hURR dURR dERP: To me, the entire Warden's Keep (and Stone Prisoner, but at least that one's free) quest feel like they've just been ripped from the game just to create some DLC.
level250geek: If you release DLC within a month of a game's release--much less on day one--then you have spent at least a portion of that game's development cycle on said DLC, meaning that you could have implemented into the game, meaning that by charging us additional money for it you are ripping us off.
Eric the Orange: Wait, this was released on the same day as the game. Uh, so why wasn't it included in the game?
I am always struck by exactly how ignorant many gamers are of how game or software development actually works. Let me try to explain this for you all:
First, any studio-developed game has a set time limit and budget for development. This should be common sense. All of the time that artists, writers, voice actors, programmers, and QA testers spend working on content is time that they are paid for.
Because of this, there is a set amount of content that can be included in a retail game (which pretty much has a fixed price). This is typically decided early on, and as the game development progresses things are added and removed depending on the difficulties the developer encounters. At each point, a decision is made as to whether X feature is important enough to increase the time/cost of the game development - if it's not, it can get cut from the game. Many of these features might be very cool, and developers can be sad to see them cut, but this happens with every game.
At some point in the development process, the designers have to stop adding new features and content. At this point, the programmers and QA become very busy testing, optimizing, and porting content. In the past, this is the stage where most of the writers, designers, and artists either get fired or get moved to another game.
Instead of firing the content creators, many newer games are deciding to instead have them make more content, to be tested and released separately from the game as DLC. This does not mean that the time that is used to create this is free, or that it is a part of the retail game. In some cases, the designers go back to stuff that was cut from the original game and rework it and fix the problems, because they really didn't want to see it removed in the first place.
While this is happening, the final "gold" version of the game is created. This is the version that first needs to pass the console manufacturers' certifications, and then need to be sent to manufacturing. This can take several weeks. During this time, the programmers and QA can test the DLC content that the rest of the team had been working on. Because they're working off the final version of the game now, and this is just extra content, this process goes a lot faster. It is easily possible that digital content can be tested and ready to be released before the retail versions of the game are even done being manufactured.
But all this time isn't 'free' - the assumption that the people working on this content would otherwise be being paid to add things to the retail game is just stupid. That game development time and budget has already been spent - they would either be working on something else entirely, or looking for a new job.
To create this new stuff, it has to be paid for somehow. For The Stone Prisoner, it's being paid for to see if it helps make up for used game sales - a particular problem for a mostly-linear story-based RPG. The Warden's Keep content, on the other hand, is a marketing promotion to sell the more expensive digital collector's edition (sans cloth map). If you aren't 'paying' for the content in one of those two ways, then you should expect to pay for it directly.
All that you say is quite true, and more than justifies DLC that comes out when the game starts feeling a little long in the tooth--not on the day the game is released, and not for $7. No, I don't want to see good ideas go to waste. No, I don't mind paying for DLC. I have many times. But when you start on day one, you give the impression that you (knowingly) released an incomplete game. So, make the DLC and sit on it awhile. Give gamers a chance to have fun with the core product before you start advertising add-ons; or at least give the early adapters a break and let them hop on the DLC for free.
True, I don't have to buy it on the day it comes out. But when you start charging your customers extra when they just bought the game two hours ago don't be surprised when they start calling rip-off.
Listen, I've got a feeling this is going to turn into a massive argument so before we start lets define the purpose of DLC k bbz?
Downloadable content: "the phrase is used to refer specifically to content created for video games that is released separately from the main video game release."
We can agree that that's what it is? It's simply meant to add content to a video game. Now for an analogy, if I were to sell you a brand new computer, but not sell you the hard drive, well then I'm just as big an asshole as they are.
Don't get me wrong, some DLC is genuinely good and worth the cash, most of the time, like in the case of DA:O, it's just money grabbing.
Well first of all I build all my computers with parts I buy separately, so such a thing would never occur ;) If I were to buy a new computer from, say, Dell, it'd say on the box that it comes with a hard drive. Thus, I expect it to come with a hard drive. If it didn't say it would come with one, I wouldn't expect one.
Thing is, Dragon Age wasn't meant to come with WK. If the PC release had hit back half a year ago when it was meant to (rather than being pushed back for console release dates), we probably wouldn't be seeing the DLC until...well, just now actually.
That's why it's DLC.
Because it was made after the game was finished.
This isn't rocket surgery, Virgil explained it all very well, far better than I could hope to do so and far less sarcastically than I would ever be.
If you're buying it for $7 and it's not bundled with the game, that sounds like you're purchasing it separately from the game's main release to me.
Would it not make more sense to release it at a later date, who needs DLC on day one. People haven't even had time to enjoy the game yet! Also, who the hell leaves the storage chest out of a RPG? That is money grabbing no matter how you look at it. They could've put the storage chest in the main game and oh, waited and made a better DLC maybe?
I still don't see why people bother to pay for DLC, when you buy a video game, you expect it to be finished. That's an important word there, finished. Once more for triadic effect, finished. If it has bugs or minor errors you can patch it. If you need to extend playability then it's alright to add DLC ( e.g. Broken Steel for Fallout 3), but to release DLC, something that's reserved for the end game usually, on the first day. That is low.
I expect to eat my dinner before I sleep with you .
Would it not make more sense to release it at a later date, who needs DLC on day one. People haven't even had time to enjoy the game yet! Also, who the hell leaves the storage chest out of a RPG? That is money grabbing no matter how you look at it. They could've put the storage chest in the main game and oh, waited and made a better DLC maybe?
I still don't see why people bother to pay for DLC, when you buy a video game, you expect it to be finished. That's an important word there, finished. Once more for triadic effect, finished. If it has bugs or minor errors you can patch it. If you need to extend playability then it's alright to add DLC ( e.g. Broken Steel for Fallout 3), but to release DLC, something that's reserved for the end game usually, on the first day. That is low.
I expect to eat my dinner before I sleep with you .
If you don't need DLC on day one, why the bloody hell are you buying it? Take the game home and enjoy it and buy the DLC later. Some people who might want it can buy it. What purpose does it serve Bioware or EA to develop WK and then sit on it for two months?
I don't know anything about the coding that went in DA:O. It's all too possible they wanted to put the storage chest in there but didn't have the time to finish it off before their deadline came up and they were forced to cut it until they could slip it into some DLC. As for your "Who the hell leaves the storage chest out?" I'm going to go with 'Bioware' does. Probably due to release dates forcing them to make cuts.
Virgil: I am always struck by exactly how ignorant many gamers are of how game or software development actually works. Let me try to explain this for you all:
I'm glad you took that upon yourself to explain and appreciate it greatly. My own explanation of what we do would have included a great deal more profanity.
Would it not make more sense to release it at a later date, who needs DLC on day one. People haven't even had time to enjoy the game yet! Also, who the hell leaves the storage chest out of a RPG? That is money grabbing no matter how you look at it. They could've put the storage chest in the main game and oh, waited and made a better DLC maybe?
I still don't see why people bother to pay for DLC, when you buy a video game, you expect it to be finished. That's an important word there, finished. Once more for triadic effect, finished. If it has bugs or minor errors you can patch it. If you need to extend playability then it's alright to add DLC ( e.g. Broken Steel for Fallout 3), but to release DLC, something that's reserved for the end game usually, on the first day. That is low.
I expect to eat my dinner before I sleep with you .
If you don't need DLC on day one, why the bloody hell are you buying it? Take the game home and enjoy it and buy the DLC later. Some people who might want it can buy it. What purpose does it serve Bioware or EA to develop WK and then sit on it for two months?
I don't know anything about the coding that went in DA:O. It's all too possible they wanted to put the storage chest in there but didn't have the time to finish it off before their deadline came up and they were forced to cut it until they could slip it into some DLC. As for you "Who the hell leaves the storage chest out?" I'm going to go with 'Bioware' does. Probably due to release dates forcing them to make cuts.
Well let me take this apart backwards.
First of all, as you said the PC version was finished quite a while ago, then surely the storage chest could've gone into that? And since when do developers give a damn about release dates? Have you not heard of Duke Nukem?!
Well I won't buy it but why the bloody hell are you releasing it? Do you actually have DAO finished and are craving for more? By sitting on something for a few months you can in fact sit back and improve it, maybe ask the community what it wants rather than stapling some sidequests together into a 7$ bundle to suck up to your publisher. I'm not blaming Bioware for releasing the DLC though, I know it was EA who forced them to do it, it's out of character for Bioware to do something like this. It's still a bad move though, it tarnishes the developers reputation not the publishers. Look at all the negativity it's already received leading to a thread on the Escapist where the devs claim they didn't mean to rip you off.
Listen, I've got a feeling this is going to turn into a massive argument so before we start lets define the purpose of DLC k bbz?
Downloadable content: "the phrase is used to refer specifically to content created for video games that is released separately from the main video game release."
We can agree that that's what it is? It's simply meant to add content to a video game. Now for an analogy, if I were to sell you a brand new computer, but not sell you the hard drive, well then I'm just as big an asshole as they are.
Your analogy is incorrect. DLC is not failure to complete a game: it is ADDITIONAL CONTENT. So in other words, it'd be like selling you a computer, but you have to pay a small amount to get an upgrade.
Would it not make more sense to release it at a later date, who needs DLC on day one. People haven't even had time to enjoy the game yet! Also, who the hell leaves the storage chest out of a RPG? That is money grabbing no matter how you look at it. They could've put the storage chest in the main game and oh, waited and made a better DLC maybe?
I still don't see why people bother to pay for DLC, when you buy a video game, you expect it to be finished. That's an important word there, finished. Once more for triadic effect, finished. If it has bugs or minor errors you can patch it. If you need to extend playability then it's alright to add DLC ( e.g. Broken Steel for Fallout 3), but to release DLC, something that's reserved for the end game usually, on the first day. That is low.
The WK DLC, to my knowledge, essentially gives you the WK as a home base once you finish the associated quest: something that you probably don't have the rest of the game. So it's less a Storage Chest, and more a Vault that you can only access from that location. In case you didn't notice, they GAVE A REASON as to why they couldn't include this feature in the game: there was a huge bug that they couldn't fix in time for release, because multiple storage chests caused problems. So they solved the problem by giving you only one, and sticking it in the DLC.
This also allows them to keep the game's atmosphere correct. It could be that the developers felt that the multiple storage chests undermined the feel of the game somehow. It certainly is a flow-breaker to find in every village a magic box that somehow teleports items you put in it in-between areas... a Vault, which is solitary and keeps the items you put in it in that location, fixes this flow-breaker and keeps the player managing their inventory, instead of constantly hoarding items in SC's. It helps my point that none of the reviews I have seen about the game have mentioned the inventory system in a negative way: this suggests that the Vault is not a necessity to play the game, but just something extra you get for the DLC.
Also, the GAME WAS FINISHED. This is ADDITIONAL CONTENT. How is a game that can provide over 100 hours of gameplay "unfinished?"
First of all, as you said the PC version was finished quite a while ago, then surely the storage chest could've gone into that? And since when do developers give a damn about release dates? Have you not heard of Duke Nukem?!
Well I won't buy it but why the bloody hell are you releasing it? Do you actually have DAO finished and are craving for more? By sitting on something for a few months you can in fact sit back and improve it, maybe ask the community what it wants rather than stapling some sidequests together into a 7$ bundle to suck up to your publisher. I'm not blaming Bioware for releasing the DLC though, I know it was EA who forced them to do it, it's out of character for Bioware to do something like this. It's still a bad move though, it tarnishes the developers reputation not the publishers. Look at all the negativity it's already received leading to a thread on the Escapist where the devs claim they didn't mean to rip you off.
Hey, guess what: I have one word that totally undermines everything you've just said.
DEADLINES.
Sure, some developers like Valve and Blizzard can basically ignore them: but the majority of developers CAN'T. Bioware had a deadline, in order to stick to it they had to cut some content. This content still got made thanks to the time gap that Virgil explained: half of it got released for free (Stone Prisoner) and the other half they're charging for in order to make up for the development/other costs.
THE GUY SAID EA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Did you read the OP at all?
The only negativity coming out of this thread is coming from people like you who don't understand the way software development works.
First of all, as you said the PC version was finished quite a while ago, then surely the storage chest could've gone into that? And since when do developers give a damn about release dates?
1) No, because they can't just write the DLC and then reprint all the DVDs they already made of the PC version. 2) Since their publisher said "We want it done by this date please." See: LucasArts and KotOR2 as a famous case of publishers pushing a game's release date. EA is there to make money, as is Bioware. They both entered into a contract and Bioware has to deliver. Unlike Blizzard (who self publish their games) they needed to hit that deadline and things needed to be cut otherwise they're breaching contract or something equally nasty sounding.
Sevre90210: Well I won't buy it but why the bloody hell are you releasing it?
Because it's there to be released.
Sevre90210: By sitting on something for a few months you can in fact sit back and improve it, maybe ask the community what it wants rather than stapling some sidequests together into a 7$ bundle to suck up to your publisher.
Since they said they have two years of DLC planned, I assume that asking what the community wants comes later. This was filling in some gaps that they didn't get to put on their final copy of the disk.
Sevre90210: I'm not blaming Bioware for releasing the DLC though, I know it was EA who forced them to do it, it's out of character for Bioware to do something like this. It's still a bad move though, it tarnishes the developers reputation not the publishers.
Perhaps - but as you've also seen there are plenty who understand what Bioware have done and are more than happy to explain our views others who might not see it they way we do.
Listen, I've got a feeling this is going to turn into a massive argument so before we start lets define the purpose of DLC k bbz?
Downloadable content: "the phrase is used to refer specifically to content created for video games that is released separately from the main video game release."
We can agree that that's what it is? It's simply meant to add content to a video game. Now for an analogy, if I were to sell you a brand new computer, but not sell you the hard drive, well then I'm just as big an asshole as they are.
Your analogy is incorrect. DLC is not failure to complete a game: it is ADDITIONAL CONTENT. So in other words, it'd be like selling you a computer, but you have to pay a small amount to get an upgrade.
Would it not make more sense to release it at a later date, who needs DLC on day one. People haven't even had time to enjoy the game yet! Also, who the hell leaves the storage chest out of a RPG? That is money grabbing no matter how you look at it. They could've put the storage chest in the main game and oh, waited and made a better DLC maybe?
I still don't see why people bother to pay for DLC, when you buy a video game, you expect it to be finished. That's an important word there, finished. Once more for triadic effect, finished. If it has bugs or minor errors you can patch it. If you need to extend playability then it's alright to add DLC ( e.g. Broken Steel for Fallout 3), but to release DLC, something that's reserved for the end game usually, on the first day. That is low.
The WK DLC, to my knowledge, essentially gives you the WK as a home base once you finish the associated quest: something that you probably don't have the rest of the game. So it's less a Storage Chest, and more a Vault that you can only access from that location. In case you didn't notice, they GAVE A REASON as to why they couldn't include this feature in the game: there was a huge bug that they couldn't fix in time for release, because multiple storage chests caused problems. So they solved the problem by giving you only one, and sticking it in the DLC.
This also allows them to keep the game's atmosphere correct. It could be that the developers felt that the multiple storage chests undermined the feel of the game somehow. It certainly is a flow-breaker to find in every village a magic box that somehow teleports items you put in it in-between areas... a Vault, which is solitary and keeps the items you put in it in that location, fixes this flow-breaker and keeps the player managing their inventory, instead of constantly hoarding items in SC's. It helps my point that none of the reviews I have seen about the game have mentioned the inventory system in a negative way: this suggests that the Vault is not a necessity to play the game, but just something extra you get for the DLC.
Also, the GAME WAS FINISHED. This is ADDITIONAL CONTENT. How is a game that can provide over 100 hours of gameplay "unfinished?"
First of all, as you said the PC version was finished quite a while ago, then surely the storage chest could've gone into that? And since when do developers give a damn about release dates? Have you not heard of Duke Nukem?!
Well I won't buy it but why the bloody hell are you releasing it? Do you actually have DAO finished and are craving for more? By sitting on something for a few months you can in fact sit back and improve it, maybe ask the community what it wants rather than stapling some sidequests together into a 7$ bundle to suck up to your publisher. I'm not blaming Bioware for releasing the DLC though, I know it was EA who forced them to do it, it's out of character for Bioware to do something like this. It's still a bad move though, it tarnishes the developers reputation not the publishers. Look at all the negativity it's already received leading to a thread on the Escapist where the devs claim they didn't mean to rip you off.
Hey, guess what: I have one word that totally undermines everything you've just said.
DEADLINES.
Sure, some developers like Valve and Blizzard can basically ignore them: but the majority of developers CAN'T. Bioware had a deadline, in order to stick to it they had to cut some content. This content still got made thanks to the time gap that Virgil explained: half of it got released for free (Stone Prisoner) and the other half they're charging for in order to make up for the development/other costs.
THE GUY SAID EA HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Did you read the OP at all?
The only negativity coming out of this thread is coming from people like you who don't understand the way software development works.
Do you really believe EA had nothing to do with this? The most evil force in the industry till Actizard came around has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this. Yes of course.
Now I'm sure Bioware have avoided deadlines before, with KOTOR 2 and indeed, last year ME2 was said to be out by late 09. It still stands that they had months before the PC game was finished and the new release date. Now surely they couldn't have spent that time doing PR, because the only thing that turned up was a Marilyn Manson trailer and a CE. I could learn to code a damn storage chest and stick it in that time. They might've had problems, but you can fix problems with solutions. DLC isn't a great solution, it's a half assed way of saying "Hey, we should've probably done this a while ago, but you can pay for it now too right?". If they needed to stick in a storage chest they could do it in a patch like most people do. Don't give me that "distribution" shit either because we've seen what Steam, XBL and PSN are capable of. The fact is it's still a rip off to pay $7 for something that should be in the game. It's so simple to make a small patch and deliver a fix. Torchlight devs did it last week to one caring customer, should Bioware, who are quite large in comparison with many games under their belt, not do it for everyone? Who's stopping them from just making a patch with a vault and sticking it in the game? Hmm......now that you mention it EA might've had something to do with this after all.
First of all, as you said the PC version was finished quite a while ago, then surely the storage chest could've gone into that? And since when do developers give a damn about release dates?
1) No, because they can't just write the DLC and then reprint all the DVDs they already made of the PC version. 2) Since their publisher said "We want it done by this date please." See: LucasArts and KotOR2 as a famous case of publishers pushing a game's release date. EA is there to make money, as is Bioware. They both entered into a contract and Bioware has to deliver. Unlike Blizzard (who self publish their games) they needed to hit that deadline and things needed to be cut otherwise they're breaching contract or something equally nasty sounding.
Sevre90210: Well I won't buy it but why the bloody hell are you releasing it?
Because it's there to be released.
Sevre90210: By sitting on something for a few months you can in fact sit back and improve it, maybe ask the community what it wants rather than stapling some sidequests together into a 7$ bundle to suck up to your publisher.
Since they said they have two years of DLC planned, I assume that asking what the community wants comes later. This was filling in some gaps that they didn't get to put on their final copy of the disk.
Sevre90210: I'm not blaming Bioware for releasing the DLC though, I know it was EA who forced them to do it, it's out of character for Bioware to do something like this. It's still a bad move though, it tarnishes the developers reputation not the publishers.
Perhaps - but as you've also seen there are plenty who understand what Bioware have done and are more than happy to explain our views others who might not see it they way we do.
What you just don't understand here is that this did not need it's own DLC. All it is is a storage chest which could've been patched in as explained in my previous post. You can say that "Oh but what about the WK quests? That couldn't possibly have fit into a patch!". Well fact of the matter is, it could've done nicely. Though people don't like giving away free things these days.
Sevre90210: Though people don't like giving away free things these days.
Probably because it costs time, money and manpower to develop these things. Just a thought. Also, feel free to go poke at WoW's patchnotes once in a while and you'll see that they're more than happy to 'give out' content.
Do you really believe EA had nothing to do with this? The most evil force in the industry till Actizard came around has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this. Yes of course.
One of Bioware's own people has said that EA is not involved. If you're not willing to accept that, please look below.
Now I'm sure Bioware have avoided deadlines before, with KOTOR 2 and indeed, last year ME2 was said to be out by late 09. It still stands that they had months before the PC game was finished and the new release date. Now surely they couldn't have spent that time doing PR, because the only thing that turned up was a Marilyn Manson trailer and a CE. I could learn to code a damn storage chest and stick it in that time. They might've had problems, but you can fix problems with solutions. DLC isn't a great solution, it's a half assed way of saying "Hey, we should've probably done this a while ago, but you can pay for it now too right?". If they needed to stick in a storage chest they could do it in a patch like most people do. Don't give me that "distribution" shit either because we've seen what Steam, XBL and PSN are capable of. The fact is it's still a rip off to pay $7 for something that should be in the game. It's so simple to make a small patch and deliver a fix. Torchlight devs did it last week to one caring customer, should Bioware, who are quite large in comparison with many games under their belt, not do it for everyone?
Once again: they might have decided that the multiple storage chests would have broken the game's balance or flow in some way. They DON'T SEEM TO BE NECESSARY ANYWAY, since NONE OF THE REVIEWS I've seen for the game mention how cumbersome the inventory system is. Please actually read someone's post before responding, ok?
Who's stopping them from just making a patch with a vault and sticking it in the game? Hmm......now that you mention it EA might've had something to do with this after all.
Sevre90210: Though people don't like giving away free things these days.
Probably because it costs time, money and manpower to develop these things. Just a thought. Also, feel free to go poke at WoW's patchnotes once in a while and you'll see that they're more than happy to 'give out' content.
Now I'm sure Bioware have avoided deadlines before, with KOTOR 2
...was developed by Obsidian Entertainment, not Bioware. KotOR 1 was Bioware. KotOR 2 was Obsidian.
Really? Damn those two companies for working on such similiar projects, and as you've pointed out Blizzard do give away a LOT in patches. So why don't Bioware release one tiny patch? Are Valve and Blizzard the only companies patches these days? If you look at many PC games, you'll noticed they've all been patched. So why don't Bioware make a patch? Once again I link back to EA here.
Do you really believe EA had nothing to do with this? The most evil force in the industry till Actizard came around has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this. Yes of course.
One of Bioware's own people has said that EA is not involved. If you're not willing to accept that, please look below.
Now I'm sure Bioware have avoided deadlines before, with KOTOR 2 and indeed, last year ME2 was said to be out by late 09. It still stands that they had months before the PC game was finished and the new release date. Now surely they couldn't have spent that time doing PR, because the only thing that turned up was a Marilyn Manson trailer and a CE. I could learn to code a damn storage chest and stick it in that time. They might've had problems, but you can fix problems with solutions. DLC isn't a great solution, it's a half assed way of saying "Hey, we should've probably done this a while ago, but you can pay for it now too right?". If they needed to stick in a storage chest they could do it in a patch like most people do. Don't give me that "distribution" shit either because we've seen what Steam, XBL and PSN are capable of. The fact is it's still a rip off to pay $7 for something that should be in the game. It's so simple to make a small patch and deliver a fix. Torchlight devs did it last week to one caring customer, should Bioware, who are quite large in comparison with many games under their belt, not do it for everyone?
Once again: they might have decided that the multiple storage chests would have broken the game's balance or flow in some way. They DON'T SEEM TO BE NECESSARY ANYWAY, since NONE OF THE REVIEWS I've seen for the game mention how cumbersome the inventory system is. Please actually read someone's post before responding, ok?
Who's stopping them from just making a patch with a vault and sticking it in the game? Hmm......now that you mention it EA might've had something to do with this after all.
Reviews aren't nearly as thorough as you think, many reviewers get two days to a week or so with a game. People expect to be playing for over 200 hours here, I think they'll accumulate a fair amount of junk in that time which y'know a storage chest would be handy for.
It's not that it's a conspiracy, it's just that we've seen EA do this kind of thing before, I'm just saying I think it was EA's idea to release day one DLC rather than Bioware, because let's think here, if you were a game developer, the last thing you want to be doing on release day is releasing DLC or patches.
Sevre90210: Though people don't like giving away free things these days.
Probably because it costs time, money and manpower to develop these things. Just a thought. Also, feel free to go poke at WoW's patchnotes once in a while and you'll see that they're more than happy to 'give out' content.
Now I'm sure Bioware have avoided deadlines before, with KOTOR 2
...was developed by Obsidian Entertainment, not Bioware. KotOR 1 was Bioware. KotOR 2 was Obsidian.
Really? Damn those two companies for working on such similiar projects, and as you've pointed out Blizzard do give away a LOT in patches. So why don't Bioware release one tiny patch? Are Valve and Blizzard the only companies patches these days? If you look at many PC games, you'll noticed they've all been patched. So why don't Bioware make a patch? Once again I link back to EA here.
Valve and Blizzard are both incredibly independent developers. While Valve still relies on other companies for its physical distribution (on consoles at least, unsure about PC?), the roaring success of Steam has made it a powerful giant in its own right. Blizzard, similarly, self-publishes everything. They don't even publish their games through partner-company Activision. It's all done in house.
Bioware, conversely, are not so independent. They have neither their own digital distribution platform nor their own publishing firm. Why don't they release it as a patch? My guess is they can't, either due to contract, monetary reasons or performance issues.
But I can't really say, you'd probably have to ask the CEO of Bioware and - sadly - I'm not him.
Sevre90210: Though people don't like giving away free things these days.
Probably because it costs time, money and manpower to develop these things. Just a thought. Also, feel free to go poke at WoW's patchnotes once in a while and you'll see that they're more than happy to 'give out' content.
Now I'm sure Bioware have avoided deadlines before, with KOTOR 2
...was developed by Obsidian Entertainment, not Bioware. KotOR 1 was Bioware. KotOR 2 was Obsidian.
Really? Damn those two companies for working on such similiar projects, and as you've pointed out Blizzard do give away a LOT in patches. So why don't Bioware release one tiny patch? Are Valve and Blizzard the only companies patches these days? If you look at many PC games, you'll noticed they've all been patched. So why don't Bioware make a patch? Once again I link back to EA here.
Valve and Blizzard are both incredibly independent developers. While Valve still relies on other companies for its physical distribution (on consoles at least, unsure about PC?), the roaring success of Steam has made it a powerful giant in its own right. Blizzard, similarly, self-publishes everything. They don't even publish their games through partner-company Activision. It's all done in house.
Bioware, conversely, are not so independent. They have neither their own digital distribution platform nor their own publishing firm. Why don't they release it as a patch? My guess is they can't, either due to contract, monetary reasons or performance issues.
But I can't really say, you'd probably have to ask the CEO of Bioware and - sadly - I'm not him.
Dragon Age:Origins is on Steam is it not? And Steam provides devs with the ability to release patches as they wish.
Reviews aren't nearly as thorough as you think, many reviewers get two days to a week or so with a game. People expect to be playing for over 200 hours here, I think they'll accumulate a fair amount of junk in that time which y'know a storage chest would be handy for.
Really? Most reviewers are given ADVANCE COPIES, so that they can review the full games before release.
All of the reviewers have AT LEAST played through the main plotline: I think that would be more than enough to figure out whether the inventory system is flawed. When you combine that with the fact that they've probably played quite a few sidequests as well... Nobody noticed such a game-breaking flaw? Rrrrrright.
It's not that it's a conspiracy, it's just that we've seen EA do this kind of thing before, I'm just saying I think it was EA's idea to release day one DLC rather than Bioware, because let's think here, if you were a game developer, the last thing you want to be doing on release day is releasing DLC or patches.
Bioware has, once again, GIVEN REASONS for why they're doing this. If you don't want to listen to them, fine.
Buy the Delux and get tons of stuff or dont and pay 7 for extra?
OH SHIT $7 for something that is off plot and story!!!! OH NOES!!!! Like the 70 hours of gameplay wasnt enough!!!! They want to charge us for more???
Seriously, if this is an issue you need to get a better job. People should be happy they released the Warden Keep to those that bought basic DA:0. Shit, people who play Empire Total War started getting upset that they couldnt get the special pre order bonus. So what happened? After enough bitching they got a DLC all $2.50 worth.
If you want it, buy it. If not then dont cry because you arent getting something for free.
I for one think they should take down the DLC and not let any of you spoilt children have it. Then I guess there will be a thread titled something like "BIOWARE MAKES US BUY SPECIAL EDITIONS FOR CONTENT!!!!".
Dragon Age:Origins is on Steam is it not? And Steam provides devs with the ability to release patches as they wish.
There's a huge difference between owning a digital distribution platform and using it to get your game out. They're just trading EA for Valve.
And even if Steam does provide them with the ability to release patches - where does the money come from to pay the developers who spent months of their life writing code for that piece of DLC?
For everyone who keeps saying the day 1 DLC is a ripoff. If they wanted to rip us off they would have put, limited installs, DRM, Securom, or online activation in the game, which they didn't. This is basically a way for the developers to get some of the money back that they'd normally lose either due to piracy, used game sales, or rentals. Would you rather they put the drm crap back in or lobby the government to pass some stupid law making game rentals illegal like they are in Japan (so I've heard anyway)?
I'd rather it be "hey you bought our game thanks, heres some free dlc." Rather than hey you bought are game, you'll probably pirate it so heres some securom.
Sevre90210: Though people don't like giving away free things these days.
Probably because it costs time, money and manpower to develop these things. Just a thought. Also, feel free to go poke at WoW's patchnotes once in a while and you'll see that they're more than happy to 'give out' content.
WoW is an MMO that you need to pay a monthly subscription for to keep playing. I wouldn't exactly call those updates free.
Sevre90210: Though people don't like giving away free things these days.
Probably because it costs time, money and manpower to develop these things. Just a thought. Also, feel free to go poke at WoW's patchnotes once in a while and you'll see that they're more than happy to 'give out' content.
WoW is an MMO that you need to pay a monthly subscription for to keep playing. I wouldn't exactly call those updates free.
Only a small portion goes towards the updates - bear in mind you're also paying for access to the servers, server maintenance, customer support and things like that.
Yeah, the monthly fee is going (in part) towards the patches I'll concede, but it's not as if you're paying for the patch content directly in the same manner of DLC.
I don't actually know how the WoW subscription fees get taken apart and what they go to exactly but I would love to find out. I know for a fact that the WoW forums are a service that you don't pay for, and rather are a free service provided by Blizzard (assuming you have an active account) and that your fee doesn't go to maintaining them, or so I was told by one of their Blues.
As long as it's not on the disc, or at least not in a workable way, and we're not just "unlocking" it with money, I'm fine with DLC whenever the devs want to do it. Once games "go gold" they basically can't be changed, but I don't want Bioware to stop working just because they can't physically change the games that ship.
That being said, if something's on the disc and we just have to pay extra to unlock it, fuck that in the neck.
Dragon Age:Origins is on Steam is it not? And Steam provides devs with the ability to release patches as they wish.
There's a huge difference between owning a digital distribution platform and using it to get your game out. They're just trading EA for Valve.
And even if Steam does provide them with the ability to release patches - where does the money come from to pay the developers who spent months of their life writing code for that piece of DLC?
Are you even listening to me? I'm not saying they shouldn't release DLC, they could easily release patches through the various distribution methods for each system and they could give us some worthwhile DLC too. Seriously, it is completely unnecessary to make people pay for a storage chest although if say this was adding 30+ hours to the game like other DLCs then it would be worth the money.
Reviews aren't nearly as thorough as you think, many reviewers get two days to a week or so with a game. People expect to be playing for over 200 hours here, I think they'll accumulate a fair amount of junk in that time which y'know a storage chest would be handy for.
Really? Most reviewers are given ADVANCE COPIES, so that they can review the full games before release.
All of the reviewers have AT LEAST played through the main plotline: I think that would be more than enough to figure out whether the inventory system is flawed. When you combine that with the fact that they've probably played quite a few sidequests as well... Nobody noticed such a game-breaking flaw? Rrrrrright.
It's not that it's a conspiracy, it's just that we've seen EA do this kind of thing before, I'm just saying I think it was EA's idea to release day one DLC rather than Bioware, because let's think here, if you were a game developer, the last thing you want to be doing on release day is releasing DLC or patches.
Bioware has, once again, GIVEN REASONS for why they're doing this. If you don't want to listen to them, fine.
I see, please point out the reason in the following paragraph:
Said Zeoller, "I categorically reject that any features or game systems in this game were designed or removed to 'bilk users for more money.'" According to Zeoller, the player's inventory limit was never questioned during any phase of the game's development, and was added by the DLC team as a "cool feature for your own keep"; EA had nothing to do with the contents of the Warden's Keep DLC. A storage chest was implemented at one point, but players were losing their items due to the camp area constantly changing, admits Zoeller, and there wasn't enough time to fix this problem. Warden's Keep provided a permanent and central location for a storage chest to reside.
As written, EA had nothing to do with the contents of the DLC. Please note that content has nothing to do with release dates. You really should read before you resort to ALL CAPS.
As for the other point, it's not game breaking to have a storage chest is it? In fact it's just standard to have a storage chest in a RPG. Hell I can't think of a RPG without one.
As written, EA had nothing to do with the contents of the DLC. Please note that content has nothing to do with release dates. You really should read before you resort to ALL CAPS.
As for the other point, it's not game breaking to have a storage chest is it? In fact it's just standard to have a storage chest in a RPG. Hell I can't think of a RPG without one.
Seeing as you apparently haven't read my previous post, I will again quote Fernando Melo, a Bioware employee, as posted on the official DA:O boards:
It has certainly been interesting to hear all the feedback on this. I mean that in the best of ways to be clear - it is good for us to hear your thoughts as always, and why we frequent these boards.
I'll try to recap the couple of points that keep coming up on this, and try to re-iterate some of what we've been saying...
Why is day 1 DLC not on the disc: - Think of it this way... forget it was DLC we were making, and pretend it was a web page.
We could continue to work on that right up to game launch day and still have it ready for "day 1". But there would never ever have been a way to get that web page done back in time to make it for the dates for disc, or even the digital versions of the game, which needed to be locked many weeks (or months in some cases) in advance of game launch.
- DLC works on a relatively shorter dev cycle (months, instead of years), and the nature of it being downloadable means there are not the same lengthy lead times to get discs made and out to warehouses for retail shelves. Also, given most DLC is measured in single digit hours it is much quicker to test, the number of issues you find are lower volume which also makes for quicker turnaround of fixes, and even getting through console certification is quicker.
- That combined with the game delay from March to Nov meant we effectively caught up to the launch date. But there would still have been no way to ever get that DLC on to the discs or digi versions - it just was not ready in that kind of timeframe.
- On a similar vein, this is also the same reason why the content was not 'ripped out' at the last minute to make a quick buck. The game content was locked for the disc/digital versions, and taking something out can introduce just as many issues.
Perhaps the more relevant question is - why still choose to launch it day 1 then?
There are a lot of good reasons for this, otherwise we wouldn't have done it. Suffice it to say that it was not a decision made lightly, but I still believe it is the right one for DA even if it means taking a few lumps in the meantime for it.
For the sake of brevity, let me reverse the question. Why delay it?
Sure, the easy thing would have been to artificially just sit on the release of these for a few weeks. But then, what would be the right time? 1 week? 2, 4, 6? More importantly, and honestly now - what would have been the benefit for fans that might want DLC in doing this?
Lastly, and this is my own personal view. The day after the game launches a lot of this will largely go away as the concept of 'it came out day 1 or not' becomes less of a stigma.
The only thing that will matter is whether it was good DLC, or bad DLC.
As always if you have doubts, wait it out - you have a massive game ahead of you before you should ever feel like you "need" to dive into DLC, regardless of how compulsive you may think you are.
Listen to other forum posters' reviews. Listen to public reviews elsewhere on the net. Review the content descriptions, screenshots, and videos we'll continue to post on our sites.
That is already a lot more information than you typically will see with most DLC. And in the end, if you still do not feel it is right for you - tell us why, I'd appreciate that just as much as your feedback if you played it.
But know that you will not be missing any part of the DA:O story because of this. The game will not be less playable, or less fun, or less of an epic RPG because of this.
If you play FPS games but don't like MP, are you really going to feel like you 'missed out' or got an incomplete experience because a MP map pack DLC came out?? Really?
Bioware have also said that they tried putting a storage chest into the game, but were unable to implement it properly before the content lockdown, so it was cut from the game. The DLC team, however, were free to continue working on the storage chest, at which point they put it into Warden's Keep DLC as one of the final rewards (I've been trying to locate the quote for this, but I can't remember which dev said it, so it's tough filtering through all the dev posts on the matter)
As written, EA had nothing to do with the contents of the DLC. Please note that content has nothing to do with release dates. You really should read before you resort to ALL CAPS.
As for the other point, it's not game breaking to have a storage chest is it? In fact it's just standard to have a storage chest in a RPG. Hell I can't think of a RPG without one.
Seeing as you apparently haven't read my previous post, I will again quote Fernando Melo, a Bioware employee, as posted on the official DA:O boards:
It has certainly been interesting to hear all the feedback on this. I mean that in the best of ways to be clear - it is good for us to hear your thoughts as always, and why we frequent these boards.
I'll try to recap the couple of points that keep coming up on this, and try to re-iterate some of what we've been saying...
Why is day 1 DLC not on the disc: - Think of it this way... forget it was DLC we were making, and pretend it was a web page.
We could continue to work on that right up to game launch day and still have it ready for "day 1". But there would never ever have been a way to get that web page done back in time to make it for the dates for disc, or even the digital versions of the game, which needed to be locked many weeks (or months in some cases) in advance of game launch.
- DLC works on a relatively shorter dev cycle (months, instead of years), and the nature of it being downloadable means there are not the same lengthy lead times to get discs made and out to warehouses for retail shelves. Also, given most DLC is measured in single digit hours it is much quicker to test, the number of issues you find are lower volume which also makes for quicker turnaround of fixes, and even getting through console certification is quicker.
- That combined with the game delay from March to Nov meant we effectively caught up to the launch date. But there would still have been no way to ever get that DLC on to the discs or digi versions - it just was not ready in that kind of timeframe.
- On a similar vein, this is also the same reason why the content was not 'ripped out' at the last minute to make a quick buck. The game content was locked for the disc/digital versions, and taking something out can introduce just as many issues.
Perhaps the more relevant question is - why still choose to launch it day 1 then?
There are a lot of good reasons for this, otherwise we wouldn't have done it. Suffice it to say that it was not a decision made lightly, but I still believe it is the right one for DA even if it means taking a few lumps in the meantime for it.
For the sake of brevity, let me reverse the question. Why delay it?
Sure, the easy thing would have been to artificially just sit on the release of these for a few weeks. But then, what would be the right time? 1 week? 2, 4, 6? More importantly, and honestly now - what would have been the benefit for fans that might want DLC in doing this?
Lastly, and this is my own personal view. The day after the game launches a lot of this will largely go away as the concept of 'it came out day 1 or not' becomes less of a stigma.
The only thing that will matter is whether it was good DLC, or bad DLC.
As always if you have doubts, wait it out - you have a massive game ahead of you before you should ever feel like you "need" to dive into DLC, regardless of how compulsive you may think you are.
Listen to other forum posters' reviews. Listen to public reviews elsewhere on the net. Review the content descriptions, screenshots, and videos we'll continue to post on our sites.
That is already a lot more information than you typically will see with most DLC. And in the end, if you still do not feel it is right for you - tell us why, I'd appreciate that just as much as your feedback if you played it.
But know that you will not be missing any part of the DA:O story because of this. The game will not be less playable, or less fun, or less of an epic RPG because of this.
If you play FPS games but don't like MP, are you really going to feel like you 'missed out' or got an incomplete experience because a MP map pack DLC came out?? Really?
Bioware have also said that they tried putting a storage chest into the game, but were unable to implement it properly before the content lockdown, so it was cut from the game. The DLC team, however, were free to continue working on the storage chest, at which point they put it into Warden's Keep DLC as one of the final rewards (I've been trying to locate the quote for this, but I can't remember which dev said it, so it's tough filtering through all the dev posts on the matter)
Well first of all I didn't read your previous post because it is irrelevant to this argument and secondly your post is still irrelevant to this argument. The argument is why should we have to pay for a storage chest? All we need is a patch, which Bioware are fully capable of supplying. Don't believe me?
Anyway we seem to have closed this argument, I'm sure it's a fine piece of DLC, I still don't see the point of it though, it'll always appear to be a money-grabbing opportunity to charge someone for something like a storage chest.
Sevre90210: It's not meant to rip them off, it just does.
Yeah, $7 is really breaking the bank.
What's that, like...3 cups of coffee?
Ouch. How will you manage?
its not just 7 bucks, its 57 bucks or 67 bucks, or 77 bucks, if you live in a place with sales tax its more then that, its kinda like throwing on an extra 10 to game price. It makes me worry about mass effect 2 and what might be excluded for the intention of leaving for dlc
Camarilla: How is pointing out that EA had nothing to do with the release date irrelevant when you constantly state that you think they did?
Once again, you should really read the full argument, I've made my case about EA's involvement, it is really EA who pull the strings when it comes to selling the game. Developers just make the games, they don't sell them.
So instead of enjoying the 80+ hours a great game ON DISC, and just opting to not buy the DLC, your stubborn enough to flip Bioware the finger and not play at all? All this because they had the gumption to even think of giving players more content! THOSE BASTARDS! .. really?
Sevre90210: It's not meant to rip them off, it just does.
Yeah, $7 is really breaking the bank.
What's that, like...3 cups of coffee?
Ouch. How will you manage?
its not just 7 bucks, its 57 bucks or 67 bucks, or 77 bucks, if you live in a place with sales tax its more then that, its kinda like throwing on an extra 10 to game price. It makes me worry about mass effect 2 and what might be excluded for the intention of leaving for dlc
Dadutchman: So instead of enjoying the 80+ hours a great game ON DISC, and just opting to not buy the DLC, your stubborn enough to flip Bioware the finger and not play at all? All this because they had the gumption to even think of giving players more content! THOSE BASTARDS! .. really?
Are you talking to me? Because I'm buying the game anyway, you should really learn to read things before you post, otherwise you'll get eaten alive.
All that you say is quite true, and more than justifies DLC that comes out when the game starts feeling a little long in the tooth--not on the day the game is released, and not for $7. No, I don't want to see good ideas go to waste. No, I don't mind paying for DLC. I have many times. But when you start on day one, you give the impression that you (knowingly) released an incomplete game. So, make the DLC and sit on it awhile. Give gamers a chance to have fun with the core product before you start advertising add-ons; or at least give the early adapters a break and let them hop on the DLC for free.
True, I don't have to buy it on the day it comes out. But when you start charging your customers extra when they just bought the game two hours ago don't be surprised when they start calling rip-off.