buy games that run on linux. World of Goo, Uplink, Defcon, and many other great games sit on my desk and on my hard drive.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism at work, no?

Indeed - at the end of the day, there are still no noteworthy Linux games, regardless of where you take your money.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[eldorel]

There are quite a lot of fun games on linux, some are pay like defcon, others are not.

Better yet, go here> FREE LINUX GAMES THAT ARE ACTUALLY FUN!!!

Either way, unless your idea of "noteworthy" is Eyecandy 3.0+ dx11 crap, try actually playing a few games before you blow them all off.

Heck if you live anywhere near new orleans, we throw lan parties regularly with nothing but free games and people keep coming back.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[L4t3r4lu5]

I've played quite a lot of them, actually... Vendetta I didn't like at all, Frets on Fire was good but buggy, Second Life isn't a game, Quake Wars isn't a game I enjoy, I *detest* turn based strategy games, and the rest listed look like they were made in 2001. That's not necessarily a bad thing; I still enjoy Total Annihilation and the first C&C games. It's just that, well, it looks tired and haggard, rough and shoddy. As fun as I'm sure they are (and I'll try any Windows ports I can find) they don't inspire me with the desire to switch. I didn't spend a grand on hardware to play a game which looks like it was developed for the N64.

Yeah, I like eye-candy, but that's just me.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Best of a bad situation?

How does buying only your local provider's broadband encourage more ISPs to roll out coverage to your area? It doesn't; You make the most of what you have. Linux gamers play what they can get, I play what I want.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Which games? I can't even get Compiz to render properly on my system (8800GTX, 2.4GHz Q6600, 4GB DDR2 RAM). If you can tell me any website anywhere on the internet that will help me get Crysis, Far Cry 2, Wolfenstein, WoW, Mirror's Edge, C&C3, and / or Prototype running on any linux distro, I'll be pretty surprised.

Linking to WINE isn't an option; I don't want to spend 4 hours "fixing" it to get a game to run. If I can't install it and play in under 30 minutes, it's not applicable.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[eldorel]

Ok, we can do eye candy also.

Try this site, it's listed by rating and by age.

Penguspy

Re:Will it run on linux?

[FlyingBishop]

Penny Arcade's shit runs Linux. PA not noteworthy enough for you?

Dwarf Fortress runs Linux.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[eldorel]

I don't own Crysis, farcry, or mirrors edge. But I can get Wow running on any of our systems in about 30 minutes (including install time from the dvds), Command and Conquer is a game we play regularly, and Wolfenstien? you do mean wolf3d, right?

If you want fast installs, dual boot. Use your relatively spotless windows install for games (your framerates will thank you), and work in something else.

As for wow, yes the initial setup is a bit of work, but it does work, and for a game not even remotely written for the os, a bit of configuration is expected.

I just made a few tweaks for wow to work. You pretty much have to use padsp to run it under wine or the sound is crap, and make sure you use the -opengl line when you run it.

First Set the winecfg for wow.exe to use the oss sound driver.
Heres the command line I use.

env WINEPREFIX="/home/eldorel/.wine" padsp wine "C:\Program Files\Wow\Wow.exe" -opengl

I also have a customized config.wtf, but that's pretty much per system.

If it helps here's the most important part of mine.

SET ffxNetherWorld "0"

Other than this things work well. (and yes I know, It's a lot of crap, but still it does work.)

Wine's Appdb has fixes for most of the other problems you may run into, but If I can Help I will.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Which games? I can't even get Compiz to render properly on my system (8800GTX, 2.4GHz Q6600, 4GB DDR2 RAM).

Compiz is a proof of concept. Don't use it unless you like to explore new desktop concepts, and don't mind living on the bleeding edge. Use KDE if you want a flashy desktop.

If you can tell me any website anywhere on the internet that will help me get Crysis, Far Cry 2, Wolfenstein, WoW, Mirror's Edge, C&C3, and / or Prototype running on any linux distro, I'll be pretty surprised.

None of those games are, as far as I know, natively linux games. So why should I buy them?

Linking to WINE isn't an option; I don't want to spend 4 hours "fixing" it to get a game to run. If I can't install it and play in under 30 minutes, it's not applicable.

as I said, I don't buy games that don't run on linux. Though I have, for various reasons, tested HoN and some other game on wine and these ran just fine, which is an amazing achievement. See how well windows will run a native linux application!

If I really *had* to get these games, I'd buy a console. Windows is too expensive and too much hazzle to maintain, imho, unless you have to do that anyway. But as I said, I already have more good games than time to play these games, so I don't mind letting the market forces bring me native games.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, GP, yes, his idea of noteworthy IS Eyecandy 3.0.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do Linux users everywhere a favor and take your whiny, heightened sense of entitlement bullshit somewhere else. Linux is not just a free version of Windows, and nobody but you flailing, hopeless Windows users wants it to be. I mean what the hell dude, those games aren't made for Linux! Don't let your overpriced, DRM-infested operating system hit you on the way to dropping another hundred+ dollars on the next one.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[HeronBlademaster]

Until there is a unified architecture for 3D rendering on Linux (like DirectX on Windows) you're living in a dream world.

I don't think you really understand what DirectX is. It does a lot more than 3D rendering. (Linux already has a unified 3D rendering library - OpenGL. It's mature and works very well.) DirectX encompasses 2D and 3D rendering (DirectDraw and Direct3D, though they're the same nowadays), audio (DirectSound), user input (DirectInput), networking (DirectPlay, if it's still around), video (DirectShow), and so on. I haven't worked with it for quite a while, so it probably does things I haven't thought of.

The real problem with gaming on Linux is audio. Several companies (including Google, iirc) have complained about this - there is no unified audio framework for Linux. Sure, there are upstarts, but none are ubiquitous, regardless of how good each may be.

If we really want Linux gaming to take off, we need someone to develop (and give away for free!) a cross-platform competitor to DirectX, and it can't be GPLed (though it could probably be LGPLed). It needs to do everything DirectX does (or more), and it needs to do it indentically in Windows, OSX, and Linux. When that kind of library is available, then we'll see a lot more cross-platform games.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[HeronBlademaster]

Oh, and we also need stable, up-to-date, maintained hardware acceleration for 3D rendering. That means either the hardware vendors release detailed specs so the community can write quality drivers, or it means that the vendors have to dedicate a lot more time to their Linux drivers.

Re:Will it run on linux?

[Nick Ives]

This question is always on-topic for this site, bad mods!

Whilst there's been no word whatsoever about a Linux port, it is worth noting that NWN had a fully supported Linux port. I doubt this will happen with DA because it uses DX and not OGL but, given Bioware's history with such things, if the DX support in winelib were to get good enough then it could happen. That's more than you can say for most game developers!

Re:Will it run on linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't saying YOU would call me a troll, that was to make sure some zealot with mod points didn't come after me.

I totally understand you wanting to use Linux as your main system, but what's wrong with having a gaming system with Windows? If you really don't want to give MS money, then pirate it =p

Re:Will it run on linux?

[EsbenMoseHansen]

I totally understand you wanting to use Linux as your main system, but what's wrong with having a gaming system with Windows? If you really don't want to give MS money, then pirate it =p

b/c I don't like to pirate, and I don't care for all the extra work of keeping a win32 around for gaming. If I went that route, I'd buy a console, I think.

On release day? Really?

[wild_quinine]

I know there's a cogent argument that DLC isn't always just something that should have shipped on the disk anyway, but really? Releasing an extra quest, for extra money, on release day?

Yeah, that should have been part of the game. Sorry, but where else will it end? Before you know it companies will be releasing half finished games, and charging for 'service packs'.

I pre-ordered this badboy in a show of support after their 'No DRM' statement. Now there's part of the game I'm going to have to 'pirate' on day one if I want the full game, so already there's little point to my gesture. I might as well pirate the whole thing if I'm going to have an illegal copy on my computer anyway.

I won't cancel my pre-order for now, but I'll be watching how this pans out.

Re:On release day? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some early reviews on this game, and all of them indicate that the game is extraordinarily long. If you like the game, you are getting well more than your money's worth, so they clearly aren't skimping on content in order to nickel and dime you out of your money with dlc. I don't see how a game with more content than others is part of a precedent for half finished games. Anyway, IIRC Bioware has a separate team for DLC. This likely was not meant to be in the game (the six month delay making them line up rather than greed).

There is no justifiable reason to pirate the game because you hate something that has little to do with the game proper. Anyway, if its just a quest, and not a reasonable amount of content, why would you bother stealing it? If it is a reasonable amount of content, they aren't ripping anybody off at just $7. People deserve to be paid for their work, especially if you want them to keep making such in the future. Nothing good is free in the long run.

Re:On release day? Really?

[wild_quinine]

There are some early reviews on this game, and all of them indicate that the game is extraordinarily long. If you like the game, you are getting well more than your money's worth, so they clearly aren't skimping on content in order to nickel and dime you out of your money with dlc.

Last year one of the majors proposed charging extra for the boss fights of a game. Everything you just argued above applies to that, as well. But I think we can probably both agree that this would be a bullshit system? Well, that's how I feel about DLC, and I think that it's justifiable, if only because DLC present the thin end of just such a shitty wedge. Especially release day DLC.

There is no justifiable reason to pirate the game...

You're absolutely right. Pirating this game is wrong, and I know that. But, it's not very wrong. It's only about as wrong as deliberately adding a hidden cost, and probably a bit less wrong than holding a meeting to discuss how to shaft your customers hardest and cut down on second hand sales - which, I presume, happened.

If I wanted the moral high ground, I sure as hell wouldn't pirate the game. But I don't care so very much about the moral high ground. I'd like to do the right thing, and I'll make an effort to do the right thing, and I'll pay some money to do the right thing. That's why I pre-ordered right off the back of their 'no drm' announcement. I wanted to do the right thing, and reward someone else for doing the right thing.

But I care a whole lot less about doing the right thing by someone who has just decided to shaft me. I'm not some pristine paladin of virtue, nor am I trying to be one. Nor am I seeking to justify an act of piracy. I don't care if it's justified.

In reality, I'm playing devil's advocate. Probably I'll have a crisis of conscience, and not pirate it at all. But you know what? I probably won't pay for it either. How much I was looking forwards to this game is now officially having to go up against how little I like getting the shaft.

Re:On release day? Really?

[Aladrin]

Aren't you making a huge assumption? You're assuming the DLC was something that existed when the game finished testing and went to manufacturing. If they had waited for this DLC to be ready before sending it to testing and then production, it would simply have delayed the game.

Instead, they've been working on this DLC instead of sitting on their asses while they wait for testing to finish, production to ramp up and shipping to commence.

And again, you do -not- have to buy it. Or pirate it. You could simply ignore it!

Re:On release day? Really?

[Jesus_666]

I do it differently: I see the release date of hte game as the start of a very expensive closed beta program. If they ever release a value edition already containing all the DLC, that will be considered the proper launch of the game by me.

Granted, there have been mission packs before but in those cases they made the game and then worked for a few months to create new content etc. They could conceivably pass off the main game as a finished game. With DLC I get the feeling that they deliberately leave out content that I have to buy separately (and things like launch-day DLC explicitly confirm it). Which would be acceptable if they lowered the price of the game itself correspondingly, which they don't do.

I don't see the point of paying for an unfinished game. I wait until the proper version is released to buy it.

Re:On release day? Really?

[wild_quinine]

Aren't you making a huge assumption? You're assuming the DLC was something that existed when the game finished testing and went to manufacturing. If they had waited for this DLC to be ready before sending it to testing and then production, it would simply have delayed the game.

Aren't you making a huge assumption? You're assuming that consumers should be billed for how a company deals with its internal organisation and release schedule. Would you be as accepting if a company went 'gold' two months into the dev cycle and charging extra for the final two years of work? No, because that's ridiculous. If it wasn't finished when they went gold, then they should pick up the tab, not their customers. That doesn't change just because they went gold two weeks or two months before they were done, not two years.

Re:On release day? Really?

[VGPowerlord]

Aren't you making a huge assumption? You're assuming the DLC was something that existed when the game finished testing and went to manufacturing. If they had waited for this DLC to be ready before sending it to testing and then production, it would simply have delayed the game.

You're assuming that it would take longer to test, manufacture, and ship the final game than it would be to test the game, QA the DLC hooks, QA the DLC installer across 3 different systems, negotiate a contract with 3 different companies to put the DLC on their networks, and create an advertisement campaign for the DLC.

This is also ignoring that Bioware stated they had a separate team working on DLC.

Next thing you know,

[baby_robots]

They will start offering DLC content before the game comes out.

Re:Next thing you know,

[will_die]

EA has already done that.

Re:Next thing you know,

[wild_quinine]

Also, see Fable 2, Pub Games.

Yeah..

[sleeponthemic]

I think it's pretty funny that whilst many industries are rife with the concept of the "optional accessory", it would seem that if you dare do anything such as this in gaming, you must obey an arbritrary "cooling off period" - or you're basically a satanic nazi rapist pedo money vampire in the eyes of this crowd.

Just another righteous indignation article.

Re:Yeah..

[binkzz]

"Many" is relative I think.

There is no DLC for movies, books or music. Imagine having the ability to buy additional scenes to the film. Or a better camera angle. I'd be pretty outraged. Similarly for a book - buying extra character dialogs or an additional page or two of adventure.

Personally, when I buy a game, and there is still tons of DLC, I don't feel like I bought the whole game. And games are already way too expensive in my opinion.

It makes me feel like a cow.

Re:Yeah..

[Anonymous Coward]

The examples you give of products not having the equivalent of DLC are not really applicable since it is not really possible for those products to have accessories or additions.

Movies are first released in the theatre, and cannot be added to in that setting on an individual basis. The DVD versions of movies actually often do have a special edition with additional scenes, commentaries, or even endings. They don't bundle this as a separate purchase in addition to the DVD though simply because no one would buy it (the average customer would not log in to some website to find it and purchase it), so it is not exactly like DLC.

DLC works for games because people are willing to pay for it. If they weren't willing, then it wouldn't exist. DLC equivalents don't exist for the other products you mention simply because no one has figured out a way to make it profitable.

Re:Yeah..

[sleeponthemic]

But there is DLC for movies and music. B Sides, remixes and new formats for music, extra scenes and behind the scenes footage and new formats for movies.

I do respect that you feel like you haven't got the full game if there is a lot of DLC, though. But really, that game has to please you enough for you to buy the DLC so whilst it is one of the many examples of bleeding a consumer, you atleast have to be fairly happy with the original product before purchasing the accessory.

Re:Yeah..

[Jesus_666]

B-sides, remixes and new formats for music work on their own, without any other product required (granted, B-sides didn't come without any other product). In fact, apart from the now-obsolete B-sides they're usually distributed independently of albums and often made available for free. As for movies where you can pay to download estra scenes and behind-the-scenes footage: Any examples? I've never heard of that. I only know the cases where you get it for free with the movie.

Re:Yeah..

[Itchyeyes]

Imagine having the ability to buy additional scenes to the film. Or a better camera angle.

Movies have been doing this for nearly a decade. Almost every film that gets released on DVD sees a basic version first, then a "collectors edition" follows several months later with director commentary, deleted scenes, etc... In fact, while people here rage against EA deigning to release extra content the day of the retail release, movie fans have been clamoring for such a thing on DVDs for quite some time now, as the current structure is intentionally designed to get people to purchase the DVD twice, first simply to watch the movie, then later in order to experience the extra content.

Re:Yeah..

[Anonymous Coward]

For movies the extra content is in the form usually of Director's Cuts. Two versions of the Lord of the Rings movies were released (at least). The normal version and the extended version. The difference between this and games is that you cannot buy the extra content by itself. If you own the original product and want to see the cut scenes/extra content you have to buy it packaged with the original product again - namely buying the movie twice or waiting for the extended edition/director's cut. You basically have to buy it in a lump sum.

I see the movie as the 'extended' version, but in order to actually see it, I have to pay more than the regular version. Hence, the regular versions of Lord of the Rings (movies) are incomplete versions, much the same as some of you are seeing games. The difference is games allow you to buy the normal version and pay the difference for the extended version as opposed to having to re-but the whole thing once you already have the normal version.

Also, not a lot of people complained that Back to the Future 2 was an incomplete film even though they filmed 2 and three together/back-to-back with the intent of releasing them as separate products.

Buying add-ons to games at release gives you more choice and options than movies and their extended versions/directors cuts where you cannot just buy the new scenes and watch them with the movie you already bought. You have to re-buy the original movie PLUS the additional scenes (which, btw, were usually originally part of the product and cut for one reason or another).

It really comes down to the medium. Games. It goes the same with many people that refuse to subscribe to online games yet have no problem paying tons of money to subscribe to cable tv which they may not watch nearly as much as they play some of these games.

Re:Yeah..

[sleeponthemic]

Extra content for games is also often made available for free. I don't see how you can apply all these conditions to other examples cited and not see how they're perfectly related to games. So what if b-sides and remixes work on their own? They are extra content derived at the same time (or after) being distributed under the same banner. Generally on singles (which for the record still exist, as do b-sides). The same contention applies: I own the full album, do I actually own the full experience? Have I got my money's worth? Is there more available? That's what people are complaining about.

Re:Yeah..

[Jesus_666]

I see a difference between releasing few large packages of content (mission packs) and releasing a stream of small bits (DLC). Mission packs are arguably large updates to the game while DLC covers everything between new missions ans "for just five dollars we will make the start of the game a bit easier for you". And even mission packs are usually later sold along with the main game in a value edition.

As for movies: Often the director's cut is either announced before the regular DVD launch, giving those who want it ample information to wait for that release, or it comes much later (cf. the Blade Runner Final Cut). Imagine someone coming up with a recut version of a 25 year old game. You'd expect them to re-release the game for modern systems instead of selling you a patch for the old one, right?
Plus, the director's cut (or similar new versions of a movie) isn't always an upgrade to the movie. There are examples where the original is better in many or all regards.

As for games vs. TV: I use DVB-S. That gives me two dozen unencrypted stations I want to see and several hundred encrypted ones I couldn't care less about, all for nothing past the up-front cost of the equipment. I just don't invest in subscription-based entertainment.

Re:Yeah..

[Jesus_666]

I'm not complaining about free content. If the producers didn't get everything done and they deliver the missing content via patch that's suboptimal but okay. If they didn't get everything done and sell me the missing content that's less okay unless they lowered the price of the game at launch time accordingly. Otherwise it seems that I'm asked pay for them being unable to deliver the full experience at launch time. Why should I?

Re:Yeah..

[sleeponthemic]

I can see your point there, but these optional accessories are largely under the banner of "optional". You cannot claim they are "missing content" with any certainty atall, for if you purchased and experienced the game, unaware of extra content, you would rarely be coming to the conclusion that great chunks of the game were missing.

It is only because in this instance, particularly, the knowledge of such an extra existing seems to bring about the conclusion that you're not getting value for money - in which case I would say to you, how is this difficult from any optional extra released? You don't have to use it to experience the product, it only detracts from your experience in your mind.

If I bought a vibrating dildo, for instance, and at release time there was an optional high power battery pack, should I feel ripped off because I went for the standard vibration level pack? I'm not experiencing the full experience, but because this is in an industry where this type of practice is acceptable, noone blinks an eye.

I would never claim that these companies are not trying to bleed you, I'm only saying that patience is extremely low in games for this practice. Being somewhat of a "bleed" on my employer, as I write code for software, I can see how extra features cost more money, to abitrarily draw a line of value as a consumer is fair, but to claim that the line you're drawing is in any way more than a personal judgement of value is off the mark. We're being bled by every industry. Even in standard software, it is quite common to simply deactivate features and provide higher level versions.

Re:Yeah..

[Jesus_666]

Yes, but the notion of a stratified service has been virtually unknown in gaming before so it's obvious that the gamers are pissed. Apart from making the difference between gamers with a large disposable income and those without greater (something almost nobody will call a good thing) DLC undermines the assumptons that the companies are (apart from the usual rushed releases) doing their best to deliver me the best game they can. Now I have to assume that they do the absolute minimum to deliver me a playable game and make everything else a separate sale. Things like launch-day DLC leave me no other conclusion.

In essence, I weep for the days when video game companies spent their time thining about how to make the best game they can instead of wondering how to make the most profit off a franchise.

I have an idea

[dreamer.redeemer]

I have an idea... don't buy the DLC. We can call this exercise of freedom of choice in spending, hm... capital punishment, wait, no... capitalism maybe? Or we could call it a boycott, it doesn't roll off the tongue the same but the upside is that we can call not buying the game at all a mancott. Mancotts are powerful because you can use all that time saved from not gaming to build that DLCBS resistance movement. Mancotts are not to be confused with ascots, apricots, mascots, Madoffs, or men in cots, which are all powerful in various other respects for various other non-revolutionary reasons.

Re:I have an idea

[CountBrass]

I am outraged by your idea! Do you want my family to die?

EA have threatened to kill everyone I know if I don't buy this DLC- and as I've replied to your post this now includes you and the people reading this post.

Partly true

[Andtalath]

It seems from several sites that you in fact get these expansions, on launch date if you download the game instead of buying the CD version. Otoh, the downloaded version is decidedly more expensive.

It's about options

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the Collectors Edition (or Deluxe Edition) -> http://www.impulsedriven.com/dragonagece already contains that questline, the mentioned extra party member and some extra items, so it's all about choice.

It's not like they're forcing you to buy it. In fact, they're giving you options for something that is non essential to the main story line. Collectors Edition or Vanilla Game and some DLC further down the line.

Imagine you're a bit on the fence on this game and don't want to pay for all the bells and whistles. Buy the vanilla edition, play it (heard it has something like 40 hours for the main story line, 80 if you really want to see it all), and if after that you're still craving for more, maybe some DLC is worthwhile.

Seriously, are you all still thinking of video games as finished products? Specially in a PC context? Has every MMO developer not taught you a valuable lesson? People are willing to pay for content updates, and that goes for any game, if it's good.

Re:It's about options

[Chaos Incarnate]

Only the digital collector's edition—the retail one doesn't. (Though I think I'd rather spend the extra $2 for retail+DLC and get the soundtrack that comes with the retail version. Maybe if Steam offers a preorder before the game launches I'll change my mind, but they and EA don't seem to be getting along.)

At least it's something that is being added

[lbbros]

... unlike what Namco Bandai does on PS3/360, where the "DLC" is actually on the disc the moment you buy it, and you pay for a key to enable it...

Re:At least it's something that is being added

[Amarantine]

Actually, EA has done that before. I recall seeing DLC for EA's Need For Speed, Madden NFL and Godfather games in the Xbox marketplace, offering extra cars, stadiums and weapons respectively. All cost good money, and all downloads were 180KB or so in size, far too small to be 'real' DLC, these had to be unlocking codes for content that was already on the discs in the first place.

Is This Different From Neverwinter Nghts 1?

[mrpacmanjel]

I bought Neverwinter Nights years ago and still play it to this day.

One of the reasons I still play it is because they released additonal content (way after the game was released). I didn't mind paying for additional modules because a lot of work went into it and extended the life of the game.

On the other hand - The DLC for Dragon Age seems to "enhance"/"influence" the gameplay of the main game.
Which to be fair is a bit naughty - to get the "full experience" of the game you have to buy an additional module!

If they released the DLC in say a few months later - maybe the reaction would not be so negative.

As far as I am aware there is no Linux version of Dragon Age - so I will not be buying it. The other reason I still play Neverwinter Nights is because it was well ported to Linux and is also the reason I did not buy the sequel.

Re:Is This Different From Neverwinter Nghts 1?

[FrostDust]

The difference is that, as you mentioned,

If they released the DLC in say a few months later - maybe the reaction would not be so negative.

By releasing modules for NWN months down the road, it implies that Bioware devs spent time and effort, after the game was initially released, into improving the product and giving players more content.

With this and other recent games, releasing DLC near or even on release day implies some executive went "Okay guys, strip out 5% of the game's content, and put it online for $10 instead."

Re:Is This Different From Neverwinter Nghts 1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly why I will not buy the game. It is UP FRONT a crippled game. That is called shareware. But instead of getting the taste for free I am paying for it. I didnt go for it on the PC and will not go for it on a console.

Katamari did this on the 360. However, the game was 40 instead of the usual 60. Now that was a good idea. Hey you can have 80% of the game cheaper if you want the rest you can pay for it. But when they start at the 'normal' (which I think is price fixing but that is a different story) price and then offer DLC for 4-8 dollars a pop? You are just trying to gouge me, no deal.

Re:Is This Different From Neverwinter Nghts 1?

[je ne sais quoi]

Incidentally, Bioware gave its last (free) update to nwn five years after it was released. More than that, they had some kind of snafu with some extra modules that were supposed to be pay modules but ended up being canned and they gave them away for free.

For NWN they went out of their way to make linux and OS X versions, they released a server and client tools that allowed you to set up you own server, and there was tons of community made content. Because of all that stuff, I was still playing NWN more than 4 years after its release because the constant updating improved the graphics quality of the models (and other things like more realistic sky-boxes, better costumes, creatures, etc.)

From what I can tell, Dragon Age feels like they are trying to reproduce NWN, but without all the stuff that made NWN a great game. I won't be buying it.

Re:Is This Different From Neverwinter Nghts 1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they took some resources away from the "main team" that could have added 5% more content to the main game. Something is fishy about this where it was planned from the start to start charging instead of noticing a need or gap in content that can be complimented and supplemented by additional, expansion content.

Re:Is This Different From Neverwinter Nghts 1?

[Nick Ives]

There was a 2yr delay between the release of NWN and the release of the first premium module, Bioware stuck to traditional disc based expansions initially with SoU and HotU. As far as I understand it, there was no intention to release "premium modules" at all during development, it was just an experiment that turned out very successful.

This DLC comes free with the Digital Deluxe Edition that you can buy direct from Bioware, this simply makes it available to people who want a physical copy. It's also worth pointing out that the PC version of DA was finished about 5 months ago but held back so they could do a multi-platform release. This DLC was made from content that was cut from that original "unrelease" but wasn't completed in time for the builds that were submitted to Sony and MS QA.

This isn't horse armour, I seriously expect this to be worth $7 (tho if they try to charge £7 here I'll be miffed!).

Oh, and I agree that the lack of Linux port sucks. You have to admit that NWN really was just exceptional in that regard though, I can't think of any other AAA video game release that has, before or since, received that level of multi-PC-platform support.

I would wait for the Collectors Edition or GOTY

[BlkRb0t]

I would rather wait for a year or two and get the Collectors Edition or the GOTY which would include all the expansions/DLC with patches applied. And I would save a lot on it too. The upcoming Fallout 3 GOTY Edition is an example.

Re:I would wait for the Collectors Edition or GOTY

[CronoCloud]

I agree, but I really wanted that Bobblehead and Lunchbox, I've got 180 hours in it and still haven't seen every location or done all the quests.

Barbie business model

[omi5cron]

seems they are using the Barbie business model. a basic price for the doll and a few accessories. then make available for extra charge all kinds of cool add-on items/materials. pretty soon the Barbie-buyer has sunk 10 times or more of the original doll price into more stuff. hell, they could spend 100 times as much, i think.this is the "nickel and dime" approach.games producers are slowly moving this way for added revenue. you don't need the extra DLC to run through the game, but many will buy it to add to their experience. for myself, i don't care to spend for the extra stuff. the game should stand alone as playable.

I just hope it's on Steam so I can play it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't buy games in boxes - waste of resources and extra $ for stuff I don't want. Haven't used D2D would rather just stick with 1 company.

Re:I just hope it's on Steam so I can play it!

[X0563511]

It doesn't appear to be.

Steam has it's issues, true... but I find it a fair tradeoff to avoid bullshit like SecuROM that I would otherwise be dealing with, should I buy a real disc or from D2D etc.

Re:I just hope it's on Steam so I can play it!

[will_die]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Alot of games on steam come with securom and other copy protection methods.
Such games include: bioshock, fallout 3 and Crysis Warhead.
However EA has released patchs for some of thier games that remove Securom from the steam version.
Also you can also find games with TAGES on steam.

Re:I just hope it's on Steam so I can play it!

[X0563511]

Ah, well I do not have those games (through steam).

Bioshock was a 'gift' - and I think I played it once. Crysis - not interested.

Fallout 3 - I have it, love it. Interestingly enough, this one has the tamest SecuROM available - CD checks only (and are easily bypassed by not using the launcher, and running the game directly... or as a side effect of using FOSE.

I don't have a whole lot of "popular" games really, aside from Valve's stuff.

I do manage to avoid a lot of the shit, if not all of it.

regarding a Collectors edition

[]ix[]

It seems that at least here in Sweden there will be a collectors edition available on launch day. It contains several extras usable in game, but not wardens keep. It is also priced at 250 SEK (~40 USD) above the retail version.

Textbooks have DLC

[tepples]

There is no DLC for movies, books or music.

A growing number of textbooks come with online extras available only to those who buy the book new.

Re:Textbooks have DLC

[binkzz]

A growing number of textbooks come with online extras available only to those who buy the book new.

You are right. I should have made a clearer definition of DLC to only mean non-free DLC.

Free DLC is a good thing in my view.

Re:Textbooks have DLC

[tepples]

A growing number of textbooks come with online extras available only to those who buy the book new.

You are right. I should have made a clearer definition of DLC to only mean non-free DLC.

Unless you're talking about Wikibooks featured books, the DLC provided with a textbook is non-free. Otherwise, people could copy the DLC when they resell the textbook.

Re:Textbooks have DLC

[binkzz]

I did mean beer! stop nitpicking!

Redundant post of the week goes to...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your valuable insight. I'm sure it hadn't occurred to anybody reading this article not to buy it, no doubt everybody bitching about it would have rushed out and bought this DLC on day one had you not shared with us your infinite wisdom.

RE5

[mister_playboy]

Versus mode in RE5 was also like this.

Re:RE5

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a common misconception. Look it up.

Oh! I have an idea

[jollyreaper]

Why not just charge a monthly fee to play a stand-alone, single-player game? Simply paying a lump sum at the beginning and playing from there is soooooo lame!

Sheesh. All this means is that I'll just skip buying on launch day and wait for the collector's edition with all DLC to come down to $15 used. Brilliant move, brainiacs.

Re:Oh! I have an idea

[skrolle2]

The point is that you won't be able to get the DLC if you buy a used copy, you would have to buy a new copy, or you have to buy the DLC separately.

It's a move against the second hand market.

[skrolle2]

The point of this is not to combat piracy or to increase the price of the game, the point is to discourage people from buying it second-hand. The first owner will get two DLC pieces for free, but if you buy your copy used, you will not receive those DLC pieces, you have to buy them from EA, on top of paying for your used copy.

The proper way of looking at it is that the two free DLC pieces should be included in the full game, but that they figured out a way of robbing second-hand buyers of it.

I can see why publishers want to get money from the second-hand market, but doing that at the expense of their customers is incredibly annoying.

Whether this is so bad depends on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether the expansion is tightly integrated with the main storyline, or not.

It's one thing when the expansion is like a mini-standalone game, much like the several expansions of Guild Wars. Yes, you still get more overall value by buying all the set, but you can have a complete game experience with just one package, as long as you are happy with the classes and theme that only that package includes.

It's anothing thing in a case such as TES 4 Oblivion, where numerous DLCs came out later, but all added minor story addons IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOODY STORYLINE. Well guess what, after I finished the game last year which took me over 80 hours as I like being thorough and exploring everything), they offer about extra 10-20 hours of gameplay, to fully enjoy which I will need to replay the whole 80 hour campaign again. Which may be fine for those that want to try out another class or something, but for me one epic playthrough was enough, and I wasn't willing to play it all over just for the occasional extra story subplot, hence I didn't buy any of the DLC or the Shivering Isles expansion.

My point? If your expansion is so tightknit with the main storyline that you can't appreciate it without playing though the whole storyline again, you might as well release it on day one, as I'd much rather be able to enjoy it without having to play the game again a year after I beat it. Yes, it's better yet if you just raised the game price by $7 and have just one edition, but I guess you figured out there's always gotta be that scrooge to whom $7 is more important than the 40-80 hours of his time he'll spend playing the game to begin with, so might as well make it more enjoyable.

Re:Whether this is so bad depends on...

[CronoCloud]

Shivering Isles and Knights of the Nine are pretty much separate from and not integrated into the main Oblivion storyline and have little effect on it. In other words, even if you "beat" the game's main quest, you can still go off and do them. Or do them first, before you ever visit Kvatch, which is what I'm doing.

The solution to EA's "problem"

[bobetov]

It's long been known that the price of a game is fixed - that is, that the amount you can charge for a boxed game on a shelf has a very definite (and mostly arbitrary) price point.

What we're starting to see is publishers trying to sneak past that price point with tricks like this. And we'll see it more and more. Single-player games don't generate a revenue stream, so you've been forced to hit the customer all up front for whatever you hope to recoup from your new game. It's just too tempting to try and spread that cost out a bit and grab some more money.

Thank god for the indie scene. I can't imagine paying $80, $90 dollars for a game.

This isn't really what DLC should be for...

[Turzyx]

I'm primarily a PC user, I don't own a console personally, but I use one occassionally.

When I first heard the idea of mainstream console DLC about 4 or 5 years ago, I always assumed it would be things like map packs, themes, skins etc, or small updates (patches, even) to purchased games stored locally on the machine. This is pretty much how PC games are kept updated so the concept was quite simple to grasp.

The most important difference between PC and console DLC is that companies charge for console DLC. Why is this? I don't imagine PCs are any easier to develop for, and once an engine exists for a specific platform content should be directly compatible between them all, shouldn't it?

The fact this DLC is being released on the same day as the game it's updating shows pure greed and disrespect for the customer. Console games are already way overpriced as it is, in some cases nearly twice the price. Is there any regulations governing pricing for DLC? Things like recommended retail prices are illegal here in the UK and DLC supplied by a single source (the publisher/developer) is a cartel by definition, surely?

Re:This isn't really what DLC should be for...

[Reapy]

I often wondered this as the trend seems to be more and more to pay extra for what was once included for free. Remember those game boxes full of cloth maps and cool little themed things, now to get that you pay 15 bucks extra for the 'collectors edition', which isn't even as good as some of the stuff in the past. Same with DLC now and upcoming 'micro-transaction' games.

Honestly I think the answer though is the most obvious, because people will pay for it. *shrug*. At the end of the day it is about the $$ you take home from your product.

Honestly bioware should have at least pretended to develop the DLC after the fact and release it a month later. No matter what the dev's say, it was a separate team blah blah blah, that team could/should have been part of the original one, constructing one game for release. They constructed this thing in parts, and are now selling it as such.

Honestly the more info that comes out about dragon age the less and less I even want to play it. I'm at the point now where i'm going to let it pass by, unless people start going batshit insane about it, then I might give it a try.

All I can do is sigh.

[Cheney]

I am an avid gamer, and I have no problem with buying brand new games at full price, if I support the studio that produced the game.

I also support Bioware, they've made excellent games for a long while.. but this move is so off-putting. Even if there weren't enough time to get that DLC on the disc before they released it.. charging me $7 for the full product after I just got home from Wal-Mart at 12 a.m. on the game's release night is so off putting.

Sadly, I'm finding myself thinking "Do I really want to buy this game or should I just wait?". Before this news, it was a for sure "Yes." Now, I'm considering not getting it.

What happened Bioware?

[Culture20]

You used to be so cool.

Nobody's holding a gun to your head.

[Aquitaine]

How many of you expressing outrage at this shell out $15/month for some MMO, where you get very little new content for that $15 (as you have to pay for your expansions -- OK, EVE people can get a pass...)

The idea that they had a whole pie and cut a piece out of it and are now charging you extra for a pie plus what was once part of the pie is indeed upsetting. Some people seem outraged that this is being done on the release date.

Remember that the PC release date was originally last Spring, and delayed so they could release it for the consoles around the same time. By all accounts, the game has something like eighty hours of content. It doesn't sound like anybody's being ripped off.

I can't imagine that the game will be inadequate without this DLC (or, at least, if it is, it will be with the DLC as well) and it's seven dollars. Still cheaper than the standalone game for the console.

I'll happily pay an extra $7 for some good content (that isn't, say ... horse armor) and I hope Bioware has done a good job and so earns a bundle for their product. The DLC model is certainly rife for abuse, but if the DLC sucks, don't buy it! zOMG!

Re:Nobody's holding a gun to your head.

[tick_and_bash]

While most people won't mind paying a little extra to support their favourite studios, there is potential for the studios to really tear the ass out of it with DLC. I imagine someone will have the nerve to release crap DLC and eventually release some amazing DLC which requires all of the crap to already be installed.

The New Shit.

[DAldredge]

Did anyone expect anything less when they used a song called "The New Shit" to promote it?

Here goes

[Itchyeyes]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bulk of the comments in this thread seem to be to the effect of: a publisher is obligated to include all completed content of a game in the retail box at the ship date. The problem with this line of thinking is that it has no regard for what it costs to make that content or the fact that we, as gamers, are completely unwilling to pay more than $50 for a game (see the conversation on Modern Warfare 2 for the PC's price point), even while we continue to demand more and more from them.

People seem to think that if we somehow manage to abolish these DLC packs, that content will somehow end up in the retail version of the game instead. What they're forgetting is that publishers and developers aren't just doing this for the fun of it. They're doing it because they have to sell ever more expensive content to almost the same sized audience at the same price point they've always been. DLC and add-ons isn't some end run around the consumer to wring even more profit out of us, it's a last ditch effort to simply keep a lot of these products profitable at all. Without the option to sell this content as DLC, it doesn't end up in the retail package as everyone seems to think, it never even gets made.

Sound policy

[ShooterNeo]

Gripe all you want.

This strategy allows the publisher to more effectively perform variable pricing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_pricing

Variable pricing is a mechanism for maximizing revenue by charging buyers who are willing to pay more, more. Another method of variable pricing is the collector's edition of a game, or hardcover books.

This new method has a distinct advantage, however. When you purchase the DLC online, bioware's publisher receives a MUCH larger percentage of the take (basically 100% minus payment processing and bandwidth fees) than they get if you purchase the game in a store. A publisher only receives 30-50% of the sale price of a game sold in stores.

And no, game developers and publishers aren't trying to raise the stack of C-notes they sleep on at night : for the most part, they are trying to stay in business like everyone else. A triple AAA* title like Dragon Age costs tens of millions of dollars to produce, and is an inherently risky
endeavor because the game is not a sequel. Games fail in the marketplace all the time, even top notch games that should have sold better.

* A triple A title is one that has high end graphics, voice acting, art work, technology, and essentially is near top of the line in all areas. It is impossible to create a triple AAA title today without a large team of people to build it, any more than you can create the special effects of the Lord of the Rings movies with 2 guys in a garage. Note that there are some great games out there released recently (Mount and Blade, Sins of a Solar Empire) that are NOT AAA titles because they do not have the graphics and voice acting. Half Life 2 is an example of an AAA title.

Re:Sound policy

[wild_quinine]

* A triple A title is one that has high end graphics, voice acting, art work, technology, and essentially is near top of the line in all areas. It is impossible to create a triple AAA title today without a large team of people to build it, any more than you can create the special effects of the Lord of the Rings movies with 2 guys in a garage. Note that there are some great games out there released recently (Mount and Blade, Sins of a Solar Empire) that are NOT AAA titles because they do not have the graphics and voice acting. Half Life 2 is an example of an AAA title.

That is NOT a AAA title. 'AAA' has never been a measure of quality. It is a marketing term.

Re:Sound policy

[kalirion]

To me, AAA is more a measure of budget than anything else (not just Marketing budget though.)

Re:Sound policy

[Noren]

Apologia all you want.

This strategy allows the publisher to more effectively circumvent the First Sale Doctrine.

The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1908 and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Â 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained.

Re:Sound policy

[ShooterNeo]

If the publisher doesn't sell you a copy of the work, they haven't made a first sale. Say what you like, they aren't breaking the law. They are working around it....what's the harm in that?

Re:Sound policy

[Noren]

It's legal as long as they don't make a false claim that they're selling you that content, such as by advertising it as being part of the purchase. If they claim they're selling you particular content, and then don't abide by First Sale Doctrine with respect to that content, then they are either A) not actually selling you a copy and thus are guilty of false advertising or B) selling you a copy and thus are guilty of violating the First Sale Doctrine. Advertising such as this press release that promotes the product as including content that is not transferrable is very much in a grey area, if not a blatant violation.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a thought. Don't buy the DLC. That is the only message companies understand. All I hear is a bunch a cry babies here whining how the big bad corporations are greedily taking on our money and with stuff that should have been included with the game. Please, grow up. It is people's willingness to spend the money for the DLC that is driving this - nothing else. So instead of whining about this - don't buy it. What a wonderfully simple solution.

This is the New Irony!

[Kirin Fenrir]

For those of you that are not Manson fans (and I understand that, I'm only a casual fan) I'd like you to join in the irony here.

"This is the New Shit", the song absurdly-placed as the new themesong of a fairly-generic fantasy world with a lot of blood, is actually a song lampooning our consumer culture. The lyrics refer to the "new shit" as some fantastic new product or service that the consumer must buy for arbitrary reasons...not because they need it, but because it's new. It's a song about aggressive corporate greed and people guilible enough to buy into it.

Think about that a moment.

From another perspective...

[jobias]

I think it should be pointed out that you can, in fact, get this DLC for free when you buy the game. If you get the digital version of the CE, since you don't get any of the physical bits (metal case, cloth map etc.), you're supposed to get the DLC dungeon for free. Has anyone considered that this might be Bioware subtly trying to encourage the sale of digital copies rather than retail boxes? The digital CE is the only version of the game that will include all three DLC bits for free on launch day.

This isn't about DLC, it's about used games.

[E-Sabbath]

Notice that the DLC includes free items only if you buy new. A party member, okay, you can do fine without that, but they basically said 'Everyone who doesn't buy this new, takes X extra damage from every attack.'

Nice, isn't it?

Re:This isn't about DLC, it's about used games.

[colesw]

Until you acquire armor that is better than the DLC.

Except they are right

[Snaller]

That there is sick greed in other walks of life doesn't make it right.

Oh goody more content removed...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to make way for a release day you-get-to-pay-more-than-retail-price-to-get-the-full-game-DLC pack. (My other recent favorite is HoI-III with it's unlockable icon sets...)

Thanks EA. Continuing to win friends and fans everywhere while simultaneously some how managing to survive on your crap recycled sports games after spending billions on studios only to destroy them!

I figured that Bioware's days were numbered once EA got their sticky fingers on them...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Death of Bioware

[plague911]

Ok so now we know Bioware is dead and gone. Who is left to buy from that is actually consumer friendly and high quality? Seriously I have no clue.

Re:Death of Bioware

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody.

Valve and Blizzard are both eaten by the greed monster.

There are officially no respectable PC developers left.

Re:Death of Bioware

[plague911]

Nobody.

Valve and Blizzard are both eaten by the greed monster.

There are officially no respectable PC developers left.

Seriously I don't like the parent is a troll at all. I asked a question and received a response. that is not a troll..

$7....

[bukowski01]

Simma' down people. If you don't like something you vote with your $$ - don't buy the game at all.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

There's also money issues

[Sycraft-fu]

You have to pay those coders, artists, designers, writers and so on. If you want good ones, you probably have to pay them fairly well. Ok well that means you need to make back that money and then some to make it worth it. What that also means is you have a limit on how much you can put in a game if you want it to be profitable. While it might seem like a nice idea to make a massive game that spans 20 DVDs and has thousands of hours of content, what you'd discover is that at $50 a copy, you'd never make back all the money you put in to it, even with great sales.

So that is another reason for something like this. You can say "Ok, we want to add this, but it puts us over budget. So, let's develop it separate as DLC."

Budget constraints are a very real thing for any product, games included. If there isn't a reasonable chance you'll make money on it, well then publishers aren't going to want to fund it. As such they'll set budgets that need to be met.

Games aren't a charity. There are plenty of people behind the scenes who need to get their salaries paid to make a living.

DLC vs Feature Creep

[mastahYee]

IAAGD
As a game wraps up, the order of operations is generally thus:

1. 1. Packaging / manual designs sent to printer
2. 2. Code freeze on current build (content creation continues)
3. 3. Q&A
4. 4. Gold Master
5. 5. Duplication
6. 6. Package assembled and shipped

In an ideal world, this process is only a few months. This allows plenty of time to begin content creation for DLC and expansions. Including post-QA content and features to a stable build is way too risky. To ship software successfully, you need to know when to freeze an iteration and start scheduling features for the next one.

Correlation is not causation (or is it?)

[Rui del-Negro]

People who insist on tagging articles with "correlationisnotcausation" need to understand that "causation" is a human concept, it doesn't actually exist in the universe (except at extremely low particle levels - and even that might turn out to be less than 100% certain).

Every chain of events has tens, hundreds, thousands, millions of intermediate steps, and all of them have a chance to "fail". It's all a matter of probability. It's extremely unlikely that I'll ever be able to move my hand through a table (without breaking the table, anyway), but if a freak set of statistical improbabilities takes place, it could happen.

Beyond a certain level of statistical correlation and consistent temporal relationship (i.e., "X (very nearly) always happens after Y"), we say that something (X) is "caused" by something else (Y).

Of course, maybe the investigators overlooked some variables, and I'm sure they're not claiming that every child that ate candy became violent, but it seems that rewarding impulsive behaviour with candy during childhood increases the likelihood of impulsive (and violent) behaviour later. Is that even particularly surprising?

If you think "causation" is any more than a human rational construct, I recommend reading Stanislaw Lem's "The Investigation". In the real universe (outside our heads), things just happen. Science tries to describe how they happen, not why they happen.

How very noble of you -

[gadlaw]

Waste of resources to actually own a copy of the thing in question? Well ok if that's the way your mind works but I'm not drinking that Koolaid anytime soon. Personally I get actual, sit on the shelf copies of things. Computers come and go but if I've the actual copy of the game I can actually reload it and use it as I see fit.

This is just consumer choice

[Anonymous Coward]

what moron tagged this as 'greed'?
I bet the same commie retard yells GREED when they are in McDonalds and get offered 'large fries with that?' by the oerson serving them.
If you dont want it, DONT BUY IT.
Grow up!

There is a good reason for this

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who works in the industry, let me point out that at least one of each type of DLC has to be created before a game goes gold to be able to test that the game can use each DLC type correctly. For instance, if the game supports extra levels through DLC, then DLC levels have to be created to test that the game can load and play those levels. At first, we mostly just used dummy content for this, but eventually someone realized that since they were going to make DLC anyways, they may as well work on the DLC in parallel to the game development. It managed to cut the additional costs of creating dummy DLC for testing purposes.

Only one word describes this

[SupremoMan]

Shenanigans.